Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

read book* *Different edition

The Communist Manifesto

by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Gareth Stedman Jones

3.42 of 5 stars 3.42 · rating details · 30,365 ratings · 1,254 reviews

Originally published on the eve of the 1848 European revolutions, The Communist Manifesto is a condensed and incisive account of the worldview Marx and Engels developed during their hectic intellectual and political collaboration. Formulating the principles of dialectical materialism, they believed that labor creates wealth, hence capitalism is exploitive and antithetical...more

Paperback, 304 pages

Published August 27th 2002 by Penguin Classics (first published 1848)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Most Influential Books in History

4th out of 660 books — 1,843 voters

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling

Books That Everyone Should Read At Least Once

309th out of 8,140 books — 38,261 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Sep 21, 2012 Traveller rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: sociology-politics-philosophy-world, re-reading

This tract by Marx and Engels is too enormous in implication to review fully in the small little space that GR allows, so what I'll do for now is take extracts from it and comment on them, piece by piece.

Per the Maifesto:"
"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 bourgeois...more

37 likes · like · see review

view all 87 comments

Kelly Maybedog Hawkins Traveller wrote: "Ian wrote: "Sorry I missed this, but I agree with Kelly..."

Agree with Kelly re what? ..that having close relationships is for the bi...more
Sep 30, 2012 10:41pm

Ian Graye I seem to have missed out on this thread from around 15 September.

In "The German Ideology", Marx explains that he sees the bourgeois family as a relat...more
updated Oct 01, 2012 11:52am

May 07, 2007 Xio rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: manifesto

Its awful fun to grow up marxist in the US. You get to go to meetings where you, as a kid, soon realize there's no point in paying attention so off you go with the other rowdy tots into the ghetto to make trouble with whatever you find to hand.

And you get to read this novella and if you're bored and underchallenged but over bothered you can begin to argue against american capitalist imperialism and the growth of consumerist doctrine using your new found propaganda skills til you bait a teacher i...more

25 likes · like · see review

Jul 10, 2010 Jeanette rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: classics, nonfiction, politricks

Somehow it just seemed right and fitting that I should read The Communist Manifesto over Fourth of July weekend.

"WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!"

2.5 stars

Marx has some valid points, and some of his ideas are actually in use in the U.S.(gasp!). A prose stylist he was not. This is very convoluted and overwrought. The introduction of this version is very good and helped my understanding, hence the extra half star.

5 likes · like · see review

Jan 10, 2013 Ken Moten rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy-stuff, non-fiction-stuff

Well when thinking of a read over the Christmas holidays I usually go for A Christmas Carol. Forsaking that this year I decided to instead read this manifesto of the 19th century political-economic system known as Communism. Now Communism is older than Marx or "Marxism" but this pamphlet is what most people know as the genesis of Communism (despite Marx himself alluding to Communism pre-existing him) and I found a lot of interesting things in it. I don't have to tell you how practical it is in o...more

3 likes · like · see review

view all 6 comments

Ken Moten Thing Two wrote: "Having read your local paper, Larry, I'm not sure you have to clarify with some.

How did the two of you end up in the most conservat...more
Jan 02, 2013 08:07pm

Larry Bassett Thing Two wrote: "How did the two of you end up in the most conservative town in Virginia? What lured you there?"

Ten years ago I lived in Silver Sprin...more
Jan 02, 2013 08:12pm

Sep 11, 2012 Nick rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: heresy, history, liberty, philosophy, political-theory, authoritarianism

Rough, muscular verses from Mr. Marx over here. There are a bunch of good one liners in this well written work. Most of the ideas in it rub me the wrong way, but it explains the theory's political side pretty well. Even this would be a poor introduction to Marxism though. I remember trying to read this without any background knowledge and it came off as bald assertions. The lack of much economics in here sort of limits its explanatory power.

The most interesting part of this is part III wherein h...more

8 likes · like · see review

Apr 16, 2011 Capsguy rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: german

If you've done any units on economics or have read quite a bit of European literature from the 1800's to early 1900's, probably you won't take that much from this. It's certainly aged well and there are many concepts that individually can be taken and related to workers rights, the ownership of property etc. even to this day.

Unless you have no background at all in the study of economics, don't expect your mind to be blown.

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 30, 2010 Amber Tucker rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Everyone should read this at least twice.

Recommended to Amber by: The Amanda in my head

Shelves: christmas-or-spring-break, regularly-consulted, to-come-back-to, i-feel-rebellious-reading-this

(This ended up much longer than I expected it to. If you like, skip over paragraphs nine through twelve, which are less review than one-sided debate. I published them anyway to make provision for two-sided debates. Jump in.)

Hmmm. I don't feel right about reviewing this, considering I read it immediately after Christmas, which can no longer (if it ever did) hold deep meaning in itself for anyone except a) the bourgeoisie or b) devout Christians, who tend to be misled if well-meaning folks, brainw...more

4 likes · like · see review

Nov 25, 2008 Jeremy rated it 2 of 5 stars Recommends it for: People who wonder why Communism fails

Disclaimer: I read this book with a heavy bias against Marxist thought. That being said, I like to think of myself as a logical person so I have framed my thoughts as logically as possible instead of in the 'Communists are bad! They just are!' line of reasoning. That being said...

The spectre of Communism is still haunting the world...it has died.

Suffice it to say that I was sorely disappointed with Marx's argument. So much so that I fail to believe that anyone over the age of twenty-one could ta...more Disclaimer: I read this book with a heavy bias against Marxist thought. That being said, I like to think of myself as a logical person so I have framed my thoughts as logically as possible instead of in the 'Communists are bad! They just are!' line of reasoning. That being said...

The spectre of Communism is still haunting the world...it has died.

Suffice it to say that I was sorely disappointed with Marx's argument. So much so that I fail to believe that anyone over the age of twenty-one could take him seriously even on a theoretical basis. Perhaps a century and a half of perspective is to blame. Maybe I'm missing a dimension of Marx's argument. It could simply be that the manifesto is a by-product of the industrial revolution that looks quite silly in "post-industrial" America.

Summing up Marx in two sentences: Class struggle is the defining injustice and condition of human society. We, the proletariat, must rise up through a violent and sudden revolution and overthrow our capitalist oppressors.

Let me get this straight. We're going to overcome class struggle by perpetrating a class war against the bourgoisie? If a major goal of communism is to eradicate social classes, why does it temporarily aim to establish the proletariat as the ruling class?

Oh right. Becauase once the proletariat gains power it will someday voluntarily abdicate said power for the greater good of society. As Mugatu said about Zoolander when he points out that all of the latter's 'looks' are actually the same: "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" It makes little rational sense.

Now onto more specific arguments regarding Marx's "generally applicable measures" that must be established by the proletariat after the violent overthrow of capitalism. It's pretty scary, actually.

No ownership of land, a heavy income tax, no rights of inheritance, seizure of all property from "rebels" (whatever that means...presumably political enemies) and emigrants, centralized credit and capital in the hands of the state, state ownership of the means of transportation and communication, establishment of 'industrial armies', equitable distribution of the populace in town and country, and an abolition of child labor with concurrent establishment of public education (actually that last point I agree with).

Such a strategy will ALWAYS lead to a totalitarian government that needlessly and wantonly causes suffering and economic hardship for the vast majority of its citizens.

I have yet to hear anybody move beyond theoretical praise of Marxism. Even the most ardent supporters will be forced to conclude that in real life the Marxist state is not preferred over the capitalist state because there is still an inequitible division of power between the ruling class and the common man. And the 'evil capitalism' that they rail against is actually the governmental imperialism of capitalist states, not the economic structure of said state.

The argument against capitalism is too much capital in the hands of too few. But Marxism advocates all capital be concentrated in the hands of a totalitarian regime that gives too little to the vast majority.(less)

37 likes · like · see review

Jul 16, 2008 Chloe rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: All who wish to be informed and who want an enjoyable bit of political theory

Recommended to Chloe by: Myself

Shelves: philosophy, controversy, political, project-iv

In an attempt to read through all of the great works that shaped society in some way, I naturally turned to The Communist Manifesto. My conclusion: everyone should read The Manifesto, for I am totally convinced that the majority of the lay promoters of Marxism have never read it, relying rather on the assumed infallibility of the supposed “counter cultural movement” (or, at least, it’s ineffable “hip-ness” and the right to bathe less frequently than the rest of the world). No, after careful stud...more In an attempt to read through all of the great works that shaped society in some way, I naturally turned to The Communist Manifesto. My conclusion: everyone should read The Manifesto, for I am totally convinced that the majority of the lay promoters of Marxism have never read it, relying rather on the assumed infallibility of the supposed “counter cultural movement” (or, at least, it’s ineffable “hip-ness” and the right to bathe less frequently than the rest of the world). No, after careful study, I do not believe that most Marxists have a clue what Marx actually said; and neither do most of their detractors. What we have today is a collection of the uniformed doing battle against each other in order to live up to certain labels that no one really understands. This is, of course, my opinion and based off of my own experiences and hobbyhorses, and you don’t have to agree with me.
However, I think that what is believed to be Marxism today is not quite the Marxism of Marx, as that Marxism is somewhat dated. Let us first recall the fact that, contrary to the optimistic nature of assertions made, Marx and Engles had never tested their theories on a society, whereas we have seen such results. Oh, they did an excellent job at pointing out many of the errors of their age. The industrializing of the world, the changes in society, had thrown the working classes into extremely dehumanizing poverty. They were, in this society of absolute capitalism, merely cogs in the machine of progress. This being said, Marx and Engles were not actually certain of the outcome of their ideas when applied to a society. When these ideas were tested they were found wanting, as decent food is wanting in a gulag. They seemed to have forgotten the problem of human nature –or, at least, the darker side of human nature: avarice and a desire for power. For those so obsessed with human greed, this is an uncharacteristic and inexcusable memory lapse, especially since they spent so many pages talking about that very subject in its historical context and asserting that the greed of the powerful and the clash of classes was the very driving force of history. Yet, Marx and Engles assumed that those who would take “despotic inroads” (sic) would be selfless angels serving the proletarians and who would never dream of being the new masters in the barn. However, it seemed in action that some animals really were more equal than others, at least in power and in their own minds; and the pigs did rule over the others in the barnyard, as it were. The fact is, today the theories have been tested. And, the despots who take the inroads to destroy the bourgeoisie don’t tend to be quite so pure of heart as to relinquish their power to the working classes. In fact, in a purely communist society like the USSR, the poor suffered greatly and communism became the religion that Marx claimed they would not have. (Why exactly communism should intrude on the private beliefs of citizens, Marx and Engles never explained.)

Marx and Engles did make many good points in their manifesto (obviously, otherwise it would never have attained followers). Unbridled capitalism is a cruel and oppressive force. However, this raises a new question: unlike Marx predicted, the workers of Western Europe and in America did not sink lower. Rather, they were lifted higher. They are no longer without rights or property and we no longer have an Adam Smithian form of Capitalism. Marx’s predictions were wrong; so where does this leave their theories today? It is a question worth pondering. However, Marx and Engles do give us one assertion: they believe that communism is inevitable. The masses naturally will rise up and throw off their former and (in many cases) dead oppressors and rule as one. So, I suppose that unless their last theory is also wrong, there really isn’t a reason to hurry along the inevitable or try to prevent it. (Marx and Engles didn’t explain this fighting for the inevitable in the manifesto, either; but, they really spent more time pointing out the problems of their time rather than expounding on the solution.)
I suggest that everyone read this book, because it gives great example of the problems in Marx’s time and shows us what not to do with a market system, it explains a popular political theory, makes many good points concerning the treatment of the working classes and their rights, and also has some fascinating errors that are worth examining. (On that final note: Marx and Engles believed that Germany would burst forth into communist revolution and would inevitably become a communist state. We all know how that ended up.)
(less)

26 likes · like · see review

Jun 13, 2008 Jason rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Anarchists!!

Shelves: classics, sociology, politics

Read this and understand why your imperialist capitalist government spent the better part of a century playing hot potato with ICBMs, invading and incinerating peaceful, peasant countries, and making your mom and dad piss themselves under school desks.

The elite were scared shitless and by no means would they allow their slaves, errr labor force, a fraction of freedom or equality or means to resist. The 60 year propaganda campaign against Communism and the virtual disappearance of strong labor u...more

20 likes · like · see review

Dec 30, 2007 Ryan rated it 3 of 5 stars Recommends it for: politica scientist students

A good read on nonsensical political theory. Easy to understand, impossible to continue in real world conditions.

I find it funny that the people who talk about him being a such a great philosopher are the ones he wanted to dethrone. The majority of which have been raised in american excess and have never picked up a shovel and used it for more than backyard gardening. All of you who say they truely believe in collectivism really ought to try it out just like the hippies did in the 70's, how many...more

6 likes · like · see review

Feb 09, 2008 Ken rated it 2 of 5 stars

EH. You know. Marx. Reading Marx is like fucking a microwaved squash -- everyone's got to do it eventually, but you probably shouldn't get so into it that you start joining a club. Because the next thing you know you'll be standing on the back of a personnel transport humorlessly waving a huge flag and screaming through a bullhorn at a bunch of people who made the fatal mistake of not agreeing with you, while your comrades herd them through barbed-wire-lined corrals with rifle butts and... wait,...more

14 likes · like · see review

Jun 27, 2007 Raditya Dika rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I bought this book from my campus' bookstore. it was an impulse buy, i saw it standing besides these other manifesto books and decided to buy it immediately. i always have been a big fan of marx, and this book makes me wonder.. what have gone wrong in communism? i guess, the manifesto's solid, strong positioning is being offheld by those who try to implement it "the human way", i guess this book is for angels.

5 likes · like · see review

Dec 31, 2008 Ryan rated it 5 of 5 stars

Very important work, one that obviously influenced history dramatically and helped to define the dynamics of the twentieth century and beyond. In fact, some of Marx's ideals resonate throughout not only "communist" and "socialist" countries (including former ones, such as the most famous "Marxist" experiment, the Soviet Union), but throughout all collectivist political socioeconomic systems. These range from Hitler's Nazi Germany (national socialism) to the twentieth century "welfare state" that...more

6 likes · like · see review

Apr 13, 2008 Chin rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: advisory-10-2007-2008

Karl Marx’s work, The Communist Manifesto The Communist Manifesto started left the press in February 1848 as it inspires the outbreak of the February Revolution in Paris. The was a powerful impression when it all started with a little pamphlet that became the heart of his manhood of socialist thought. “Proletarians of all countries, unite,” (Marx 3) his key point to make the old society fall.
His Manifesto of the Communist Party was not his major theoretical works but an outline of his theory o...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 26, 2007 Keely rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: politics, non-fiction, reviewed

It is an error to assume that the problem with humanity is an inability to recognize our own problems. While it's true that we constantly look outside for answers, this is just because we are unhappy with the answers we have. We know that success requires hard work and knowledge, but we want something easier. We will accept an easier answer even when it isn't true. We are not motivated by what is true or likely, but by frightening or enticing stories.

We are driven away from the necessary and the...more It is an error to assume that the problem with humanity is an inability to recognize our own problems. While it's true that we constantly look outside for answers, this is just because we are unhappy with the answers we have. We know that success requires hard work and knowledge, but we want something easier. We will accept an easier answer even when it isn't true. We are not motivated by what is true or likely, but by frightening or enticing stories.

We are driven away from the necessary and the difficult by our inadequacies and fears, and so rarely move ourselves any closer to fulfillment. In a perversity of justice, those who do achieve the things which we imagine would fulfill us (wealth, fame, beauty, genius) are no more fulfilled than the average man, and just as beset by inadequacy and fear. Often, more so.

Transhumanism represents a hope that we can escape this pattern of ignorance and self-destruction but only by escaping the human bodies and minds that cannot control themselves.

The Manifesto always seemed little more than a sad reminder of our failings, though it did motivate people and provided a test of the mettle of humanity. Beyond that, it does more to rile than to increase understanding of the economy and our role within it. It is sad that a work which is at least based on some worthwhile principles falls to the same simple fears and ideals that plague our everyday lives.

The manifesto tries to take all of the economic theory of its authors and create from it a story that will excite the common man. They did not expect that most of them would pick up Das Kapital and start really thinking about their role in things. It was enough to engage their greed and sense of injustice without intruding much on their understanding.

The average man does not want to understand, he would prefer to believe. It is unfortunate that the main effect proven by the Communist movement is that any and every political system simply shifts wealth and power from one group to another, and little aids the serf or the unlucky.

We Americans are in little position to stand over the 'failure of Communism', since democracy has not proven any kinder to mankind, nor can it deliver justice equally to the poor and the rich.(less)

5 likes · like · see review

Skylar Burris "It cannot compare with the remarkably rational ideal of American Democracy and the depths that it all-too-soon fell to."

Yeah, you're right. You reall...more
Jan 09, 2008 04:32am

Keely Well, my suggestion of the fall of the implied beginnings of the government in America does not begin seven years ago. I suppose it seems more tragic...more
Jan 09, 2008 06:17pm

Skylar Burris No nation is perfect or without detrimental consequence in its actions, but those that systematically imprison, persecute, execute, and forcibly starv...more
Jan 10, 2008 11:27am

Jan 24, 2008 graham rated it 2 of 5 stars

So I read this in like an hour last night and by the end, I had, like, zero desire to throw of my shackles and raise a pitchfork in rebellion. In fact, the whole premise kind of seems ludicrous.

Not that there weren't some good points--I could certainly identify with few people holding the mass of wealth and the need to redistribute in order to even out prosperity and tamp down poverty. And I really like "proletariat" as a word.

But the whole "evolution of history" theory didn't stick; instead o...more

3 likes · like · see review

Aug 23, 2009 Joshua Nomen-Mutatio rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: cultural-and-or-political, history, philosophy

The teleology implicit in the writing of Marx and his sugardaddy Engels is deeply flawed. In other words no revolution is inevitable -- the only things that are inevitable are entropy and taxation.

That's one complaint...for now...

I should mention that most of these three stars above are for how influential and therefore historically interesting this pamphlet was and is. I could go on about my stance on economic and governing systems but I've recently done this in other online venues and am curr...more

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 28, 2011 Marts (Thinker) rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, audio-books

The 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' highlights capitalism and its effects on varying classes in society and by extension all aspects of life.
After his introduction he looks at the 'Bourgeois and Proletarians', bourgeois being the ruling class, those owning the means of production and the proletrates being the working class who must constantly labour in an effort to survive.
He then goes on to look at 'Proletarians and Communists', 'Socialist and Communist literature', and 'Communists in Relat...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 04, 2011 Gary Sudeth added it

Originally read this 50+ years ago - yes, I was 12 and read such things then -but, in recent times the echoes of Marx's words seem to be everywhere; so, I reread it. As literature it is poor. Marx was an economist, although this work was written as a PR piece to distinguish the German Communist League from a number of other Communist groups in Europe competing for the workers' attention. Marx detested sloganeering, which was the prevalent messaging technique at that time, although this work is r...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 04, 2011 Jacob Aitken added it

In many ways Marxism is like Calvinism: viciously logical, irrefutable if one accepts the premises. I will offer a summary analysis of Marx and then a reconstructive critique at the end.

Marx posited that each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding development of that class (52). The evils of the bourgeoisie, for Marx, is that it converted the people into wage labourers. And he is right. The bourgeoisie furnishes the proletariat the very weapons that will u...more In many ways Marxism is like Calvinism: viciously logical, irrefutable if one accepts the premises. I will offer a summary analysis of Marx and then a reconstructive critique at the end.

Marx posited that each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding development of that class (52). The evils of the bourgeoisie, for Marx, is that it converted the people into wage labourers. And he is right. The bourgeoisie furnishes the proletariat the very weapons that will undo the bourgeoisie. This is an important point for Marx and is illustrative of his historicism: the bourgeoisie is a necessary step in the history of mankind, but it is a penultimate one. The proletariat must replace the bourgeoisie. Necessarily, the bourgeoisie's own methods are its eventual downfall.

Marx is noted for his "call for the abolition of private property." And a bunch of other things as well. While this is where he is most wrong, it is worth hearing him out. He says that his calls for abolition are not that radical: the bourgeoisie is doing a good job of abolishing these things as well. Property? The majority of people in society do not own private property? Marriage? bourgeoisie morality frequently includes wife-swapping, swinging, and seducing maidens.

A Reconstructive critique:
In the last section of the book, Marx scorned the "bourgeoisie socialism" and the "feudal socialism." Tis a shame he did so, since this very well could have saved his project. More on this below.

Marx is to be commended, though this work doesn't explicitly bring it out, for assisting a Christian critique of capital. He shows that the presuppositions of liberal economics and liberal political theory are cultural specific.

The socialisms that Marx scorned had a remarkable resilience. Unlike Marx, they did not locate socialism as the next stage in historical development (Milbank, TST, 197). They saw capitalism as a false knowledge, not as a step in history. A Christian socialism can reproach capitalism for destroying tradition and positing a false knowledge and a violent ontology. Historically, this socialism can pass these values down.

I will try to say it a different way: is Marx's history dependent on Hegel? If so, and if Hegel is shown to be faulty, is Marx's historicism faulty? I can't answer that. But it is worth thinking about.(less)

1 like · like · see review

May 19, 2013 Lynn Beyrouthy rated it 5 of 5 stars

Karl Marx. The founder of communism and the instigator of copious communist revolutions around the world most notably the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. This man, whose theories changed the course of history, has begun The Communist Manifesto with the famous sentence: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"

exposing the historical existence of a fatal social scale which condemned those unfortunate enough to be at the bottom to eternal servility to those wh

...more Karl Marx. The founder of communism and the instigator of copious communist revolutions around the world most notably the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. This man, whose theories changed the course of history, has begun The Communist Manifesto with the famous sentence: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"

exposing the historical existence of a fatal social scale which condemned those unfortunate enough to be at the bottom to eternal servility to those who happened to be at the top.

Written in nineteenth century Europe, The Communist Manifesto reprehends the tyrannical ascendancy of the bourgeoisie that relentlessly exploits the working class and amasses wealth which rightfully belongs to the proletariat. The bourgeois treats himself to excessive amounts of food while his laborers die of starvation. And that is why Marx strongly incites the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie supremacy, the latter being a failed ruler of society because "it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery"

Marx anathematizes Modern Industry and the establishment of Free Trade for it has altered human relations to sheer financial interest and monetary gain

: "The bourgeoisie has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless, indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom- Free Trade."

In his view, world markets annihilated autarkies and depreciated national production. This way the bourgeoisie enticed distant barbarian countries to adopt its policies and has thus subjected them to eternal dependency and has mischievously created a world of oppressing and oppressed countries. This is how Marx explains the unfair concentration of property and power which he blames on the bourgeoisie.

After denouncing the iniquitous bourgeoisie, Karl Marx expresses the mandatory abolition of private property and the establishment of communism which will directly contribute to the emancipation of the proletariat.

Private property = Personal property + social status.

To abolish private property is not to eliminate one's self-earned right to own but it is the preclusion of social power acquired through private property and replacing it by the concept of common property. That way, instead of the many controlled by the few, communism will deprive no member of society of acquiring the products of society.

200 years ago, the communist conception of society was basically the best solution for the social injustice prevalent during the epoch of the bourgeoisie dominance. As evident by the fact, Lenin made communist Russia thrive in (short-term) prosperity after the Russian October Revolution. But nowadays, governments based on communism often turn into dictatorships and communist societies turn into cloistered and narrow-minded societies. The most eminent example is North Korea, a socialist country where elections are held, but beneath that veneer of democratic independence, North Korea is notoriously a "Stalinist dictatorship" where human rights are restricted and democracy is an endangered specie.

(less)

1 like · like · see review

May 07, 2013 Michael Ledezma rated it 3 of 5 stars

Passionate call to arms from someone with an obvious sense of indignation at the injustices of factory life in the mid 19th century. Adept at looking at the contradictions and hypocrisy of the bourgeoisie and its moral and societal pronouncements being ultimately tainted by the very fact that they are the norm of the social regime and are reinforced by the very power structure they construct at the head of society. In this sense Marx and Engels were very much forerunners in spirit to Foucault's...more

like · see review

Apr 20, 2013 Mohamed rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I must admit, my interest in economy is recent. However, my interest in psychology is not. So basically this is a review of the underlying psychological structure of communism as portrayed in The Communist Manifesto.
The book itself is an easy-read to some extent, all you need is a simple background of the terminology being used. Not much historical events are being referenced and you can simply read the commented edition for a clearer read.

Now to communism itself as a 'philosophy'. Basically the...more I must admit, my interest in economy is recent. However, my interest in psychology is not. So basically this is a review of the underlying psychological structure of communism as portrayed in The Communist Manifesto.
The book itself is an easy-read to some extent, all you need is a simple background of the terminology being used. Not much historical events are being referenced and you can simply read the commented edition for a clearer read.

Now to communism itself as a 'philosophy'. Basically the state exists to contain and organize the struggle of classes, which cannot be denied existence in the light of hundreds of revolutions and riots initiated by a suppressed class against another. What communism suggests is that the abolishing of private property (Mainly sources of production; factories, farms, etc...) among other modifications in social structure is the only attainable social structure where this class struggle is nearly abolished.
The book clearly addresses many of the criticisms that were attributed -in ignorance more than malice- to communism such as its relation to women or religion. Basically communism doesn't give a fuck about any of that. Only in its relation to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (the means-of production-owners class).

To me, the establishment of a communist society, the abolishing of private means of production and the abolition of the exploitation of a single class of another is the natural progress of human culture. In every single scenario of a peaceful society, portrayed by novels or by a wild imagination, one cannot deny that in that society, there is no possession, there is only fair and just distribution of wealth in a way that makes every individual satisfied.
The sad part is, this is not in the so near future. It is the model state of things, but it requires a better intellect, a better understanding of the sentimentality of being part of a race. It is kinda like Utopia, one cannot help but declare it false IN THE CURRENT AGE OF HUMAN NATURE.

Communism failed not because it is a failure as a theory, it failed because -in my humble, not so well-informed opinion- because the human race is not remotely ready for its implementation.

Anyway, it is a must-read for anyone interested in the topic at hand. It is a statement from the communist party itself and therefore it is a declaration of what many don't seem to get.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Apr 07, 2013 David Huang rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: thought-provoking

This book was actually extremely interesting. A couple of things stuck with me,viz. the dissolution of family. Marx was saying that the Industrial Revolution essentially already put the proletariats on this route, because many people living in the country had to go to the cities to find jobs. Also, he says that free love does not need to be introduced because it has already existed for a longggg long time. Think about it-how many marriages really last until death, through sickness, and all that...more

like · see review

Apr 05, 2013 Douglas Kamarade rated it 4 of 5 stars

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are both philosophers and political theorist. They started to collaborate during the summer of 1844 in Paris. They both shared the same views that the bourgeois owned almost all the private property. And that sooner or later the proletarians would be crushed by that economic system. Marx and Engels predict what will happen when the proletarians begin to revolt and the changes that will take place. They also give out their ideas and vision for stable and efficient e...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 02, 2013 Doug Peterson rated it 3 of 5 stars

Surprisingly short read. Marx is like many prophets; often talked about, yet rarely read. If you ever talk about him, or Marxism, it's worth the read. His description of the world is accurate...for mid-19th Century Europe. Marx over-simplified the world (Proletariat and Bourgeoisie), and had the world remained so simple (so binary), he might have a point. Unfortunately, life isn't so simple, and his religion (yes, Marxism is a religion- this pamphlet requires great faith for any who choose to be...more Surprisingly short read. Marx is like many prophets; often talked about, yet rarely read. If you ever talk about him, or Marxism, it's worth the read. His description of the world is accurate...for mid-19th Century Europe. Marx over-simplified the world (Proletariat and Bourgeoisie), and had the world remained so simple (so binary), he might have a point. Unfortunately, life isn't so simple, and his religion (yes, Marxism is a religion- this pamphlet requires great faith for any who choose to believe) does not account for a real "middle class."
- Marx calls this "bourgeoisie," and by his simple definition, that is true.
- what Marx didn't account for is the rule of law within a (admittedly flawed and limited) plural democratic society where the common man has hope and opportunity.
** this is where Marxism becomes religious; Marx would say this "rule of law, private property, and this 'middle class' opportunity" is all part of the "superstructure," all part of the necessary evolution of capitalism.
- he may be partly right; capitalism is not just, nor compassionate. Neither is Marxism, nor Communism (I won't even compare the track records; I readily admit that the record of capitalism, while head-and-shoulders above communism, has serious and deep flaws. But, it has lifted far, far more people out of the abject poverty that Marx taught would lead to "class consciousness," which leads to revolution.
Marx needed Jesus. Neither Marxism, nor capitalism, will bring justice on earth. Only truth, only real hope.
I recommend reading the Manifesto. It is short (thankfully), but it heavily influences much of politics and society today, and our recent history, so it's worth being knowledgeable of the actual document.
- one reason Christians are often poor apologists, is we don't study enough. Our primary study should be the labor of love, the Bible. We might also strive to better understand other people, other cultures, other idea's and ideologies. Everything in life is about relationships, and that is where Jesus' energies were poured- into people.(less)

like · see review

Mar 19, 2013 Jack rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Politically-minded readers

Shelves: marxism

Perhaps one of the most misunderstood political systems of our time (arguably along-side that of capitalism), the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels is a breath of fresh air for those familiar with Marxism.

If you were to ask the the odd person what he thought of communism, you would immediately be hit with a negative reaction, or the condemnation of Stalin and Mao; or even insults for ever sympathising with those 'terrorists'.

But Communism, as Marx and Engels put it be...more Perhaps one of the most misunderstood political systems of our time (arguably along-side that of capitalism), the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels is a breath of fresh air for those familiar with Marxism.

If you were to ask the the odd person what he thought of communism, you would immediately be hit with a negative reaction, or the condemnation of Stalin and Mao; or even insults for ever sympathising with those 'terrorists'.

But Communism, as Marx and Engels put it beautifully in the Manifesto, is anything but Stalinist. In his methodical analyses of the systems of the past, the system of capitalism and the systems of the future, Marx shows to the reader that what we have been told to be communism - such as Stalinist Russia or Maoist China - is a far cry from what Marx advocated.

Marx made many predictions about the capitalist system which still ring true today; others, alas, have been questionably disproven, but Marx got a lot of what he said right. Thus, it is difficult to dismiss what Marx had to say when he presents a meticulous, almost scientific (and logical) work.

Nevertheless, Marx was, to an extent, a rhetorician. If you allow yourself to be enveloped in the world, in the aura, that Marx is trying to create, surely enough you'll find everything within that world to be unconditionally infallible. Stepping back from this world, however, leaves only the idea of communism; a distant cry from the power of Marx's writing and the feeling of being one of the revolutionaries on the front lines of working-class struggle; the proletariat against the bourgeois, once and for all, for ever.

Understanding the Manifesto can be difficult at times - especially for the new Marxist reader - and thus this annotated edition proves utterly invaluable. Without it, many misconceptions are impossible to avoid without being directed by a Marxist; terminology in the mid 19th century is different to what it is in the 21st century. But the annotations don't just show up when a reasonably difficult section of text emerges; instead, every single paragraph is annotated, with some in greater detail than others. Again, for these reasons this edition is indispensable, and highly recommended for the new Marxist reader.

I enjoyed this read, but I felt that I would not have enjoyed it as much without the annotated assistance. To call the Manifesto 'cryptic' is to say the least. But, it is a read that should be read by every politically-minded individual, be they Marxist, capitalist, left-wing, right-wing, or centrist. It doesn't matter. The greatest enjoyment of reading a political book perhaps different or so far unknown to your own views is in learning something completely new and different. Marx was not an average thinker; he was no utopian, either. He was almost a scientist of the systems of politics, and a prophet in his analyses. Regardless of your political views, Marx is difficult to ignore, and out-right impossible not to admire.(less)

like · see review

Mar 17, 2013 Katherine Clark rated it 4 of 5 stars

I feel silly rating this, but OK. I have never read the entire Communist Manifesto. It occurred to me in my British Lit survey course that this was one of those works I thought my students should be exposed to and had it on a list of 10 works they could choose from. Not having read it though, I found it so familiar (so maybe I did read it.) Obviously, it had a major influence on...everything. I read my version on a Kindle/IPAD which meant that I could look up names and events I was unfamiliar wi...more

like · see review

Feb 23, 2013 Manish Gaba rated it 4 of 5 stars

"Marx made communism a trend, a force, a religion... "

This is a critical assessment of the Communist Manifesto (edition of that of the English edition 1888 checked with German editions of 1848) by Karl Marx & Fredrick Engels by an adherent supporter of the capitalist ideologies. Now the biggest reason of me taking up a book known to invite trouble and controversies & which is against my thought process is the quest to understand the reasons and intentions of the person I respect for his...more "Marx made communism a trend, a force, a religion... "

This is a critical assessment of the Communist Manifesto (edition of that of the English edition 1888 checked with German editions of 1848) by Karl Marx & Fredrick Engels by an adherent supporter of the capitalist ideologies. Now the biggest reason of me taking up a book known to invite trouble and controversies & which is against my thought process is the quest to understand the reasons and intentions of the person I respect for his scalding sense of criticism and hatred towards the bourgeoisie.

Economically, politically and socially it does have a lot of significance. The details highlighted with intensity and vigor can be upheld or protested against but this review envisions its readers not only the contents of his thoughts but also a chance for me not only to understand the fallacies in the system I believe and support the most. Though being an adherent capitalist supporter, I do realize that it is never that any thought can be 100% correct; thus it became a matter of curiosity to find out why does Marx hate capitalism so much and what drives him to the extremes; as evident from his endeavors. Of course after a quick analysis one can certainly relate his hatred to his background. The predicament with his mind set at certain issues is well witnessed where his arrogance and failure to rationally analyze a certain situation makes him act in a manner which the world had witnessed in the past. Even if I had made an attempt to read the Manifesto as a reader and not as a critic I would have felt that Marx has exaggerated certain issues with respect to his way of thinking and a one track outlook towards capitalism.

After reading the first few pages written by him we understand his fearless writing styles and desperate will to topple the capitalist. One can obviously reflect and understand his nature and his life background. The Manifesto in general is the most concise and influential statement of Marxism. It was designed to accomplish a task i.e. influence the entire society at an international level to topple the capitalists, and no doubt it was his desperate attempt to change history. The manifesto opens with “A spectre is haunting Europe, the spectra of communism, all the holy powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exercise this spectre………”

The opening Statement show’s it means business & is a statement of purpose written with epigrammatic force & exceptional literary skills. Here’s where I felt that it was an attempt which got really close in wiping off the face of capitalism from the planet, hats off indeed. For convenience sake & in fact the book is divided into 4 parts which makes it all the more sensible to understand.

In the 1st section the key ideas of his ideologies & theories are put forth for a discussion, convincing at times but it pushed its frontiers as I proceeded. He says the economic stratification leads to conflicts, being specific it is the conflict between the capitalist’s and the workers where wealth is concentrated in a few hands and the workers are a suppressed class. Thus it is this which will lead to awakening of a political consciousness where the workers will rise as a powerful force overthrowing the bourgeoisie through the formation of the trade unions & form a classless society. I have to confess this entire concept is very hard for a reader to digest because I feel the only way towards development is the capitalist way, we can clearly see our own country bending towards the same it’s high time to accept the fact that the best will win and the rest will have to take stock of their actions. Even the best of economists in the world have accepted this and it’s proven that competition and capital ship is good for the Economy in the long run where it’s all about entrepreneurial skills and pure talent.

As we move on, we notice how cleverly he shows his relationship with the worker community. This marks a continuity from the above forming the 2nd piece of his work. Marx spends a significant portion of this part discussing the plight of labor where he says labor was treated as a commodity and was beaten down to the lowest levels. An important argument he makes is that the labors have nothing more to lose and thus to gain back they have no choice but to indulge in a struggle against the capitalist. His basic aim was to make them believe that the Communist party is just a medium to guide and lead the workers to eventually succeed in the class struggle.

The final part of the book is a joy to read as he exhibits his techniques in tackling his critiques, he was cold, harsh and extremely sarcastic, and has not left a single ideological group. This part clearly portrayed the stubbornness of Karl Marx, as the fact is that as ages passed the aim of communism in his vision would shift from a working class struggle to a democracy to anarchism which is a suicidal concept as proven in the books of history. Well this surely proves, when an idea is formed in one’s mind, it becomes impossible to make him recognize its fallacies until and unless self-realization takes place. The Communist manifesto was based on his hypothesis where he has a strong theoretical foundations tending to advocate predictions in an attempt to accelerate their end’s where the ends can be attained only with force. He ends this masterpiece by stating “Let the ruling class tremble at a communistic revolution, the prolaritariats have nothing to lose but their chains! They have a world to win; working men of all countries unite. ” . . . Stating it’s thesis with the directness of its challenge.

From its central theme to the cover page to his illustrations all make sure that even a non-believer of communist ideologies gives an eye to this very ruthless approach. As a book acknowledging his brilliant effort, I have rated it 4 on 5 stars and I conclude it’s a classic, abrasive at times yet very, very ambitious.(less)

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
The Communist Manifesto	17	109	May 02, 2013 02:38pm
The Most Awesome ...: The Communist Manifesto	2	5	Feb 05, 2013 01:46am
Goodreads Librari...: 0011841788 - (ebook)	3	34	Oct 23, 2011 09:00am
Yahweh and Marx	1	64	Sep 30, 2011 10:34pm

combine
Other Editions (348)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

994 users

Non Fiction

750 users

Politics

635 users

Classics

441 users

History

299 users

Economics

200 users

Sociology

93 users

Politics > Political Science

74 users

Academic > School

53 users

European Literature > German Literature

51 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Karl Marx

Karl Heinrich Marx was a 19th-century philosopher, political economist, sociologist, humanist, political theorist and revolutionary. Often called the father of communism, Marx was both a scholar and a political activist. He addressed a wide range of political as well as social issues, and is known for, amongst other things, his analysis of history. His approach is indicated by the opening line Cha...more Karl Heinrich Marx was a 19th-century philosopher, political economist, sociologist, humanist, political theorist and revolutionary. Often called the father of communism, Marx was both a scholar and a political activist. He addressed a wide range of political as well as social issues, and is known for, amongst other things, his analysis of history. His approach is indicated by the opening line Chapter 1 of the The Communist Manifesto(1848): "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, capitalism itself will be displaced by communism, a classless society which emerges after a transitional period in which the state would be nothing else but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

On the one hand, Marx argued for a systemic understanding of socioeconomic change. On this model, it is the structural contradictions within capitalism which necessitate its end, giving way to communism:

On the other hand, Marx argued that socioeconomic change occurred through organized revolutionary action. On this model, capitalism will end through the organized actions of an international working class: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." (from The German Ideology)

While Marx was a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence was given added impetus by the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution, and there are few parts of the world which were not significantly touched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century. The relation of Marx to "Marxism" is a point of controversy. Marxism remains influential and controversial in academic and political circles.
(less)

More about Karl Marx...

Books by Karl Marx

Capital, Vol. 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844/The Communist Manifesto

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About The Communist Man...

5 trivia questions

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The Communist Manifesto

“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!” — 74 people liked it

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” — 33 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: The Communist Manifesto
avg rating	preview: The Communist Manifesto Goodreads rating: 3.42 (30365 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30474.The_Communist_Manifesto?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1311645363l/30474.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30474.The_Communist_Manifesto?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx[/url]

The Communist Manifesto

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website