The Communist Manifesto

Rating:
Summary: The Manifesto for the Ages
Review: Although The Communist Manifesto is probably the most complicated text that Marx has ever written, this epoch is proably also the most informative. Marx and Engles go to great lengths not only to prove that history has transformed society and supposed civilization into two distinct classes, but they go even farther to prove that an uncorrupted Communist Government would have the ability to correct this. This text bases it's evidence on the inefficiancies of other forms of government without demeaning them. The Communist Manifesto also offers breif glimpses into most other political systems and provides a history of the parties themselves. Overall, this is one of the most intriguing works that has ever been written for both Communist and Non-Communist alike!

Rating:
Summary: Some great insights, but a tough read
Review: Karl Marx was a great thinker; this is probably not in dispute. He was very prescient on the evolution of industrialized society (e.g., gradually becoming more secular). What happened to the inevitable rise of the proletariat? Well, I don't think Marx could have foreseen that the bourgoisie would gain control of the mass media, nor what powerful forms that media would take. This is the way the bourgoisie continue their control.

Even though this book isn't long (only 90 pages including several forewards written by Engels), it would be tough for most people to digest in one sitting. I'll probably go back and re-read parts later. Still, it's interesting to read the basis for communism; you can then come to your own conclusions as to why it "failed".

Rating:
Summary: Pathfinder edition, real vision of the Manifesto
Review: If you want the real vision of the Communist Manifesto--not a slice of the manifesto after pages and pages of writing by someone who wants you to believe her or his view, mostly against the vision of the Manifesto--pick up the Pathfinder Version. It is priced to be used as a tool by workers, youth, rebels. Read what Marx and Engels have to say in sweepingly powerful language about what capitalism has done, good and bad, and how there IS a way out for working people, farmers, oppressed peoples. Because so many try to tie the Manifesto to rotten corpse of Stalinism in the Soviet Union, the inroduction to this edition is absolutely essential. It is an introduction Leon Trotsky, the great revolutionary opponent of Stalin, wrote especially for American readers in the 1930s. Pathfinder's version is the Manifesto in the sprit it authors meant it to be, nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to read this analysis brought up to date, check out Pathfinder's Capitalism's World Disorder and Cuba and the Coming American Revolution.

Rating:
Summary: Karl Marx was wrong.
Review: Everything that Marx and Engels expounded in the hard to read piece of garbage was wrong. If you want to read it because of its historical novelty, that's one thing; but if you are reading it to "learn" something, you are only oppressing yourself.

Rating:
Summary: The most important hate literature of the 20th century
Review: Although written in the 19th century, there can be no doubt that this book exceeds even THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION as the book that influenced the most evil in the 20th century.

The most seductive facet of The Communist Manifesto is that it purports to wish for the good of mankind. Anyone who reads the book carefully, with skepticism and the hindsight of history, can see what lies behind those noble-sounding ideals. Even today, many still focus on those noble ideals, without acknowledging the parts of the text with clear implications of what will "inevitably" happen to those who disagree with the views of its author.

The false view the Manifesto puts forth about history, about why the world works the way it does, and where history "inevitably" will and should take us, wound up killing at least 100 million people in the 20th century. This beautiful-seeming nightmare continues to enslave amd kill people in unfortunate parts of the world like Cuba, China, and North Korea.

Nothing gives us a clearer view of how noble intentions can be mask hatred, resentment, and rationalization of murder. No book more clearly demonstrates how blindly following an idealized, romanticized vision of the future can lead to appalling destruction.

To put it simply: No book influenced the torture, killing, and repression of more people.

Yes, we should all read it. As we do so, we should remember the tens of millions who died, the hundreds of millions enslaved, at the hands of those who slavishly followed the beliefs and ideals within it. We should read it, just as we should read Hitler's MEIN KAMPF.

Of course the book deserves 5 stars. Not because it's a great work of literature--in fact it's an often rambling, somewhat incoherent hate-screed. But its influence on history makes it essential reading, especially for anyone who wants to see how hate can hide itself behind noble-sounding ideals.

Rating:
Summary: Good philosophy for its time, ideas seem weak now
Review: At the time in which The Communist Manifesto was written, in 1848, many of the ideas of a ruling working class seemed completely logistical, seeing as many of the governments in that time were oligarchies or dictatorships, in both cases having either an unsatisfied middle class or a highly ranking upper class of aristocrats ruling the weaker working class, notably called the proletariat, who was ultimately forced into laboring only for the good of the middle class or the aristocracy. Mind you that the world was also still in the process of leaving behind vassals, serfs, and the like from earlier centuries. Thus the world, particularly Europe, were in somewhat of a confused state at one point or another.

So, with the notion that the working class (proletariat) was being forced into a lower submission, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed the theory that the proletariat would at some point, rise up and overthrow their landlords, overlookers, kings, etc. and take complete control of their society, in which private property would be eliminated in order to establish complete equality among everyone in the nation (nationality played a large part in their Communist theories), the Manifesto was set forth.

One of the major theories also set forth was that the machine (which was basically the always evolving technology and factories of those times), forced the workingman into keeping up with the steady process of advancing technology. Therefore, those working amongst the proletariat had to keep their hours up, their labor doubled, and so on and so forth merely to keep up with "the machine". According to Marx and Engels, the workingman was only worth what he could provide the middle and upper classes with (moreso the middle class than anything). So, by abolishing the standard forms of classifying the working class under everyone else, religion, and education, and by eliminating private property and the standards by which all other capitalist societies were set, the two philosophers believed they could create a society in which work was respected and the workingman ran everything for himself, establishing complete equality and equal pay, and allowing everyone to eventually fall into the proletariat.

Although the thought seems nice and quite interesting of a society where the workingman is not put under by the middle class, many societies, especially that of America have proved that there is now a middle class which mixes with the proletariat, both of them being content for the mostpart, and society being run in a civilized manner without so many class struggles as were so frequent in the days of 1848 and the French Revolution which so pleased Marx and Engels.

Readers must also question how realistic the views of equality of Communism truly are. Communism faltered immensely in Russia, as there was still technically a ruling class, and although Cuba and China are still on their feet quite well, Communism, at least in my personal opinion, hasn't done much for countries with the exception of these two. Either way the thoughts and theories in this book are interesting intentioned for the good of working men and women, but don't seem logistical in the society many countries have today.

The numerous prefaces and the introduction are helpful in showing how each edition of the Manifesto progressed throughout the course of history. I would recommend this to anyone philosophically or politcally educated, or to anyone whose view of Communism has been corrupted by the presumptions fed to us by America. Although I don't agree with Communisms ideas, I at least can have a clear understanding and picture of them, even if the book is not as organized as it should have been when written.

Rating:
Summary: From ideals to the thought police
Review: The best part of this book is the introduction by AJP. It is not just an introduction a historical perspective. I strongly recommend to read it after the manifesto The Manifesto text is a pamphlet and not conceptual and "scientific" as Marx " Capital". It is easy to read, 41 pages, as compared to Capital with in its abridged Oxford World's classic version with 490 pages. "Capital" presents the theory on which the Manifesto is based. However Capital was published 40 years after the Manifesto. It is probably that the combination of the Manifesto and Capital resulted in the enormous influence of Marx. I suspect that very few readers have had the stamina to fight their way through Capital. They read the manifesto and picked up a few thought out "Capital" that convinced that the Manifesto had been based on well-founded scientific principles. Anyone that would have taken the trouble to scrutinise the science would have found it to be nonsensical. Marx was right in being emotionally horrified by the terrible conditions under which industrial workers and their families had to live. He was also right in concluding that capitalists were motivated by profit and profit only without any consideration of the well being of their employees.
The improvements in the lives of industrial employees since his death did however not come by applying any of Marx recommendations but by trade union power, government legislation linked to the development of democracy. Workers that lived in countries that apllied Marx principles all suffered. Marx did not advocate the thought police but it is the logical consequence of applying his theories. Abolishing private property goes so strongly against human nature that it can only be implemented by applying brutal force. That is why communist countries were all run as dictatorships with substantial and exclusive benefits for its leaders and members of the party (and the thought police). This development was not the intent of Marx but a logical consequence of his recommendations.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent compendium edition.
Review: The Communist Manifesto is already known by most people - what I found most interesting about this edition was the large number of introductions which were prefixed to book's various translations. Having them all in one place allows the reader to build up an idea of the changes in Marx's ideals as he passed thru his life.

Rating:
Summary: Hot Air Marxist Style
Review: Although this book was well intentioned, the idea of power to the people more often created inequality between the masses and personal enrichment for members of the party leadership. In Secondly working for the greater good of "the people" was used to justify several purges in the 20th century of those who did not support communist ideas and or "the will of the people" also known as (the communist party).

Rating:
Summary: Marxist Bones
Review: Most people claim that they do not have Marxist bone in their body. Particulary if you are a baby boomer, you were raised to hate communism. While Marx's thoughts are idealistic at best, they definitely serve as food for thought.

Marx's economic beliefs suggest that the working class will rise up and overthrow the rich/ruling class in order to create a classless society. Their are several flaws that have been historically pointed out in relation to Marx's theory. The most common flaw would suggest that Marx never foresaw the advent of a middle class society which is content unlike the working class. This makes any revolution unlikely. One question to ask is "Are people greedy?" If you believe people are greedy, then the theories of Marx can not work. Greedy people could not allow themselves to be equal in the amount of toys they have with the general population. Greed would destroy communism just as it did in the Soviet Union. The greed of some is one of the ultimate reasons the Soviet Union collapsed. However, Cuba is still survivng and Castro as seen as a saint in Cuba.

While Marx's ideas are thought provoking, they are generally useless in the modern world. This book should be read by all people who consider themselves politically, socially, and/or economically educated.