The Communist Manifesto

By Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Andrew Austin

Packaged in handsome, affordable trade editions, Clydesdale Classics is a new series of essential works. From the musings of intellectuals such as Thomas Paine in Common Sense to the striking personal narrative of Harriet Jacobs in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, this new series is a comprehensive collection of our intellectual history through the words of the exceptional few.

Originally published as a political pamphlet in 1848, amidst the revolutions in Europe, The Communist Manifesto documents Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’s theories on society and politics. It does so by defining the state of the class system in contemporary Europe—in which a larger, lower class is controlled and oppressed by a tyrannical, oppressive upper class. The Manifesto argues that, at some point in history, the lower class will inevitably realize their potential and exploitation and subsequently revolt. Once this occurs, Marx and Engels argue, there will be an uprising among proletariats that shifts political and economic power, ultimately resulting in the dismantling of class systems and capitalism. Additionally, in the Manifesto, Marx and Engels also predict the future state of the global economy and discuss their viewpoints on private property, while also addressing many other topics pertinent to today’s world.

Although written nearly 170 years ago, The Communist Manifesto is still widely read and cited. Amid the current turmoil between social classes and the societies of the world, its revolutionary prose and ideas can still yield ripe food for thought.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Clydesdale
• Release date: Jan 2, 2018
• ISBN: 9781945186295

Karl Marx

Described as one of the most influential figures in human history, Karl Marx was a German philosopher and economist who wrote extensively on the benefits of socialism and the flaws of free-market capitalism. His most notable works, Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto (the latter of which was co-authored by his collaborator Friedrich Engels), have since become two of history’s most important political and economic works. Marxism—the term that has come to define the philosophical school of thought encompassing Marx’s ideas about society, politics and economics—was the foundation for the socialist movements of the twentieth century, including Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism. Despite the negative reputation associated with some of these movements and with Communism in general, Marx’s view of a classless socialist society was a utopian one which did not include the possibility of dictatorship. Greatly influenced by the philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, Marx wrote in radical newspapers from his young adulthood, and can also be credited with founding the philosophy of dialectical materialism. Marx died in London in 1883 at the age of 64.

Book preview

Reviews for The Communist Manifesto

[allovertheboard · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

If you are an advocate for mass poverty, mass curtailment of all civil rights, destruction of the environment, genocide and ethnic cleansing, the destruction of religious institutions, mass alcoholism, depression and checmical dependency, and complete technological stagantion, then this is the book for you. On the other hand, you are very likely to inadvertently create an underground artistic-protest movement. I say communism has only killed 100 million people, let's give it another chance! Look how many "useful idiots" are recommending this book on this page alone.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[kawgirl · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

No matter what one's political point of view is, this is a must read for those who wish to be informed.

[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).

[heidilove_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is an amazing work. You don't have to agree with it or follow it to glean the beauty and precision of it.

[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.

[meditationesmartini · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The original and still the best. Fuck Capital; my Marxism is about people. And feelings, and I challenge you to find a more inspirational, quotable piece of reductive ideological propaganda anywhere, including the Bible. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! Yeah?
This version comes with a bunch of prefaces to later editions, mostly by Engels, and as well as geenrally interesting also kind of a laff riot. "Polish independence! Italian Renaissance! I know one thing about each of your countries!" Good times.

[scartertn · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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

[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.

[sharrison_99 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A book famous for many reasons, the most obvious being its simple political impact. This book by Karl Marx, has affected the lives of millions of people in the world, and its impact is monumental. Now you have most likely heard of this book, but if you further wish to understand the thing that is Communism, and revolution which brings upon it, I strongly recommend you read this book. This book is not an easy read per say, and could most likely be summarized in about a page, but it is still a great book to skim through to further educate oneself on politics.

[chellinsky · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Do not go looking here for a lengthy explanation about why Marx believes what he does. Rather, read the Manifesto to learn how he sold his ideas. For what it was designed to do, this book is excellent. For actually understanding Marx, the Manifesto is lacking. A closer look at some of his other works is required.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[rebelwriter85 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is my favorite book. Everyone should be required to read it in school.

[terpsichoreus · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

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.

[antiquary_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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

[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.

[robertday_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

What to make of this slim volume that everyone has heard of but few have read? (And even fewer have read properly.) First, it's essential to dump your preconceptions, and forget world history since 1917. Marx (with the support of Engels) was describing the economic world as he saw it, based on his studies of history and economy; and then he looked forward to what he saw as the inevitable outcome of that system. Though his analysis was ultimately flawed because history turned out differently, his analysis remains incontrovertible. Even though our world and our working lives are totally changed from that of 1848, it remains true that those who do not have independent means have to sell the only thing at their disposal, that is their labour. That is true whether those people (call them workers, call them the proletariat, the names are unimportant) sell the labour of their muscles, their hands and eyes, or their brains. And if those people cannot alleviate the conditions under which they have to sell that labour, if they cannot get a fair deal or a fair price for that labour, then they will eventually revolt. When Marx wrote the Manifesto, that revolution had to take place in a physical way because the bulk of workers did not have a franchise. Now, the 'revolt' takes the form of our voting a new Government into power every five years or so - though we are now seeing, in the early years of the 21st Century, that exercising a limited vote for political groupings that offer very similar things to each other - or worse still, only offer least worst options - is a route fraught with dangers.That those who brought about socialist revolution in the 20th Century took this book as their guide has closed many minds to it. Of course, if you are starting a revolution, you can point to things in this book and claim you are acting in accordance with Marxist thought. It is more honest to acknowledge your debt to those who have gone before and stand in the name of your own ideology (as indeed Marx did); but people don't do that, because it means that they might have to take responsibility for their actions. It is far easier to say 'I only did what it said in the Manifesto/the Bible/the Qur'an/Mein Kampf/(insert other sacred text of choice)". So this book and Karl Marx gets wrongly blamed for much that happened long after he died.Do not let that colour your reading of 'The Communist Manifesto'. Rather, read it, challenge its application to our times, use what seems appropriate and disregard what seems inappropriate. And yes, cry "Working men of all countries, unite!"

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

Compelling propaganda pamphlet, much shorter than I thought.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.