Communist Manifesto

Marx is a true philosopher and genius, he outlines the principles of communism very clearly in the Manifesto. It is a constant debate between the bourgeois way and the communist way, although it is obviously leaned completely towards communism.Marx was a talented writer and this is reflected in the manifesto, not a word is wasted and it is written in such beautiful wording. It is interesting to read his principles of communism and then to study how overs have interpreted them and created there own versions of communism, e.g Maoism, Starlinism. Each time the communist ideas stray further from the original principles outlined in the manifesto so excellently by Marx. There were hundreds of Manifestos written in 1888 it says something about this one seen as it is still been read avidly by many today.If you have any interests in communism then you must read this, let Marxism live on.

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 what it is. The Communist Manifesto. Readable, surprisingly, and I suspect, not a document that has been read by as many on the "left" as it should have been. Reading this document - and looking back with the benefits of hindsight of course - it is easy to see how its utopian view was so quickly taken up by peoples who were incredibly suppressed and abused. However, its identification as a "cause" with almost "biblical power" ,was deliberately misinterpreted by the "Communists" of post revolutionary Russia. Such interpretation nowadays is clearly shown to be flawed. Marx was misread, deliberately and maliciously misinterpreted. Stalin et al., simply took from it only what they wanted to gain and retain power and control. This document and its gross misinterpretation is a warning to democratic societies in general. Marx was a man of his time, reflecting, like Lenin, his views based solely upon his own very narrow life experience. So often Marx and Lenin are shown as champions of the working man, as reflected in this Manifesto. The reality is that neither Marx or Lenin had the slightest idea, or real hands on experience of what the working man actually suffered. Both middle class, they had neither the nous or wherewithal, other than superb oratory, to truly "identify" the needs and aspirations of the ordinary citizens. This Manifesto reflects that utopian oratory. Its reading should be compulsory, not because of its content, but because it demonstrates just how one mans ideology can be so easily misused and misinterpreted to such degrees. It has powerful resonance with many ideological movements today. Worth a quick read if nothing else.

I think this is the shortest and most concise statement of Marx's thought. All the elments are there, the economic, political, technological and historical.It is also I think, one of his most readable pieces... if not the most. This work alone shows Marx is still the most eloquent and accurate critic of 'capitalism'. Unfortunately for Marx his grand theory turns out to be only half the story. He never managed to read Freud's 'The Id and the Ego' (how could he)!Alas for Karl, it turns out that the world's poor and oppressed are not dreaming of liberty, equality, fraternity and socialism, but rather of being rich, famouse and 23 forever. KM was always railing against various utopias, although he managed to invent one himself. Anyway, read both the mentioned books. Briliant but incompatible... a bit like general relativity and quantum theory.