Rating: 
Summary: Adam
Review: Let's back up for a moment and recognize the universal truth that "knowledge is power". I don't for one second recognize Communism as a valid form of government. The ideology and naivete of the system, is far too flawed and way too poised for manipulation of the people it governs. That being said... this is my opinion. Anyone one with a respect for history and a thirst to understand the rights and wrongs of our society as well as our governing neighbors should read a copy of The Communist Manifesto. As wrong and misguided as I think Karl Marx and his colleagues theories for government and societal standards are, I cannot, with clear conscience say that he was not an intelligent man who did present his theory in a coherent manner. The only proper way to dispute these theories is to educate yourself to the theories directly. You cannot make clear judgements to defend the Constitutional Republic (that we are suppose to be living in) or the Democratic Society (that we currently live in) without understanding the systems and theory's that other governments have either succeeded or failed with. READ THIS MANIFESTO WITH YOUR MIND OPEN AS WELL AS YOUR EYES!!!!!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: An alternate economic & political system?
Review: Marx's "Communist Manifesto" is a response to human cost of Industrial Revolution. It was a time when Europe was coming of age, with the development of modern industry and the potential world market. This market had an immense development to commerce, to navigation and to industry. These improvements were enacted at a cost of society as a whole divided into two hostile camps -the bourgeoise and the proletariat. Marx immersed himself into the suffrage of the new urban proletariat at the hands of bourgeoise modern capitalist. His solution lay in the abolition of private property living in a society where all are equal.I found this document an interesting read, as this short concise book simply explains the "theory" of one economic system. It should be noted the democracy prevalent at the time of this books introduction closely resembled an oligarchy, in which the rich and powerful ruled the weak. The impact of socialist ideology on this situation was great: labor movements were created, egalitarianism became a greater part of democracy ideology and the lower classes became more significant to the political system than they had ever been before. The greatest weakness one can note of Marx's argument, is his failure to predict the significance of the middle class in the nations. Marx's view was that the middle class would either be absorbed into the working class or proprietors. The success of the middle class in present times accounts for the failure of Marx's theory.
Rating: 
Summary: Based upon the book not the idea....
Review: I feel a need to defend this book against people who attack it based upon the ideas presented in the book, rather than the merits of the book itself. I may not agree with every word written by Marx in this book, but I find it thought provoking, and consider this book a classic that every person should read. Further more this eddition, the 150th has an interesting foward to it also worth reading. This is a political classic which has stood the test of time, 150 years worth, and maybe the predictions have not all come true, and perhaps Marx was completly wrong, but the fact that this book has influenced so much of what actually happened in the past 150 years alone makes it worthy of reading. Those who trash the book because they do not like what is said in it should seriously have their head examined, as that is not the point. Im looking at you the_blue_minister, be ashamed
Rating:
Summary: An interesting political philosophy
Review: First off, I wouldn't consider this a blueprint for communism. This is a theory, it is a theory that states eventually capitalism will fall when the working class revolts and takes up production. It states that throughout history there has been class struggle between oppressed and oppressors. This book has nothing to do with killing people, massive slaughter, stalin's ideals, or anything of that sort. Its ignorant when people go on to accuse the thoery of communism as a murderous ideology. Unfortunetly for Marx, and true communists alike, communism has been pretty much killed by the marxist-leninists. They have branded communism as an evil ideology through their actions of the past. Every revolution that was supposed "communist" was in fact a betrayal of karl marx's ideas of communism. Leninists believe that a vanguard party should lead the ignorant masses to communism. They believe in establishing a "communist" state with the vanguard party as the ruling class. All this does is create a new class struggle; the struggle between the people and the party, which assumes the former oppressors who are the bourgeoisie or capitalist class. Bakunin called this the red bueracracy. All in all, I suggest this book to everyone. Not only is it a brilliant philosophy, but it is of great historical relevance.
Rating:
Summary: Contrary to popular belief, Communism DOES work
Review: Far too many misconceptions and urban myths about Marxism have been created and disseminated by people who lacked understanding of what Marxism is all about, or how Communism works. The Communist Manifesto is a good introduction to Marxist political theory and the first stepping stone in understanding Communism, but it is a very short read and leaves many questions unanswered. I strongly suggest you also buy other books by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. One of the most enduring myths about Communism is that it "doesn't work" because of some inherent failure in "human nature", most often greed. The endurance of this myth is living proof that "a lie told often enough becomes accepted truth".
In reality, Communism does NOT rely on people sharing their possessions out of the kindness of their hearts. It relies on people sharing their possessions because they know that they will all benefit from it. Communism does not go against "human nature" (if such a thing even exists - we certainly haven't found any greed gene in our DNA) and it does not try to fight against greed. Greedy people will know that they have more to gain by respecting the system of communal ownership than by tearing it apart. They are better off in communism than capitalism (just like the vast majority of all people). For my Russian friend, I strongly recommend Leon Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed". Many Russians never had a chance to read what Stalin's opponents within the Communist movement had to say about his repressive police state. I am from Eastern Europe myself, and I know very well that what we had before 1989 was far removed from Communism and Socialism. The Soviet Union was never communist, and it never even claimed to be - it claimed to be in the process of building communism. Unfortunately for them, you cannot build communism without democracy. Both Communism and Socialism are inherently democratic systems. The Soviet Union claimed to be socialist, but socialism means economic democracy (public control over the means of production). Did the people control the means of production in the USSR? Did the people control anything in the USSR? I think not. The USSR was as "communist" as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is "democratic". Stalin called himself a communist and a champion of democracy. He was neither. For Christians, I recommend a more thourough read of the Bible: "And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need."
- Acts 2:44-45 Jesus Christ was, in many ways, the world's first communist.
Rating: 
Summary: Mein Kampf for hippies
Review: Marx was a very persuasive mystic, with a tenous grasp on reality. The whole premise of Marxism rests on the fact that he alledged to have divined the future - with _no_ evidence backing him up, just the elegance of his theory. He was no better than a fortune-teller. What astonishes me is that saps are still buying what he is selling today. What is criminal (and due in no small amount to the above saps) is that his ideas are still crippling freedom across the world. I cannot contract my labor freely, because it is somehow "unfair" to me. I cannot buy affordable healthcare, because I'm judged incapable of making decisions for myself. My property can be taken at will, because it is "for the greater good". My property is confiscated (taxes) to pay for the schemes of Marx' followers - be it universal education, sponsoring poor families to have children, subsidizing farmers (why am I not being subsidized?), or keeping the unemployed unemployed through minimum wage laws. Theories must be judged by the result of their application, otherwise they are just hot air. The evidence we have is that any application af Marx' theories led to mass bloodshed and oppression on the one end of the scale, and impoverishment (materially and culturally) on the other end. What will it take to make the apostles realize their error?
Rating:
Summary: Flawed Manuscript That Continues to be Misinterpreted
Review: The Communist Manifesto is arguably one of the greatest pieces of literature ever to have been published. It contains several great ideas, but is extremely ambiguous in some areas as well as hopelessly idealistic. That being said, some of the documentation in this book still holds true today, such as the class system and the struggle linked with it. The idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has been interpreted in many ways, but here's a hint to all: "proletariat" refers to something in plural, and analysis of the language used seems to indicate that this "dictatorship" is nothing more than control by the proletariat over the factors of production, a state-controlled economy. If only everyone would read this book, they would come to the conclusion that true Communism has never been done; the regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro have relatively little in common with what is written by Marx and Engels. Of course, true Communism cannot be done in this day and age, but that does not totally discredit the ideas of Marx and Engels. All should read this book first and then make a judgement on Communism.
Rating:
Summary: A work of historic significance
Review: I remember reading the Communist Manifesto thirty years ago when I was at University. At the time it seemed tedious and impenetrable. Recently I re-read it and was amazed at how clear it seemed and what an effective piece of propaganda it was and how clear was the writing. Reading through the program one realises the distance that has been travelled since it was written. Some of the major planks are the Abolition of Child Labour, the creation of a progressive income tax and Free Education. Perhaps one of its major weaknesses is that Marx was a person who tended to carry a grudge. Thus a third of it is devoted to attacks on some of his contemporary enemies and rivals. These disputes have so long passed into history they are incomprehensible. The modern notion of Communism of course stems not from Marx but from Stalin and Lenin. Marx wrote at a time when the only democratic country in Europe was France. England, Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire all had limited franchises and Russia was of course an autocracy. One of the major reforms he battled for was the introduction of democracy. It was his belief that the implementation of his program would flow from that. Following Marx's death his movement evolved into a parliamentary movement the Social Democratic Party. Communism as a modern political phenomena dates from 1917 when splinter Social Democrats followed Russia's lead and developed small conspiratorial parties who were committed to the seizure of power by force. Stalinism is an offshoot of this system and is a form of state terror aimed at ensuring the survival of unpopular anti democratic regimes. Reading through the Manifesto one can see the basis of a system which was not only an effective for mobilising political movements, but came to influence intellectual debate for the next century. There is also perhaps a sense of a naive optimism which could not contemplate the sorts of disasters which were to occur over the next hundred years.
Rating:
Summary: "The Communist Manifesto in the rearview" by RexCurry.net
Review: "A spectre is haunting Europe," Karl Marx and Frederic Engels wrote in 1848, "the spectre of Communism." And what a deadly spectre it was. Has any book inspired the slaughter of as many people? Everyone needs to read as much of it as they can stand to understand why. It inspired WWII, the Holocaust, the Wholecaust, and every socialist cesspool on earth, including the socialist trio of atrocities: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 62 million people slaughtered; the People's Republic of China, 35 million; and the National Socialist German Workers' Party, 21 million, etc., etc., ad nauseum. (numbers from Professor R. J. Rummel's article in the Encyclopedia of Genocide (1999)). As the Journalist Rex Curry pointed out: Communists are nuclear bombs. Communism is nuclear war. This edition helps mourn the 150th anniversary of its publication. Marx and Engels's complete misunderstanding of socialism/communism and its deleterious effect on all aspects of life, from the increasing rift between its victims, to the destruction of the individuals and families, has proven remarkably deadly. Shortages, poverty, misery, rationing, starvation, atrocities, mass slaughter as never seen before or since. Their spectre, manifested in the Manifesto's turgid prose, continues to haunt the libertarian world, lingering as a ghostly apparition even after the collapse of those governments which followed its principles.
Rating:
Summary: Ideas have consequences: Marxism Kills Millions
Review: This book has had the most disasterous consequences in the world. Idealistic and naive, Marx and Engels wrote a book that has no basis in fact, history, empirical experience, and it has been repudiated entirely. Absolutely none of the material mentioned in question has turned out to be true, nor will it. When Marx wrote this book, it was during a time when the average standard of living was far lower than it is now. Few could imagine that today, in 2004, the average person would be overweight (a national epidemic, not poverty or hunger!), and that poor people are even able to find enough cash for luxories such as DSL, microwaves, a car, and an apartment with air conditioning. The poor now even save for their retirement through their ownership of the economy through portable 401(K) plans. Sadly, although none of Marx's ideas are true, and the time period that gave him the material to write has since passed, many of his goals have been accomplished. (1). Marx advocated that all land be owned by the state. It seems as though today's liberal still support this. They're always voting for ballot initiatives that will result in the state buying -- with our money -- property that ought to be owned privately. (2) A high progressive income tax. Yes. Although Bush lowered the highest marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 35%, taxes are still historically high. (3) Marx was against inheritance. So are liberals. They support a 55% tax on whatever is left. (4) Confiscation of property from those who leave the country. Well. Isn't that what liberals are for? If the conditions are so bad that you leave one state for another, they sometimes impose one-time moving taxes! My, my! (5) Centralization of transportation... hmm.. They're always talking about rail, etcetera. They would still like to be in charge of national transportation, but thankfully, Reagan deregulated the industry. (10) Marx wanted free, public schools. Well, it isn't exactly free (high property taxes pay for it), and it isn't any good, either (ask any parent if they're happy with the public educational system and you are likely to get a no). I cannot believe that this book is even in print anymore. It's oudated. The only two people who could approve of Marx are the typical elitist university professor and John Kerry / Howard Dean / Al Gore supporters.
| 
