The Communist Manifesto

By Karl Marx

One of the world's most influential political manuscripts. Commissioned by the Communist League and written by communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 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.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Start Classics
• Release date: Dec 1, 2013
• ISBN: 9781627938792

Karl Marx

Karl Marx, a German philosopher, economist and political theorist, was born in Trier, Germany in 1818. His works, including The Communist Manifesto (co-authored with Friedrich Engels) and Das Kapital, laid the foundations for the modern communist movement.

Book preview

MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

[From the English edition of 1888, edited by Friedrich Engels]

A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact.

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

I. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS

The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms: Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The

Reviews for The Communist Manifesto

[darthdeverell · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The MacMillan Collector’s Library edition of Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto includes the 1888 Samuel Moore translation of “The Communist Manifesto,” “Wages, Price, and Profit” from 1898, and Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling’s 1887 translation of “Capital.” Hugh Griffith’s introduction offers biographical information about Marx and puts his work into its historical context, particularly after the apparent “victory” of capitalism over communism at the end of the Cold War, with Griffith arguing that, contrary to popular opinion, Marx remains as prescient as ever in light of the economics of post-industrial society. This edition reprints all three texts in their entirety and fully articulates Marx’s ideas of class and wage warfare. These remain must-reads for all students of history or economics today. Ironically, this edition makes a nice gift with its portable size, gilt edges, and classic dust jacket art.

[markhopp · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The Communist Manifesto presents a useful way to look at conflict: class struggle. It's easy to see why this book continues to inspire. As relevant now as in the 1800's.

[rostie2020 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Marx, right?

[rostie-672070 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Marx, right?

[kburne1 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

interesting as a historical document.

Excessively flawed philosophy and outlook.

[jonfaith · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It 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 one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

What can or should be said? This screed appears both pivotal and yet fantastic. How should we proceed and parse? I found it strange that I had never read this pamphlet. It goes with out saying that I had absorbed all of its aims previously by osmosis and secondary references. I marveled at its poetry and shuddered at the displayed certainty. Such ruminations on historical inevitability are simply chiliasm.

No one could fathom in the 19th Century how pernicious and gripping nationalism would prove nor, the ghostly strains of Islam, especially in Central Asia. The fact that capitalism could turn matter into liquid should've tipped off Karl and Fred about the nature of their foe. We have proved to be whores. We are also driven by baubles and thrive on peer recognition. Self Criticism was always going to be a hard sell. Marx and Engels announced their agenda in this manifesto. It was calmly stated that private property would be abolished. Collectivization flashed across my mind but appearing just as suddenly was the bloody strikebreaking in South Africa in 2012. Do you have a world to gain, Jacob Zuma? Oh those imps of our natures.

[madepercy-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

How does one rate a classic? If one could only change the world in 30 pages or so! What always strikes me is that, much like Dr John Hewson's Fightback! policy from the early 1990s, most of the pamphlet has been implemented already (sans the revolution, and admittedly Hewson's work was considerably longer at 650 pages!). Nevertheless, of the ten "measures" (p. 20), Australia has, over time, implemented many of the plans through what, in some ways, still displays remnants of social democracy. However, as with Fightback!, and while many like to think it was all nonsense, much of it has been done or is still in the doing. Whether the great Internationale will die with the contemporary return to nationalism is a moot point when one considers the exponential increase in growth and power of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" (not to mention India, which is quite another story). But this probably won't concern me, at least in this life.

[brakketh-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Compelling propaganda pamphlet, much shorter than I thought.

[jane3phillips-2 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Marx's criticism of capitalism is still relevant today and so his work is a must-read for those interested in economics, philosophy, politics and society in general. Makes you think... This was very easy to listen to as an audiobook and short and concise.

[jmkemp-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I read this when studying political economy at the University of Glasgow. It's a very interesting read and ought to be read by everyone. Communism is one of the world's common ideologies, so whether you agree with it or not you ought ot understand what it is all about.

[sasham-1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Reading this with the benefit of hindsight it is easy to see the many flaws in the communist theory. On the other hand I can see how so many could have been persuaded that it was a good idea in the 19th & early 20th centuries - if you were working all your life and getting nowhere, with no hope of an improvement of life for yourself or your children the communist ideals would have sounded attractive.

[willszal-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

A classic. Kind of an obligation to read this sort of material.

I’ve been hearing about “The Communist Manifesto" since middle school, so I finally decided to pick up a copy [on iBooks - it’s in open domain] and checked it out.

It’s a short piece [52 pages], divided into four sections.

The first section was awesome. It’s about the relationship between the working and the ruling class, and why it is as it is. It talks about such things as the dissolution of social capital into financial capital [such as in the destruction of the family for industrial means] [p7]. It talks about the fragility of the industrial economy [p8], the profit/debt cycles that drive that economy forward [p9], and globalization [p9]. It even talks about how financial capital has become a form of artificial intelligence [p12]. The inverse relationship between the repulsiveness of a job and its pay is also investigated [p13]. It talks about the homogenization of culture [p18], and the 99% [p18]. In short, it’s brilliant.

After that though, the piece goes down hill. The second section outlines communism, which doesn’t seem to address any of the problems outlined in the first section, except for property [p26]. Instead, it looks into centralization, something I’m not a fan of. And then the third section didn’t really make sense to me, because it heavily referenced current [mid 1800s] political conditions. The fourth section is simply a final call to action.

I’m not exactly sure why Marx understood the situation so well [his analysis is still dead on today], yet couldn’t approach meaningful application. I’d still recommend giving his work a read though.

[clancy.coonradt · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

One reason why this book has stood the test of time and become a major talking point for a host of instructional formats is that it is written in an easily understood and comprehensive manner. I does not deviate from its intent in an attempt to justify its claims, but rather keeps to the point and finishes concisely.

[bdtrump · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Read this years ago in high school, and decided to take another look as a graduate student. As one of Marx's major works, he articulates a desire for a shift away from corporatism, familial inheritance, and other trappings of a burgeoning bourgeois society. However, he doesn't offer much of a solution or ideas to reach these ends - much to the chagrin of those who followed his ideals.

It's also easy to not understand the position from which Marx writes this - his time period was one of revolution and appalling standards of living among most of Europe.

If this was a ranking of the work's importance, it would rank 5/5. However, given the limitations of explanation on how to carry out his goals, 3/5.

Even if you disagree with many of the ideas presented here (as I clearly do), it is worth reading at least once.

[gvenezia-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I've been so accustomed to Marx being demonized that I was surprised to hear his rational, warranted concern for the working class in society. His intent seems pure. That being said, I still disagree with his ideas on communism. Marx is right that the working class of his time (what we might now see in developing countries) needed proper representation but his solution is misguided. He also justifiably decries the income gap, but again his solution is misguided. This solution is an "overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy" and the "abolition of bourgeois property" (13). The result seems ideal, the working class now have representation and there is no longer an income gap. I might have been swayed at this point if I did not have history on my side. Communism has never been fully realized, and all of its offshoots were failures. This is because man is at heart acquisitive and self-centered. Where there might have been communism, leaders and administrations formed, as seen in Eastern Europe and Russia. Even in these pseudo-communist systems, black markets formed and were the most effective means of acquiring goods and services.

So while the conditions of developing nations may seem despicable, history has shown us that upholding private property and free markets as the goal has led to great advances in wealth and technology. While the impoverished still exist in America, Japan, England, and Australia, that number is extremely low in comparison to developing nations. Obviously we can see that the progression of private property and free markets leads to goods. Communism is an enticing idea—I actually wish it could work—but our nature does not allow it, history shows us this flaw in our character. With this evidence we should now be working to exploit this flaw for the betterment of society, not using the betterment of society as an incentive to work against mankind's character.

[danielalgara · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

What a load of malarky. Merely a treatise on mediocrity and a manual on how a minority might rule the majority. I would love to dismantle this nonsense here, but I'm not sure anybody is going to read this, so I'll spare my metacarpals.
The education rant, however, sounds oddly familiar. It sounds like the US dept. of education cut and pasted this section right into their own manifesto on how to educate American children.

Silly commies, freedom's for capitalists.

Rant:

Why does everyone keep repeating "capitalists-imperialist." GOVERNMENTS create empires. Government IS empirical in nature which is what's advocated by Marx-Engels. Capitalist and imperialist are conflicting terms since governments create monopolies, a free market is politically and socially blind.

Sorry Marxists, history supports these assertions.

[stige_3 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

It will never catch on :)

Revolutionary ideas wrapped in tortured prose

[hemlokgang · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I found this book among a stack my daughter no longer wanted and since I had never read it, I decided to see what all the fuss has been about. I was surprised that it was written in 1848. I thought it was a 1900s document. I found it to be fascinating. The fact that Marx really saw the discovery of America and the Industrial Revolution as the beginning of the problem was something I had not known. I was also impressed at Marx's foresight in terms of the process of capitalism. Frankly, I agree with much of his interpretation of the problems of capitalism and rampant materialism, which has continued to progress as he predicted. The problem for me is that his solution does not seem viable to me. I am no great philosopher or economist, but my sense is that there will always be leaders, and as the world population grows there will just be more of them. I may just be cynical, but I think that putting any group in power, even the righteous proletariat, will eventually lead to greed and power struggle. Glad to have read this.

[robert.zimmermann · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This was an interesting read. It's not something I would normally pick up but I felt like it's something everyone should read because of it's historical significance. It didn't make me want to become communist, but there are some points that I felt that I could logically support. I would definitely need to reread this a few more times to get an educated opinion on what is being said.

[glennbell_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

This is a short essay by Karl Marx. His ideas seem to be in response to dislike for Western capitalism. His ideas are radical and do not appear to be practical as evidenced by history. Reality and theory do not match. Interesting from a historical standpoint.

[a1abwriter · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Just finished the communist manifesto. In an ideal world communism and democracy would combine to create a form of government where the individual is represented and respected while the state takes away the burned of merely existing like men of ole. Working only to provide: food, water, shelter, clothing, and transportation. Leaving man to focus on the development of self AND state. I know the only way a society like that could ever be is with the total annihilation of capitalism (not democracy) and the social enlightenment that self-worth derived from competition is false and that self worth starts internally and THEN extends out, no costume or mask that one adorns can ever really give value because material does not last as long as self and value in material things fade soon as the "thing" fades.

[gbill_7 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A thought provoking and landmark book. The Manifesto was a reaction against the industrial revolution and untethered capitalism, which resulted in extraordinarily unfair labor practices and a heavy skew between those few at the top of the economic pyramid, and those at the bottom who were shouldering the load. Perhaps that was always true throughout history, but post-Enlightenment, and in the 19th century in particular, leading thinkers and artists said, “enough.” Marx and Engels just took it a step further than others, by stating that all private property needed to be abolished and made collective.

How could they have taken such an extreme position? As Pozner says in the introduction: “Few people today have even the remotest idea of the horrors of mid-nineteenth-century labor. … Marx was sickened by what he saw, as were many others, among them Charles Dickens. But differing from everyone else, Marx set out to discover whether there was any rhyme or reason for this situation, any basic underlying motive for this state of affairs, anything resembling a law. … Where Marx differed from Thomas Jefferson and most other thinkers was in his certainty that a decent livelihood (the pursuit of happiness) was not possible without two basic elements: political equality and economic equality. … He may have been an idealist in believing that once the conditions of human existence were changed, once private ownership of property was abolished, once exploitation disappeared, people would change as well. He believed that in a society where there were no have-nots, where one’s livelihood did not depend on struggling to make money, where instead of competing against one another people worked together…”

In his list of ten measures to be taken by all nations, there are some that I agree with unequivocally and which you may take for granted today (progressive income tax, free education for all children in public schools), some that are arguable (abolition of inheritance, equal liability to all in labor), and some that I disagree with (abolition of private property, centralization of production by the State).

As Capitalism was extreme in 1848, so was Marx and Engel’s counter. They swung the pendulum too far the other way, and were too idealistic in doing so. Furthermore, they could not have foreseen what perverted forms their theories were to take in practice in the following century, where private ownership was replaced by state ownership, not public, and individual liberties were crushed by totalitarianism.

It was dangerous in its time to declare “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!.”, and it was dangerous more than a century later. Being branded a communist during the Cold War in America led to loss of work, black balling and exportation; the communists were “the enemy”, without much thought outside of intelligentsia as to what communism actually stood for. Read it for that.

Quotes:
“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.”

“Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.”

[ertreada · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I reread this book or more appropriately this pamphlet as a part of my observation of a high school World History class. I had read it many years before but found it interesting and deeper meaning looking back at it. Say what you will about communism and Marx but like it or not they are both a part of our world. The students seemed to find it confusing due to its older style of writing of the turn of the century. As we discussed what some of the more confusing paragraphs were about the students became more engaged and enjoyed this primary source. As a teacher this is a great way to introduce the rise of communism post WWII.

[antiquary_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Important as a source and vividly written, though I do not agree with all of it.

[scartertn · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I needed something to balance out "The Law" by Bastiat. Interesting reading.

[ts5_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The Manifesto itself, is a profound and masterful work.

What undoes this book, however, is the pitiful introduction by A.J.P Taylor. This introduction, unlike Marx's work, is an unimportant quibble of its time (1967). He rails on and on for 47 pages (longer than the manifesto itself!) about how 2 buddies from Germany managed to fool millions of people into believing their crazy deluded message, and how these two lads, working completely and always alone, utterly misunderstood history and economics and sociology down to the core. The work itself is a classic simply because millions of people have been deluded into worshipping it, but the men themselves were self-obsessed and narcissistic and thought themselves gods among men, when in fact they were poor economists, and even poorer historians.

A.J.P. Taylor wrote this in 1967, and one cannot understand why on earth such an introduction could be commissioned or approved to accompany the Manifesto. I can only imagine what the public opinion of communism must have been like at the time - fear and loathing of the USSR alongside complete and total faith in capitalism. In an amusing passage, Taylor takes a break from criticizing Marx to "disprove" his critique of capitalism in the light of modern history, arguing that capitalism has proven itself after the little hiccup of the '30s. Well, it's 2011, and today economists like Nouriel Roubini are questioning capitalism altogether and the world is mired in collective contemplation on how to save the world economy. It seems that despite all of Taylor's fluff, Marx and Engels turned out to be far more timeless thinkers than he was.

Read the Manifesto, just don't read this version. It is nothing more than publishers wanting to make more pennies by pawning Marx's writings off with fluff-filler as an addendum.

[vibrantminds · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Despite its intended purpose, the manifesto in practice is an utter disaster. The idea of a utopian society where all the classes are equal and all rights are shared unanimously, in writing sounds fine, but in reality given the conduct of human nature, it is a calamity waiting to happen. The critique given of capitalism reaches all aspects of society. The basis being that the exploitation of labor from the lower class workers will cause an uprising against the middle and upper class that tend to control all the assets and wealth. The difficulty with what became of this document isn’t necessarily the ideas that were stated, it is how gluttonous leaders interpreted it and took advantage of the less privileged disregarding what was ultimately intended.

[mccarthys_1 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

The rantings of a man who's ideology would work only in the smallest of settings, or perhaps in a utopia. Attempts at implementing the policies laid out in this work have killed millions outright and millions more from starvation and poverty.

Reading this is a matter of knowing your enemy.

[beequiet · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Marx, it's nice, like victoria sponge, but I prefer gateau, such as Foucault and Adorno and Horkheimer. They further advance the ideas started by marx (like gateau advances the idea of cake). Marx is naive (here ends cake metaphor), but then he was relying on historical context...ah the benefit of hindsight...
Really, if you like Marx, read The Culture Industry, in Dialectic of Enlightenment, by Horkheimer and Adorno (of the Frankfurt School).

[amandacb_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I took a graduate-level literary theory class and picked socialism as my topic of choice over which to complete a semester-long project and presentation. Boy, am I ever glad I did.

I remember in high school I had heard so much negativity about communism and socialism; I cracked open my textbook to the glossary to find the actual definitions, and was left only with vague impressions and more questions.

Finally, I had some answers. This is a volume that I think everyone should read before they spout off misinformed ideas and opinions over communism and socialism. So many base their opinions off of fundamentalists--after all, we don't judge all Christians on the slight margin of fundamentalist Christians, don't we? (Well, we shouldn't.) And so on. Many have taken Marx's ideas and twisted and distorted them to their own agendas. This has led people to mistrust and dislike communism and socialism upon just hearing the words.

However, if you read Marx's ideas, they are fundamentally logical and sound. Maybe not exactly plausible, but definitely something worth thinking about.