Philosophy

The Communist Manifesto: The Political Classic

The Communist Manifesto: The Political Classic

  • Downloads：5765
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-06-08 09:52:25
  • Update Date：2025-09-07
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Karl Marx
  • ISBN：0857088769
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

DISCOVER THE WORK THAT LAUNCHED REVOLUTIONS AROUND THE WORLD

Although it was published in 1848， The Communist Manifesto is as controversial and provocative as ever。 Its stirring and poetic language helped spread Marx and Engels' socialist message far and wide， unleashing a century of political revolution。

In an age of great inequality， the Manifesto's message of an exploited and suffering working class that must rise up and claim the means of production and wealth continues to resonate。 This deluxe edition features an insightful introduction from Tom Butler-Bowdon which explains how the text came to be written， and why it remains popular。

Download

Reviews

பிரதீப் குமார் ，

சிறப்பான புத்தகம்。 பொதுவுடமை என்பது என்ன என்பதை எளிமையாக சொல்கிறது， அதை அடையும் வழி சிறிது கேள்வியை எழுப்பினாலும் அதன் நோக்கம் சிறந்ததாக இருப்பது பாரடுதலுகுறியது。

Leon ，

better dead than bread

Anna ，

3。5

Tori ，

I love this book， its so authentic。 I love how Karl Marx challenged peoples views and beliefs about communism， and how he worked so hard for people to also see his point of view

Pooyan Nikkhooy ，

در قسمتایی از کتاب میشه کاملا جامعه ایران رو حس کرد。。。

Anonymous1261 ，

Alright writing but cringe ideas

Lorena ，

cheers to communism！

Stéphanie ，

Marx does more of an observation of society than he offers solutions。 He incite the proletariat to fight the bourgeoise and encourage them to do a revolution， while not giving out any clues as to how to do that。 He also don’t talk about any foundation for a communist society/government。 He doesn’t lay out rules to follow。 Overall it was really interesting to read and he made a lot of very good point， but I thought he was offering some kind of solutions。 Maybe he does in other works， which is why Marx does more of an observation of society than he offers solutions。 He incite the proletariat to fight the bourgeoise and encourage them to do a revolution， while not giving out any clues as to how to do that。 He also don’t talk about any foundation for a communist society/government。 He doesn’t lay out rules to follow。 Overall it was really interesting to read and he made a lot of very good point， but I thought he was offering some kind of solutions。 Maybe he does in other works， which is why I’m not done with him。 。。。more

Shane Van ，

Vo

jordyn ，

9 to 5 by dolly parton got the same point across but in a much more enjoyable way

ella grace ，

I read this mainly because I've been trying to learn about political theory， so in that sense at least this was a success。 Though I agree with many Marxist theories， this was a very dense read that I had trouble staying engaged with。In short， a slow read， but one that's worth it。 I read this mainly because I've been trying to learn about political theory， so in that sense at least this was a success。 Though I agree with many Marxist theories， this was a very dense read that I had trouble staying engaged with。In short， a slow read， but one that's worth it。 。。。more

kenne worm ，

Liked it alot， agreed with alot of Marx’s ideologies， however some of them are unattainable in the current state of the world。 “From each according to his swag， to each according to his drip。” - Marx <3

Axel ，

read this for class， and wow marx and engels have some banger lines

Sasicha Sanguansub ，

อ่านของชมรมหนังสืออุดมทัศน์ ภาษาอ่านยากอ่ะ สงสัย version นี้จะเก่าเกินไป อ่านแล้วงง เนื้อหาดี แต่งง🥴

Bryce Axelrad ，

Marx believed that via revolutions that the societal hierarchies need to be completely dismantled to the ground。 Speaking of ground he was also against private ownership of property。 He was the originator of the concept of equality of outcome （which hopefully all people know today is a disastrously bad model compared to equality of opportunity）。 One thing Marx and all others alike him fail to consider is that the hierarchies in society are biologically driven and not merely social constructions。 Marx believed that via revolutions that the societal hierarchies need to be completely dismantled to the ground。 Speaking of ground he was also against private ownership of property。 He was the originator of the concept of equality of outcome （which hopefully all people know today is a disastrously bad model compared to equality of opportunity）。 One thing Marx and all others alike him fail to consider is that the hierarchies in society are biologically driven and not merely social constructions。 Clearly， all you have to do to find true anarchy in society is go back far enough in history。 In any group of people， historically， people have always found ways of corrupting their fellow peers， gained power， and what was once an "equal" society became ruled by a tyrannical monster as a dictatorship。 For modern examples look to Marx's students Lenin， Mao， etc etc。 These ideas are not intelligent and they are all pathetically short sighted。 When reading Marx it is clear he is writing in angst。 This book is a summation of these belligerent writings as if a person wanted to right all his wrongs in a pseudo-moralistic rant which convinces others to think he is a good person。 In truth， Marx was wholly wrong due to being driven by a deep hatred of the hierarchy system。 The hierarchies are what give order to society and need to be evolved from the inside not torn down completely and forced to not rebuild。 Just think of the complete contradiction in that。 We will all be equal。。。。 except I alone decide what "equal" is， and I alone choose who is in charge of enforcing this "equalness"。 It is beyond pathetic that in today's age these concepts still appeal to so many even after we have seen clearly their outcome。 。。。more

nat ，

What a wonderful way to begin my Marxist indoctrination。

إسلام صلاح الدين ，

One of the rare cases where reading the original text is far easier and clearer than reading its interpretations。

Jerrie ，

Once a year， I read an important book that I've never gotten around to reading before。 This one was interesting。 The first few pages sound like the argument against consumption that environmentalists use。 There was feminist stuff。 The private property thing sounds a lot like life in any monastic order but， of course， religion is blamed for much of mankind's woes， with cause。 Bottom line:I was pleasantly surprised and had to keep reminding myself that this was written in the mid-1800s。 Parts of i Once a year， I read an important book that I've never gotten around to reading before。 This one was interesting。 The first few pages sound like the argument against consumption that environmentalists use。 There was feminist stuff。 The private property thing sounds a lot like life in any monastic order but， of course， religion is blamed for much of mankind's woes， with cause。 Bottom line:I was pleasantly surprised and had to keep reminding myself that this was written in the mid-1800s。 Parts of it are very current。 In other words， we haven't solved the problems that Marx outlines。 Sigh。 。。。more

Book_Pie ，

This turned me into a Communist。 I’m kidding！ Well… sort of。 I think it has been well established that Communism at its purest isn’t bad; it just rarely gets a good… execution。 Communism is about giving power to the people。 It may shock many Republicans to learn that it isn’t that different from a democracy。 The first half of The Communist Manifesto is basically just debunking every argument against it， but I suppose that is what a manifesto is， isn’t it？ Most of the arguments against Communism This turned me into a Communist。 I’m kidding！ Well… sort of。 I think it has been well established that Communism at its purest isn’t bad; it just rarely gets a good… execution。 Communism is about giving power to the people。 It may shock many Republicans to learn that it isn’t that different from a democracy。 The first half of The Communist Manifesto is basically just debunking every argument against it， but I suppose that is what a manifesto is， isn’t it？ Most of the arguments against Communism in the 1840s are the same as today， if you can believe it。 I found The Communist Manifesto to be super interesting。 It was written for the people and society of the mid-1800s。 However， there was barely any of it that wasn’t completely applicable to today’s world。 I’m not trying to say that there are no problems with the beliefs of the manifesto。 There are so many branches of Communism， so many different types - types that are radical， types that are less so， more slow moving。 This is going to sound stupid， but I am not kidding when I say any person who isn’t a rich asshole can find a form of Communism that works for them。 I am aware that it is a type of government and not a restaurant menu item， but still。 This is a required read for anyone interested in politics and definitely for people interested in history and how warped a belief can become when put into the wrong hands。Warnings: mention of violence 。。。more

Ean Carr ，

For me to read this book without knowing much of the context outside of how it influence the world， I don’t see it as all that impressive of a book。 It’s reads more like a pamphlet than a book。 If you aren’t familiar with proletariat or bourgeois， you will be by the time you end this book。 It mainly expounds upon the antagonism between the proletariat （bosses） and the bourgeois （workers）。 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels don’t impress me all that much。 Marx offers his solutions to the problems he For me to read this book without knowing much of the context outside of how it influence the world， I don’t see it as all that impressive of a book。 It’s reads more like a pamphlet than a book。 If you aren’t familiar with proletariat or bourgeois， you will be by the time you end this book。 It mainly expounds upon the antagonism between the proletariat （bosses） and the bourgeois （workers）。 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels don’t impress me all that much。 Marx offers his solutions to the problems he sees。 This is certainly not an economics research book， like Capital in the 21st Century。 Though， this is a historic book and is worth reading。One star because all books I read get at least one star。 Another star because it’s historically significant。 。。。more

Ben McLean ，

Eh， regardless of how you feel about the actual solutions proposed， it's undeniable that Marx is one of the most influential figures of modern history。 It's worth a read for no other reason than that。 I'm also of the opinion that the vast majority of critiques he makes of the capitalist structure is well founded， just not sure his answer was right。 Eh， regardless of how you feel about the actual solutions proposed， it's undeniable that Marx is one of the most influential figures of modern history。 It's worth a read for no other reason than that。 I'm also of the opinion that the vast majority of critiques he makes of the capitalist structure is well founded， just not sure his answer was right。 。。。more

Adell ，

de recitit

Anh Nguyen ，

interesting ideas

Alan D'Souza ，

The Communist Manifesto as the name itself describes it， is a polemical and emotionally charged pamphlet that often borders on being a screed。 To call this a book would be to exaggerate the contents and to call it a critical analysis would be stretching bounds of credulity。 I believe Marx carefully analyzed capitalism in his other books （which I am yet to read）。 However， from this short booklet as well as through sheer cultural osmosis from the influence of this historically significant work of The Communist Manifesto as the name itself describes it， is a polemical and emotionally charged pamphlet that often borders on being a screed。 To call this a book would be to exaggerate the contents and to call it a critical analysis would be stretching bounds of credulity。 I believe Marx carefully analyzed capitalism in his other books （which I am yet to read）。 However， from this short booklet as well as through sheer cultural osmosis from the influence of this historically significant work of literature， I feel like I am in a position to express some thoughts on this manifesto。I found the first section much more interesting than the actual manifesto bit。 I'm not sure if Marx and Engels were the first to distill their criticisms of post colonial industrialism through the lens of labor movements or if their works were the first to become influential。 Either way， I found the first section of the manifesto to be infinitely more interesting as a philosophical outlook than the second one， which was basically a political pamphlet for communism whose policy prescriptions are rather outdated， questionable and spurious （my humble opinion）。In the first section， Marx analyzes the power structures of modern western society through the lens of class structures。 He describes how a feudal hierarchy based on land once existed and determined who had power over whom。 The Industrial revolution， and the colonial discovery of essentially a resource rich continent （The Americas） led to such massive change in the social dynamics of Europe that the various feudal class structures morphed on the basis of capital into the bourgeois （capital wielding class） and proletariat （those who wield labor）。 His crucial thesis is based on the observation that those who wield capital， are fewer in number than those who offer their labor as services， and that this created a disproportionate power dynamic between the two class groups as power was now quantified through the means of said capital。 He （or I guess pro labor movements in general） sought to balance that power dynamic by uniting the large number of this so named proletarian class group and weaponize the essentiality of their labor （which was and often still is an essential requirement for industrial apparatuses to function） to equalize the power dynamic。 So far， I am with him。 I think here on forth， Marx and Engels both lose me - both because the situations they are extrapolating from are no longer valid for modern economies and also because the authors seem to suffer from a form of tunnel vision。Communism and Capitalism are often pitted as opposite economic systems。 In reality neither is an economic system， both are political ideologies。 There is a binary conflict between the two ideologies about the other being an existential threat。 My personal belief is that both systems can exist as stable polities （bereft external interference） and that both have problems that essentially are left to compromise for in exchange for certain benefits。Marx and Engels both fall for this binary dichotomy。 Marx explicitly states that he wants to eradicate the notion of capital itself and that this will lead to the shattering of the current power imbalance between the two major classes。 I think this is where my first major and perhaps debilitating disagreement with Marx and the entire Marxist project comes from。 Marx essentially describes the existence of mutually disentangled class interests as an existential threat to either of the classes - as one inherently oppressing the other。 I see it as two class groups with different interests bargaining to achieve a stable equilibrium so that society can function。 Marx's solution is the eradication of one class to serve the interests of the other， to reverse the oppression of the classes。 A "conceptual" eradication。 His reasoning for this is that only through homogenizing of human society along class lines will true equality be obtained and oppression eradicated。 However， this requires serious substantiation of one implicit assumption hidden。 Power dynamics of society doesn't last along class lines alone。 If （big if really） power structures along class lines were eradicated - how does a state ensure another dimension of power arbitrage doesn't take it's place？ While a capitalist economy encourages a dynamic market and allows the naturally derived equilibrium to determine who holds the levers of power （through the accumulation of capital）; a communist command economy as envisioned in the manifesto would create a power structure based on access to political power instead。 Anarchists might suggest the abolishment of the state itself as a solution， however， that has its own pitfalls。 Things like global warming and the pandemic suggest the need of states or large administrative organizations that can accumulate political power to supplement nation wide or planet wide decisions。 States also can hold back majoritarian impulses that a truly anarchist society would be vulnerable to and also protect minorities through the implementation of laws。 Another criticism I have of this book is the complete lack of analysis of what Capital and property really are。 I presume Marx has delved into detail about the two concepts from the lens of labor exploitation in Das Kapital。 To my knowledge Marx or Marxism has rarely touched upon the fact that capital is basically a quantification of labor through time （from the lens of labor）。 Without capital， a prole's labor can only be put to use at the moment of of action。 Capital transfers the benefits of labor across time - the prole benefits from capital by being able to work when he is and obtain the benefits at a time and place more suitable to him from those labors （For example a miner works underground but uses the fruits of that labor in the city above ground - something impossible without capital or an equivalent place holder like administrative clerks noting down the contribution （which is essentially a shift from monetary power to bureaucratic power）。Marx also makes the insinuation that the so called Bourgeoisie or capital owning class does not do any labor。 Which is incorrect。 They may not perform physical labor， but they are performing labor of some kind and this is the organization of the capital （aka the labor across time and space） in the most optimized manner to generate the most value out of that labor。 A person can pick up a heavy stone and put it down repeatedly for an hour and have done the same amount of manual labor as a miner picking at coal in a cave。 However， one is infinitely more productive to human society than the other （since the other's productivity is essentially zero）。 The intellectual effort required to optimize the productivity of labor is also a form of labor （and this goes all the way up a management chain of an organization）。The other aspect of capital or at least capital owners that Marx doesn't go deep into （and that a lot of Marxists tend to dismiss） is the risk taken by the capital owner when they employ the capital into a venture。 （All this is in the intellectual vacuum where cronyism and other factors don't come into play - but when Marx criticizes Capitalism he tends to do it in a vacuum as well， without giving Social democracies their due）。Nonetheless， this is a provocative， if someone agitating piece of classic literature that is must reading， if only for its cultural and historical significance。 I must also point out that Marxism is far evolved beyond Marx's polemic works and it would be spurious to dismiss the entire academic field based on disagreements over the contents of this manifesto。 The book does seem to have an inflated place in the Marxist pantheon though， like the Bible， though its contents are fairly underwhelming for the influence that the ideology wields around the world。 。。。more

Tom Marciniak ，

It's a pamphlet and a sophomore production of Marx， before the Paris Commune of 1871。 Parts I and II are most of the Marxist principles while the rest is mostly 19th century political tactics and demands。 Even if you divest from Marx on principles， you can't deny the prose is powerful and actionable。 It's a pamphlet and a sophomore production of Marx， before the Paris Commune of 1871。 Parts I and II are most of the Marxist principles while the rest is mostly 19th century political tactics and demands。 Even if you divest from Marx on principles， you can't deny the prose is powerful and actionable。 。。。more

Aiden Benton ，

It takes a short time to read， and is a great reference。

Hannah ，

3。75/5

Mikal Svendsen ，

I thought it was a very interesting read。 I did not know anything about it beforehand other than propaganda。 The way I interpret this manifesto， Karl Marx is still on point to this day。

Ignatius Quilabrán ，

Es notable la universalidad que aún hoy es capaz de alcanzar este texto。

Sofia ，

serve ao seu propósito

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The Communist Manifesto: The Political Classic

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The Communist Manifesto: The Political Classic&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The Communist Manifesto: The Political Classic&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0