The Communist Manifesto

By Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles

“ The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Outlining the theory of communism by Marx and Engels, this political document explains the material conception of history and presents their theories and ideas of how in due course socialism would replace the capitalist society of the time. It discusses the relationship between the proletarians and the bourgeoisie, the Communists and the proletarians, and the Communists and other opposition parties. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is one of the most important political documents of the world. This monumental text continues to remain influential and widely read.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Fingerprint Publishing
• Release date: Mar 1, 2022
• ISBN: 9789358569674

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

[andjhostet-527429 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Finally got around to reading this and I can see why it's one of the most influential works of all time. It proposes a new economic system that the world had never seen before in mid 1800s. It explains a lot of class dynamics that's amazingly still relevant 170 years later, and it makes predictions that are incredibly interesting, and in a few places, amazingly accurate. Marx is also just a really good writer. I was very impressed with the quality of the writing and prose at times. He is also very good at breaking down concepts to the reader, and both over-explaining something, but also giving a blunt summary, ensuring that the reader takes away at least something, from each point he makes.

[jazz1987-395186 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I'm only giving this a four star rating because as a political science major I respect Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles' opinions but I'm also too much a believer in capitalism.

My edition (a Penguin Classic Deluxe Edition 2011) was good but I think the manifesto itself had too many big words (which seemed odd giving that it was for the lower classes) and it constantly repeated how the bourgeois = bad and the proletarians = good. There seemed to be no middle ground for the independent thinker. I think, Marx and Engles had too much anger towards the rich; this reflected off Lenin who, in part, influenced the assassination of the Romanov family (including the innocent children).

I don't believe Marx and/or Engles envisioned there communistic ideas as the anti-human rights nations of the modern world (i.e. China, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea) where "free" property can lead to mass starvation, countless international sanctions, and/or extremely moderated free speech.

[kburne1 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

interesting as a historical document.

Excessively flawed philosophy and outlook.

[bdgamer-669415 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

The Communist Manifesto makes a good case against communism. Enough said.

[paul_s-289480 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

How did this spark off the ruination and misery that spread across half the world? It's deranged.

[derekcaelin · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

glad to have read it.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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).

[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.

[ramirez_3 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

For many people through the years this book has been something similar to the Qur'an.It's a compelling and fascinating though short text, a look backward in time.

[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.

[redthing · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Being a book with tremendous political impact, how could I not read it? What I found was a collection of very interesting ideas. It would be nice if these ideas would work, but it would also be nice if I had my own space shuttle. They just wouldn't work. Anyways, the thirty page introduction is boring and drawn out. It detracts from my rating of the manifeso.