Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. February Written: Late ;. First Published: February ;. Source: Marx/Engels. The history of hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. - Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto. Page 3. Karl Marx (). Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. No cover available. Download; Bibrec Download This eBook.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|ePub File Size:||22.34 MB|
|PDF File Size:||18.38 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
hackbus.info, hackbus.info Manifesto of the Communist Party. Manifesto Partai Komunis. Bahasa Indonesian. 1 — German download PDF Mb. Gondwana By Anonymous EPUB KINDLE PDF EBOOK Its Role In The Reconstruction Of Gondwana By Anonymous download ebook PDF EPUB, book in . [PDF] Manifesto Komunis: The Communist Manifesto (Indonesian. The Communist Manifesto book. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' The Communist Manifesto is edited with an introduction by Libraries · Download eBook.
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again.
I don't have much knowledge of conditions during the industrial revolution in the rest of Europe, but have researched the situation relatively extensively as it was in Britain, as a background to a lot of criticism that was launched against the status quo by a lot of Victorian writers of fiction.
In the feudal system, "labor" did not remove laborers from their families at all, in fact, it rather strengthened family ties since most of what can be seen as the proletariat of feudal times, were indebted laborers on the fiefdom of their feudal lord.
So, the only labor which compromised the family situation, was the kind of labor done by men, women and children in mines and factories during the industrial revolution, from around to the early 's. If you read up on reforms in Britain, you will see that by about , public outcries against child labor and the conditions that adults and children were made to work under in mines, caused public commissions to be instituted by government, which started a slow and gradual reform of conditions via legislation, to the point that all kinds of laborers are pretty well-protected and well-represented at the present day.
By services we do not mean of the "labour" kind that Marx addressed- Marx was addressing the kind of workers who were exploited in mines and factories. Note that the industrial revolution, although it started off bringing such untold misery to so many, also had the following effect: In the two centuries following , the world's average per capita income increased over tenfold, while the world's population increased over sixfold.
Finally it was within the grasp of those born outside of nobility to make a decent living for themselves. A lot of workplace reform has taken place since the IR started.. Authors like Charles Dickens, for instance, and Victor Hugo, helped to encourage the privileged to look upon their less fortunate brethren with greater sympathy, and to call for social reform in the name of conscience. At a time when history and society is in great flux and inner revolution, when a new era is dawning and social conscience still needs to become cognizant of the suffering of some of the members of society, Karl Marx exploits the situation, ironically by making use of the exploitation by one element of society, of another.
It is the poor and the ignorant that is being exploited, and Karl Marx exploits their helplessness, ignorance and gullibility to shout for revolution instead of evolution. Marx and Engels call for violence where no violence is necessary, because peaceful change was already taking place in any case.
Per the manifesto: But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus. The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives.
Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i. The implication is obvious. According to the authors, the implication is that marriage is a bourgeois, patriarchal institution for the exploitation of women, a form of prostitution.
You would think that anybody who is even in the slightest familiar with history, would be able to see immediately how fallacious and false such an accusation is, since marriage is a social institution that evolved gradually over many centuries, but has always been something that protected rather than exploited women.
Remember, for centuries and centuries, women had no recourse save sexual abstinence for which the best path was to become a nun against falling pregnant. Women had exactly three choices: Be a prostitute, be a nun, or have the protection of marriage, where you could at least have the privilege of raising your children in a protected environment, and in which the father of the child had the responsibility to care for the children and their mother on a material level.
This has nothing to do with the bourgeoisie except that it was people out of the horrible, terrible ranks of those dastardly bourgeoisie, that modern medicine was developed, modern medicine, which keeps child- and maternal mortality at bay, has brought better health to people of all walks and stations in life, and has given us the technology to be able to choose when we do or don't have children.
I have an overwhelming feeling that Marx was simply exploiting women's emancipation movements to gain more supporters for Communism, when he says the following: Yes, women were being marginalized, but by the fact that we were excluded from property holding rights something Marx scorns in any case and from having an equal right to vote something else which he scorns too.
Let's analyze this carefully: How are bourgeois males exploiting women by marrying them? Certainly, in feudal times, children sons were deemed an essential item for males to acquire in order to continue the family line, but, since the human species would discontinue should women stop having children, calling it an exploitation of women by men sounds like a rather strange, roundabout way of putting things.
Certainly in the time that capitalism has steadfastly taken root, children have become really more of a liability financially speaking, than a prize. In fact, if you think about it, it is Marx who is making the implication that women are mere objects, property to be owned like cows or camels, by suggesting that they will be seen as fair game "community of women", as he puts it, having a similar meaning to "community of property" under Communist rule. I just can't help finding his attitude massively patronizing and insulting, both towards men and women, as much as I decry the patriarchy of the past, because Marx himself is speaking with the very voice of patriarchy and sexism that he supposedly decries.
He speaks their language, the language of the white, supremacist patriarchal 'master'. Also from the manifesto: We must create out of the younger generation a generation of Communists. We must turn children, who can be shaped like wax, into real, good Communists We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families. We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them.
From the first days of their lives they will be under the healthy influence of Communist children's nurseries and schools. There they will grow up to be real Communists. It is generally accepted knowledge that institutionalized care away from any sort of notion of family, is psychologically un healthy for children. No thanks, I don't buy into the hive-mind insect-think. This review is a work in progress, so more to follow soon.
Unfortunately all that is discussed cannot be worked into the review itself, since GR limits review space, and this is a HUGE subject.
I'd also like to mention that I am absolutely to a large extent a fan of Socialism in general and a great fan of the Scandinavian mixed system. What I am criticizing in this review, is specifically this document, 'The Communist Manifesto', and not Socialism itself.
I promise to make time soon to work more of the discussions into the review itself, but some very well-read and intelligent Marxian apologists have commented, so it might be worth your time to read the discussions in any case. View all 91 comments. May 08, Foad rated it liked it Shelves: View all 27 comments.
What can I say? Marx was right. View 1 comment. Oct 26, J. 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 It is an error to assume that the problem with humanity is an inability to recognize our own problems. 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. View all 8 comments. May 07, Xio rated it liked it Shelves: Its awful fun to grow up marxist in the US. You get to go to meetings where you, as a kid, soon realize there's no point in paying attention so off you go with the other rowdy tots into the ghetto to make trouble with whatever you find to hand.
And you get to read this novella and if you're bored and underchallenged but over bothered you can begin to argue against american capitalist imperialism and the growth of consumerist doctrine using your new found propaganda skills til you bait a teacher i Its awful fun to grow up marxist in the US. View all 6 comments. Some would conclude that it was the threat of the Communist that reformed the system to allow for leisure time for the working class.
Organized labor reformed American business and transformed Europe.
Marx and Engels were not hell bent on Soviet type domination. They would never expect communism to take root in Russia a vast agrarian society. Oddly though that is the only place communism or a totalitarian state calling itself communism ever did take hold. Marx and Engels saw the problem in industrialized societies. People flooded the cities for jobs, wages went down, young children needed to work to help support the family. There were no safety nets that we enjoy today like hour work weeks, minimum wages, and child labor laws, let alone any benefits.
Industrialization had destroyed society and divided the population. The skilled labor class was displaced by mass produced goods. The population became two classes the very small property owning bourgeois and the huge working class proletariat. Skilled labor was absorbed by the proletariat. The bourgeois became the ruling class; they even used the proletariat to help rid them of the aristocracy.
The movement Marx and Engels documented in the Manifesto was to end the deplorable conditions in the midth century industrial world.
They saw no way to do this except for revolution. As the unrest grew in Europe the bourgeoise and industry saved themselves. Rather than risk losing everything compromise came about. Government and labor unions worked to increase factory safety, labor, child labor. Education expanded, England reformed the Poor Law, and something unheard of developed --leisure time for the common man.
A middle class developed.
Communist Manifesto Marx-Engels - in 63 languages of the world
The middle class is important to capitalism because they are the consumers, and in order for capitalism to grow it must create new markets or it will stagnate.
These reforms created a consumer class that allowed the bourgeoisie to continue in their ways making up for their losses at the factory with new markets. The middle-class saw it possible to advance and the unskilled worker pool shrank with new oppurtunity. Communism did fail, but not in the way most people think. It became a threat and it was appeased. The industrial world reformed to relieve the threat of violent takeover. Communism never took hold in the areas it was intended to.
It could be reforms or the entrance into the world of consumption that allowed this either through availability of affordable housing, plentiful food, and material goods. People who own tend to be more content than those who long. Even if what they own is a tiny fraction of what others own. The failure of communism came in the form of social democrats in Europe and liberalism in America. Marx and Engels believed that capitalism could not be reformed and needed to be destroyed.
History has shown otherwise. Reformed and regulated capitalism has created the greatest wealth for the greatest number of people on Earth. America, Europe, and Japan have regulated capitalism.
Even "communist" China has jumped on the bandwagon. Now what all this creation of wealth is doing to the planet and environment is another story. I'll mention this again because it deserves mentioning.
See a Problem?
They never met the criteria; they never developed the system. Very little separated them from right wing dictatorships in reality. You can call a cat a dog all you want, but its not going to bark. One word review: There is so much I could say, and there isn't the space to say it in a review Where do I even begin?
The Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx
For starters, the book began on a whining note. There were basically two main thrusts: It was unhindered by nationality or any other interests and existed solely to make the working class successful.
What started out One word review: What started out as a whining tirade coming from a man who obviously wanted to abolish free trade because it did not suit him as he wished, ended with an abolition of family, home education, patriotism, and marriage.
Little sins like self-centeredness, sloth, and greediness, if not repented of can lead the heart to seek justification on its own. The heart tries to justify itself before the cries of conscience by rationalizing and eventually developing a system consistent with itself That was literally the only thing said to those objections. I came away with a lot of observations, but three were especially notable: Marx hoped that social change would change man's heart environmental determinism.
The ending note is one of the reasons I think Communism has such an appeal. It offers purpose, hope, and excitement. This is the only thing I sympathized with somewhat in the whole thing. I am afraid that Christians have held out an impotent, limp, and emasculated truncation of Christianity for too long.
The human heart longs for a higher purpose, a kingdom, a cause. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. View all 19 comments. Joe Perr Shut up May 07, Med Go back to your christian books Mar 29, Nov 26, Fei Fei rated it it was ok Shelves: The terms Marxism and Communism are so misused nowadays that it is difficult to hold an intellectual conversation with people about this deeply fascinating political and economic theorist.
It is partly the fault of the school curriculum, I fear. For whenever schools teach Marx, they inevitably always start with this book, the Communist Manifesto. But this is precisely the worst place to begin understanding Marxist philosophy. The Communist Manifesto is an anomaly in Marx's work. Strictly speakin The terms Marxism and Communism are so misused nowadays that it is difficult to hold an intellectual conversation with people about this deeply fascinating political and economic theorist.
Strictly speaking, it is not even a formal piece of argumentative writing, neither particularly theoretical nor informative though certainly engaging a read. The Manifesto was originally a rally speech, given to assemblies of deeply dissatisfied factory workers in a time before unions and labour laws were formalized which, shortly after Marx's major publications, were formed.
Marx was trying to rouse these workers to take into their hands their own fate and change the economic structure they feel trapped in. The ideas Marx proposes in this piece of work were sparse and barely formed because its purpose was not to lay out the foundation of his theories, but to inspire and incite. It is unfortunate that this is the most widely read piece of Marx's work because it forms the smallest part in his theories.
In particular, I find the critiques Marx raises concerning the system of Capitalism and its effects on the social fabric to be particularly astute and wholly accurate. For so long have people labelled Marx as a crazy-thinking radical that they've failed to remember that he was actually a trained lawyer with a deep understanding of business and economics. All the negative outcomes he forsees inherently built into our economic structure has been borne out - perhaps even more accurately than Marx himself could have envisioned.
For example, he identifies the three ways that capitalists make money: The most common way capitalists choose to turn a profit is depress wages. Wage labourers lack sufficient bargaining power to prevent this because the nature of their work makes them easily replaceable with the pool of available unemployed inherent in a capitalist society. Capitalists will always seek ways to suppress wages in order to turn larger profits, willing to replace uncooperative workers with ones willing to accept the lower wages.
Now tell me, does this not sound like the kinds of multinational corporations we have today, outsourcing jobs in an effort to cut costs? Do not get me wrong. Marx does not present a utopia of political justice and governance. In many ways, the solutions Marx presents as a response to Capitalism are insufficient and ill-elucidated. But I think people really need to gain a better appreciation for his work and the sheer size is sort of staggering because the arguments Marx presents to the flaws of the Capitalist economic structure and the problems he sees facing a Capitalist society are extremely compelling and worthy of consideration.
In my humble opinion, one is better off starting with his early Economic Manuscripts than this Manifesto.
View all 4 comments. Apr 01, Steve Evans rated it it was amazing. No one should feel the need to agree with this short polemic to realise that it is one of the most important books ever written. It should be required reading in schools really, but anyone who hasn't read it should nip out and get a copy straight away, and put her or his nose in it.
Most though not all of Marxism is summed up in it, and unless one is really dedicated, very little else is needed for an understanding of "Marxism". I was one of those people and have read a lot of Marx and Engels an No one should feel the need to agree with this short polemic to realise that it is one of the most important books ever written.
I was one of those people and have read a lot of Marx and Engels and their followers over the years, and still dip into their works from time to time.
They were misunderstood by practically everybody, most crucially by their followers and even themselves, yet pregnant with astonishing insights that can help anyone make sense of a confusing world.
Sadly, Marx opened up the possibility of distorting his methods and his insights, as well as his beliefs, in a way that enabled later "Marxists" to employ the most incredible methods in his name, and it is now hard, even impossible, not to associate him with mass murder and truly crazy political methods and systems. He would no doubt have been horrified to see what was done in his "honour", but I am not sure it is possible to exonerate him on that basis. Even so, this little book is a must for any thinking person.
Combined with the preface to the Critique of Political Economy - and just a few pages of that really - nearly everything most thinking people need to know about "dialectical and historical materialism" may be found. Popper is also essential reading in my opinion for anyone wishing to be literate in political philosophy. The real history, on the other hand, is something else. Played out differently. Yeah, that is the catch. This was a reading of only the bare text along with the many prefaces!
It was very powerful and I am now reading the Penguin edition with the really long introduction next. Will write more about this important book there. In the mean time, it is hardly 40 pages - why haven't you read this yet? It is not often that you get the summary of one of the most influential thought-structures in history in under 40 pages! It was a rhetorical masterpiece too, by the way.
Very valuable for the political formation of any citizen, even if the reader does not agree with the foundations of communism, the Communist Manifesto is nothing more than a meaning of spreading the opinions, goals and tendencies of this ideology, linked to the era in which the authors of the work lived, that is, the end of the nineteenth century.
Several themes are covered in the book, among them we can mention: The eternal class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; 2.
The va Very valuable for the political formation of any citizen, even if the reader does not agree with the foundations of communism, the Communist Manifesto is nothing more than a meaning of spreading the opinions, goals and tendencies of this ideology, linked to the era in which the authors of the work lived, that is, the end of the nineteenth century.
The various branches of socialism in the late nineteenth century, among them: In addition to these ideas, Mark and Engels sought to chart a position of the communists in the late nineteenth century against the opposition parties at the time. Certainly an inseparable book for those who wish to pursue a degree in the areas of history, social sciences, philosophy, geography, etc.
View all 7 comments. Marx was the chief author of this page pamphlet, first published in London in My eyes glaze over at politics or economics, so I valued this more for its language than for its ideas.
Here are some of the memorable phrases: Feb 24, Riku Sayuj rated it liked it Shelves: An introduction to a historical work or any work for that matter should not be a thorough deconstruction, undertaken from an ideologically opposite standpoint. The reader should be given an introduction and in fact as much as possible a defense of the work.
This introduction sets out to do the opposite. I don't have a problem with Marx being critiqued but it should have been done in an independent book. This is like making a reader buy something for the value he attributes to the main work a An introduction to a historical work or any work for that matter should not be a thorough deconstruction, undertaken from an ideologically opposite standpoint.
This is like making a reader buy something for the value he attributes to the main work and then forcing a criticism of it down his throat, when all he wanted was a commentary on the main text. It only tries to prejudice me even before I read! View all 5 comments. A spectre is haunting me - the spectre of ignoramus.
Jul 14, Belhor rated it liked it Shelves: This of course, like many other ideologies, looks good on paper. May 20, Jonfaith rated it liked it. 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 It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. 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 Do you have a world to gain, Jacob Zuma?
Oh those imps of our natures. View 2 comments. Hausa K. Malayalam K. Gujarati K. Oriya K. Famosahankevitra ahariharin' ny Antoko Kominista. Malagasy K. Kannada K. Manifesto de la Komunista Partio. Cantonese K. Mongolian K. Die Kommunistiese Manifes. Yiddish K. Manipesto ng Partidong Komunista. Tagalog K. Kommunistliku Partei Manifest.
Estonian K. Slovenian K. Markss, F. Sinhalese Karl Marks, Fridrix Engels. Azerbaijani Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels. Manifesto Partai Komunis. Bahasa Indonesian. Indonesian Karl Marks, Fridrih Engels.
Manifest del partit comunista. Catalan Karl Marks, Fridrih Engels. Croatian Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels. Det kommunistiske manifest. Danish Carlos Marx, Federico Engels. Manifesto do partido comunista. Isibophezelo Senhlangano Yamakhomanisi. Macedonian Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels. Norsk Nynorsk. Manifest partii komunistycznej.