The Communist Manifesto: (Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition)

Marx and Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848 at the request of the Communist League, a secret association of workers driven underground by political oppression aimed at preventing concerted revolutionary activity against bourgeois regimes throughout Europe. The Manifesto was written to provide a theoretical foundation and a practical program for the advancement of international communism and eventual elimination of bourgeois domination of property-less wage laborers.The title of the document, simple and purely descriptive though it is, is commonly regarded as inflammatory, arousing derision, disdain, and virulent hostility among many, including those whom it was written to benefit. Nevertheless, there is much in the Manifesto, especially in the first chapter, that with the aid of hindsight could have been written by a contemporary neo-conservative intellectual, someone like Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell.Specifically, Marx and Engels begin with a tribute to the unparalleled productive capacity of the capitalist organization of production. They freely laud the technological innovations fostered by capitalists' pursuit of surplus value, a process that has dramatically transformed the forces of production and the social relations of production. The result has been rapidly expanding output of industrial and agricultural goods of all kinds.In accomplishing this, capital has extended its markets beyond national borders, creating a world market and a world economy. Raw materials from Latin America, Africa, and Asia are routinely used to manufacture finished goods in England, Germany, and other European countries. The same manufactured goods may then be sold in the very places that supplied the raw materials.All this, Marx and Engels observe, requires concentration of vast numbers of people in swollen industrial cities. Small manufacturers and family farms are swallowed up by larger enterprises with which they have neither the capital nor productive capacity to compete. Marx and Engels find it particularly noteworthy that men like Thomas Jefferson had envisioned America as a land of independent yeoman farmers with small land holdings, but the concentration of agriculture was rendering this vision obsolete.As we get farther into this brief document, Daniel Bell, the other neo-conservatives, and people generally may take angry exception to its tone and substance.Concentration of resources in capital-intensive enterprises, Marx and Engels argue, reduces the vast majority of people to the degraded status of wage labor, workers who own nothing but their labor power. It is in the interests of the bourgeoisie -- of capital -- to pay workers as little as possible, increasing surplus value by buying labor power for no more than its natural price, the amount needed to survive and reproduce.The culture of workers is nothing more than a brutalizing culture of production, lacking in scope and richness due to the pitifully small part that each worker plays in the overall production process. Families of working people are men, women, and children who labor for the natural price and have little time, energy or emotional sustenance to offer each other, having been wrung dry by capital's conditions of employment.The more productive the worker, the more he or she strengthens the hand of capital. However, capital's immense productive power and its success in keeping wage rates abysmally low are not an unmixed blessing for the bourgeoisie. Periodic over-production crises wreck havoc with national and international markets, undercutting profits and threatening the commanding position of capital. As a timely example, the U.S. economy is currently approximating an over-production crisis: unemployment is high, wages are low and falling, capital has roughly two and a half trillion dollars to invest, but in the absence of demand the bourgeoisie has become risk averse, and money is not being invested in productive endeavors.The long-term solution to all this, for Marx and Engels, is elimination of bourgeois property and the property relations that capitalism has created. This is not to say that private property must altogether disappear, but private property as capital, as that which creates a two-class system of exploitation of labor by the bourgeoisie, certainly must cease to exist.Marx and Engels were entirely too sanguine about the eventual joining together of members of the working class to present a united front in their conflict with capital. They realized that there were ethnic, racial, religious, national, linguistic, occupational, and other barriers that would be difficult to overcome, but I doubt they expected the workers of the world to be as fractionated as is currently the case. If Marx and Engels were alive today, they might take the view that things would have to get much worse for labor before a revolution becames possible.If you're not inclined to read the Manifesto, just read the introductory remarks by Vladimir Posner, once a member of the Communist Party of the USSR. Posner spent much of his childhood and adolescence in the West, and his insights into the appeal of communist ideals and the failure of the USSR to develop communism as Marx and Engels sketchily envisioned it are extremely interesting. Posner is no apologist for anything, just an honest and intelligent journalist whose idealism is genuine but far from boundless or excessive.

“The Communist Manifesto originally titled Manifesto of the Communist Party is a short 1848 publication written by the political theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It has since been recognized as one of the world's most influential political manuscripts.’’Of course, I’ve heard about this document since youth. Never read it. But, seems so influential, especially recently, decided to examine it.“Commissioned by the Communist League, it laid out the League's purposes and program. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms. The book contains Marx and Engels' theories about the nature of society and politics, that in their own words, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles".It also briefly features their ideas for how the capitalist society of the time would eventually be replaced by socialism, and then eventually communism.’’This from preface. Marx penned this in 1848. This English translation by Engels in 1888.Some highlights . . .These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.’’Fascinating that most of these programs have been implemented in many western societies.Another is this rejection of history.“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."Recalls Daniel’s prophecy about the king of the north . . .“He will show no regard for the God of his fathers; nor will he show regard for the desire of women or for any other god.’’Marx . . .“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.’’How abolish family? Forbid private property.“The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.’’‘Destruction of all property’ seems to be now coming to pass.“ All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.’’‘Official society cut loose’ from its world.“Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.’’‘Violent overthrow’ and ‘veiled civil war’. Well . . .Another heartfelt cry of anguish . . .““ The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.’’Note Marx complaining about ‘everlasting uncertainty’. Marx’ personal life was just that - uncertain, troubled, turbulent. His family eventually refused to support him. He was furious. He is really demanding that someone else guarantees him a comfortable life. In fact, Engels (rich factory owner) did eventually support Marx.“All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.’’And this unique facet of capitalism, its turbulent, uncertain, constant change to unknown directions obviously disturbs many. Marx nailed it!Last paragraph —“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.They openly declare that their ends can be attained only bythe forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.They have a world to win.’’Lots of familiar ideas that seem current. I wonder how many recognize the influence of this German philosopher on modernity. I didn’t realize how much of his thought still remains.One thing which has not endured is his analysis of economics. The labor theory of value which he borrowed from Adam Smith is now known to be completely wrong. Capitalism has not self-destructed. In fact, world dozens of times richer than when Marx lived.Nevertheless, this goal, desire to destroy is stronger than ever in the mind of many.

Not a big deal but our book cover had typos in the authors spelling. It's Marx not Max.

"A specter is haunting Europe--the specter of Communism."PROs:* One of the most influential books of all time that changed the world* Unique view of how history has progressed* Compelling critique of capitalism* Introduces a completely novel economic systemCONs:* Many of the complaints lodged against capitalism do not hold nearly as much weight now* Hard to fully comprehend without a pretty good understanding of European history and economic history"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed."The Communist Manifesto covers a very large amount of information in a very short amount of time. This inevitably means that the statements made are not fully supported, but this is not the point of a manifesto, the purpose of which is to powerfully and coherently state a set of goals for a particular party.I think the first part of the manifesto was the most interesting. In it a unique (but brief) evaluation of history is given, with Marx's famous "class struggle" statement. It is concluded that all antagonisms and conflicts in history have their root in class warfare (nobleman and serf, freeman and slave, etc.) Up until Marx's time, each epoch in history had many different classes, and each time a lower classes would rebel against the upper class minority, the only thing accomplished would be a reconstructed class system with the same root problem. Marx says that in the 19th century, we have the opportunity to completely do away with the class system altogether due to the fact that this is the only time in history where the classes are so distinct: the proletariat (working class majority) and the bourgeoisie (minority that controls most of the capital due to the labor of the working class). Marx says that if the proletariat is able to overthrow the corrupt and exploitative bourgeoisie, unlike all earlier revolutions, there will be a complete transformation in society rather than simply a new reorganization due to the fact that there will be only one class - the proletariat. This means the problem of class antagonism that has so bloodied history would be over.After explaining how history has progressed and contrasting earlier epochs with the 19th century, the manifesto goes into a compelling critique of capitalist society. Essentially it is said that capitalism has reduced all that is good and noble in the world to the mere accumulation of profit. People are no longer seen as people; they are simply machines to increase labor and thus increase capital. A person's worth is only measured by how much capital he can produce for the ruling bourgeoisie. This is an extremely convincing anti capitalist argument, but it doesn't quite hold up to modern standards. In our time, the proletariat is not exploited anywhere near as horribly as they were in Marx's time. We now have worker unions, worker's rights, shorter workdays, labor limits, laws preventing child labor, safety regulations, higher minimum wage, etc. This was apparently not the case in 1847. One of Marx's biggest problems with capitalism was that only a small minority of bourgeoisie controlled all of the property, while the vast majority proletariat had nothing even though they do all the work. This is not the case today, where most people in industrialized societies have plenty of property for themselves. To me, this is the major reason why The Communist Manifesto does not hold up to modern times (but it couldn't be expected to).The next part (chapter II) of the manifesto is Marx's illustration of an economic system where all are equals and no one's labor is exploited for the profits of others - communism. I do not have the requisite understanding of economics to say how viable or nonviable communism is compared with capitalism or socialism. I will say that Marx does make communism sound quite appealing. As said earlier, there are no classes in communism so everyone is equal. Labor is not performed simply for profit of a few but for the benefit of all. There is no government controlling what is done in society; the people rule themselves and perform based on the needs of all. The main argument I hear against this system is that with no private property to obtain, there is no incentive to work. Marx counters this by saying the proletariat never had any property to begin with and yet they still worked. Communism is a very utopian idea where everyone works together for the equal good of everyone, no one benefiting more than any other. I don't know how viable this can possibly be seeing as how history has given us no example where someone does not try to take power in order to exploit the weak. In fact, this is exactly what we've seen with the regimes in the 20th century that tried to implement a communist economy - far from a society with no ruling class, they become totalitarian regimes with only a few controlling all the property - exactly what Marx criticised about capitalism. Again, I will leave it to the economists to discuss the most viable economic systems.Next (chapter III) comes Marx's brief outline and critique of other socialist literature. I did not take away much from this section as it seems that Marx took it as a given that his readers would already be familiar with these various positions, and went straight into the critique without actually explaining what it was he was critiquing. You can somewhat figure out the positions simply based on the critique, but, as mentioned, the critiques are brief and I was still left somewhat lost. A comparison would be reading 19th century critiques of opposing theories to biological evolution without ever having heard of these opposing theories due to evolution being the only accepted theory in our time. This is not so much a knock on the manifesto, since Marx was clearly writing for his contemporaries, but even so things like this throughout the book take away some enjoyment and add confusion.Chapter IV, the last chapter, is a very short annunciation of the relationship of communism to other movements in various countries, ending with a vigorating call to arms for the working class.I give the manifesto three stars for two reasons: one being that, as mentioned before, many of the critiques of capitalism do not hold much weight 150+ years later, reducing the manifesto's economic value to merely that of historical significance. The second reason being that even the historical significance will be reduced if the reader does not have at least moderate knowledge of European history, particularly that of the 17th and 18th centuries. In fact, the first time I read the manifesto I wasn't able to take much of anything away from it. I read it a second time after I took four college economics classes and a few history classes and was able to comprehend about 80% of it. Despite these complaints, it is still highly recommended."All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away; all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind."

Arrived with some slight wear and tear, but only the contents of the book matter to me. A very good read! :)

I talked to someone once who made the claim that the Communist Manifesto was written as a satire of some sort and was not meant to be taken seriously. I haven't been able to find any further information to corroborate this claim, so for the time being I'm going to assume it's false. Certainly many nations have, at this point, taken it very seriously and to catastrophic effect, the most recent of which playing out in real time in Venezuela. If you think the ideas presented in the manifesto are at all worthy of being taken seriously, just read the news about that unfortunate country.The basic flaw with Communist theory is that it fails to take into account basic history. Obviously when it was written historical record was not quite as good as it is now, so there may be some things I take for granted that Marx and Engels may have reasonably been able to claim ignorance of, but I'm fairly certain it was good enough at the time for the purposes of debunking Communism. The claim of Communism is that the industrial revolution essentially enslaved the proletariat class to the bourgeoisie, leaving individual members of the class with factory jobs only sufficient to provide a barely subsistence standard of living. This is debatably true, and certainly probably seemed much truer in the late 1800s than it does now. I certainly have sympathy for the romantic ideal of individual craftsmen whose work is valued by and essential to the community in which they live. I also don't disagree with the tracing of class struggles through history presented in the manifesto, which certainly did happen.So what's my problem with the Communist Manifesto?Simple. For all of Marx and Engels' outrage at the poor conditions of the working class, they fail to take into account that the situation of the working class during the industrial revolution could also be argued to be better than it had ever been before, and thanks to the industrial revolution at that. For most of history mankind existed as primitive tribesmen struggling to endure the elements, fend off wild animals, and avoid dying of thirst or starvation. Life was defined by such a great degree of uncertainty that a significant weather event, a drought let's say, could reduce an entire tribe to skeletons rotting in the dirt. As societies formed, inequality was introduced, sure, but so was stability. Societies allowed for permanent settlements to be formed, with things like walls to keep out animals, and houses with sturdy roofs and fire places to keep people reliably warm and dry. So while all citizens of a given locale may not have been equal, most, at least, had a drastically improved standard of living compared to scratching out an existence on the plains or in the forest praying to the rain god du jour for mercy. Or getting eaten by wolves, or bears, or whatever else, as Joe Rogan is fond of pointing out, many of which will eat you alive and start where the sun don't shine. I don't know about you, but I'll take a little inequality over that any day.Now, as I said before, the Communist Manifesto is not wrong to point out the problem of inequality, which certainly wasn't solved during the industrial revolution, just as it hadn't been solved in the countless millennia prior. However, tearing down the existing societal framework and casting out the bourgeoisie will only ever accomplish the destruction of society and the bourgeoisie. As soon as all that remains is the proletariat, ask yourself if the coal miner would feel "equal" to a tailor, a septic tank cleaner "equal" to a school teacher? You might solve this by forcing a rotation of labor between fields, but as soon as you do that you lose all benefits of specialized labor, and who could blame the school teacher for resenting being forcibly removed from their classroom to pump excrement from a septic tank, or a farmer for being removed from the fresh air and sunlight and shoved into a hole to dig out coal? The point being, it's easy to write a 30 page rant decrying the shortcomings of society as it exists at any given time, but to think that a mere pamphlet, no matter how well thought out, could solve such a massive and enduring problem convinces me only that people who support such a claim are naive and sort sighted at best, but much more likely deranged, covetous, psychotically resentful and/or mentally deficient at worst.

The Communist Manifesto is a book I have wanted to read for quite a while. I have always been interested in the Russian history for some reason. I read this book in two days. All in all, whether you are for or against Communism, it is a book that studies its times and knows the balance and process in Socialism and knows the rules of Capitalism, through basic wages, labor and property. Marx shows his awareness of the economic, political and religious dynamics especially in England, France and Germany where he shows the class antagonisms between the rich Bourgeois and the working Proletarians. Whilst writing this in England and making case studies of France and Germany, he notices the hierarchial inequalities in social and economic divides between the nations in the World. Taking the side of the Proletarians, he issues reasons and evolutions of culture through Feudalism to Industrialism. By marking his understanding from his experience, he has made a philosophy that challenges the powers and authorities of exploitation to influence more rights and leisures, even identities and individualities for the laborers in the working classes. I imagine that he knew the socialites of the times, the way they dressed, acted, played and partied and the way the workers struggled in their dirtied clothes day and night and saw the unfairness of the political socialism created by the ruling classes. This seems like a conscience influence to write this for the Communist League. It is a deep, intellectual and memorable manuscript and it is well worth the reputation that it has formed over the years. I am sure his followers believe in him and his work. There is enough proof to see his philosophy is true in history and yet there are also critics that I am sure will undermine or disrupt his purpose that was laid down in this book. It is truly a great and enlightening book. Yet maybe enlightenment comes from a greater will above than just the human will that he mentions. It is however, one book that I will remember and look back upon. My subjective critique is that he seemed more for the Feudal Aristocracy rather than the middle class Reactionists yet neutrality is not the main theme of this book but a bias exists in this book to empower the health of the working class and for the success of the whole society even the ruling class. It is a book that may have been a precursor to many historical moments in the 20th century in Europe and North America. It is a historical book of momentous events.

I love this book it changed my views on the world and now I will start a communist revolution, who is with me(That was a joke FBI, dont take it seriously)

A great read to be introduced in the theory of communism, always relevant and a must read to understand the basics of a system that is the opposite of capitalism

Very good, no frills edition of the text. What more could you want?

No review needed for the content. The book is printed and binded professionally.

Must read

nice