The Communist Manifesto: The Political Classic (Capstone Classics)

I've given this a 5 star rating because it is the authoritative edition and most well articulated appeal to communism I've ever read. After reading this book one has to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask did communism empower the working class? Did it create equality? Did it provide a more prosperous happier life for people? And if not why are its contents still so appealing to humanity and surprisingly to many Americans? And although it is the extreme of socialism why does socialism continue to appeal to so many? And why does its rhetoric continue to influence our political and social dialogue? Marx's writes with such powerful clarity where he crystallizes his appeal to the working class with the resounding first line of the book: "A spectre is haunting Europe - The spectre of Communism." And it indeed did haunt Europe through two world wars, the cold war and continues to do so into the 21st century. It is now 2012 and we have the hindsight of the great scientific experiments of the German socialist Nazis, the Bolshevik driven communist, the Maoist Chinese and many more highly socialist European nations. We also have the recent financial breakdowns within the European Union and major financial crises in America all still heavily influenced by much of the contents of this manifesto. I am reminded daily of its power as the Manifesto still rings in many of today's conversations whether it is the cry of Occupy Wall Street or the discussion of redistribution of wealth or more equality between classes. Much of what Marx called for has come to fruition such as the introduction of the progressive tax, even private ownership is under assault in the United States. Moreover, one must fully understand this call to communism to have a perspective on such things as the Federal Reserve and income tax. How should one digest today's political banter of "what is a fair tax" and a "fair share of taxes"? After all a heavily progressive or graduated tax is the second pillar of the Communist Manifesto only trumped by the abolition of private property. So how could a nation such as the United States which fought so hard to provide the individual with the most liberty in the history of mankind agree to allow an income tax and at that one that at times in mid 20th century exceeded 90% and today sits at 35%? Prior to 1913 the US had no income tax and it amended the constitution to not only add an income tax but also add a federal reserve both of which resulted in the greatest transfers of power away from the individual to the federal government in the history of the United States. This is in direct alignment to the second pillar of the Communist Manifesto. By definition income tax suggests that the government owns a portion of our lives and labor. In socialism it owns a lot more of it and in communism it owns all of it. Intrigued? Then read this book and see how it continues to apply to our lives, liberty and freedoms.

“The Communist Manifesto originally titled Manifesto of the Communist Party is a short 1848 publication written by the political theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It has since been recognized as one of the world's most influential political manuscripts.’’ Of course, I’ve heard about this document since youth. Never read it. But, seems so influential, especially recently, decided to examine it. “Commissioned by the Communist League, it laid out the League's purposes and program. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms. The book contains Marx and Engels' theories about the nature of society and politics, that in their own words, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles".It also briefly features their ideas for how the capitalist society of the time would eventually be replaced by socialism, and then eventually communism.’’ This from preface. Marx penned this in 1848. This English translation by Engels in 1888. Some highlights . . . These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.’’ Fascinating that most of these programs have been implemented in many western societies. Another is this rejection of history. “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience." Recalls Daniel’s prophecy about the king of the north . . . “He will show no regard for the God of his fathers; nor will he show regard for the desire of women or for any other god.’’ Marx . . . “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.’’ How abolish family? Forbid private property. “The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.’’ ‘Destruction of all property’ seems to be now coming to pass. “ All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.’’ ‘Official society cut loose’ from its world. “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.’’ ‘Violent overthrow’ and ‘veiled civil war’. Well . . . Another heartfelt cry of anguish . . . ““ The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.’’ Note Marx complaining about ‘everlasting uncertainty’. Marx’ personal life was just that - uncertain, troubled, turbulent. His family eventually refused to support him. He was furious. He is really demanding that someone else guarantees him a comfortable life. In fact, Engels (rich factory owner) did eventually support Marx. “All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.’’ And this unique facet of capitalism, its turbulent, uncertain, constant change to unknown directions obviously disturbs many. Marx nailed it! Last paragraph — “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. 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.’’ Lots of familiar ideas that seem current. I wonder how many recognize the influence of this German philosopher on modernity. I didn’t realize how much of his thought still remains. One thing which has not endured is his analysis of economics. The labor theory of value which he borrowed from Adam Smith is now known to be completely wrong. Capitalism has not self-destructed. In fact, world dozens of times richer than when Marx lived. Nevertheless, this goal, desire to destroy is stronger than ever in the mind of many.

A great read to be introduced in the theory of communism, always relevant and a must read to understand the basics of a system that is the opposite of capitalism

Very good, no frills edition of the text. What more could you want?

It merits five stars because of its importance, though it is not the best introduction to Marxist theory. A key element is the materialist conception of history, also called historical materialism and dialectical materialism. This views history as the inevitable progress from primitive communism to feudalism to capitalism and finally modern communism. The theory sees economics as the key shaper of historical events. In Marxism the all-important economic structure, or "foundation", of society determines the "superstructure" of ideas, morals, religion, social and political institutions etc. In its extreme form historical materialism is completely deterministic and in this form it is open to serious objections, but though Marx and Engels probably did not do enough to disown the determinism of their followers, it is clear they meant something less. Later Engels was to write that historical materialism "is in the last resort decisive in the production and reproduction of actual life...the economic condition is the basis but the various elements of the superstructure...exert an influence of the historical struggles, and in many instances determine their form." Marx's historical materialism operates via the class struggle. "class" is used in the sense of an economic group defined by its position in the process of production: slave/master, serf/feudal lord, worker/capitalist. According to Marx, whenever private ownership of the means of production exists there is class conflict over the division of the fruits of production. The Manifesto claims that what is new in the capitalist era is that classes have been reduced to just two, because small employers and self-employed craftsmen were being driven into the ranks of the proletariat and exploitation worsens: "The bourgeoisie...has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his `natural superiors', and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man naked self-interest, than callous cash payment...for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation." What, then, of the inevitable collapse of capitalism? The key element is the theory of the surplus value of labour, by which Marx meant that labour is not paid the full value of its product - the difference between the wage and the value of the workers' labour being profit. Hence capitalism is based on exploitation. On this flimsy edifice an entire structure is built. The nature of capitalism means constant competition with wages driven down to subsistence level and when they can fall no further capitalists turn to machines, which create a "reserve army of the unemployed". Wages become so low that not all the good produced can be purchased. This leads to trade cycles of booms and slumps and ever-deepening crises. The constant competition also means that over time the number of firms is reduced to a few large firms, which is an inherent contradiction (a word much loved by Marxists) within capitalism. Not surprisingly, think Marx and Engels, all this breeds alienation among the proletariat. Eventually revolution in the most advanced capitalist states will overthrow the bourgeoisie and usher in a classless society. All political authority will disappear, for only administrative functions will remain in "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all", with equal access to culture and education in a society in which all willingly embrace the principle of "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs." Objections to all this include asking what does "in the last resort" actually mean in the materialist conception of history. As for the class struggle, capitalism has not seen society divided into just two classes, and the proletariat has not sunk into the pitiful state predicted. Marx failed to see that the new industrial technology might create new ruling managerial elite - a possibility already discussed by Saint Simon and Comte. Revolutions have not taken place in the most advanced countries, and most historians regard the "communist revolutions" in backward countries as coup d'états rather than revolutions - and not even "communist". However, there is much of interest and value in Marx and Engels. For example, after Marx historians began to re-evaluate the history of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries with the economic tools fashioned by Marx. Some Marxists believe that the revolutions have merely been delayed and will come to pass. I am not of that persuasion.

It is worth reading the book to get an understanding of what the de-facto founders of communism thought. Luckily, the book is short and a quick read. It feels to be composed of two parts: their understanding of the evolution from feudalism to capitalism and the overall environment at the time, plus their understanding of what communism should be. Based on the book, it seems that the countries that claimed to be communist were mostly communist, as the main principle seemed to be to abolish private property. It is also clear that Marx and Engels did not understand human psychology. They also did not have the foresight to realize that in communism, the ruling class ownership (the single party) would replace private property or that there would even be a ruling class and that a much worse type of oppression would replace the injustices of the time. Based on their definition of communism, it is also clear that China is no longer a communist country but a one-party rule country - an oligarchy.

Nice