giocoree's review against another edition
informative
fast-paced
4.0
marx and engels kissing under a tree
ajteyn's review against another edition
3.0
I don’t know what I was expecting, but this wasn’t it.
While I do agree with a lot of theoretical arguments presented in this book, I found it to be less of a manifesto and more of a critique of opposing views. Critiquing is all well and good, of course, except that unless you are proposing alternate possibilities of theory or action it tends to just come across as whining; which is unfortunately how I read a lot of this.
Only the final 3 pages of the “manifesto” are actually devoted to Communist views; even then, these are presented in relation to level of support for various political parties rather than stand alone principles. The rest of the book is instead a history and analysis of class struggle.
Nonetheless, some of my favourite quotes include:
“... the proletariat — cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class — the bourgeoisie — without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction, and class struggles.”
“No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.”
“In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of entire proletariat, independently of nationality.”
“The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property... property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence... But does wage-labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labor, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labor for fresh exploitation.”
“All that we want to do away with, is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.”
“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.”
“Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation.”
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
While I do agree with a lot of theoretical arguments presented in this book, I found it to be less of a manifesto and more of a critique of opposing views. Critiquing is all well and good, of course, except that unless you are proposing alternate possibilities of theory or action it tends to just come across as whining; which is unfortunately how I read a lot of this.
Only the final 3 pages of the “manifesto” are actually devoted to Communist views; even then, these are presented in relation to level of support for various political parties rather than stand alone principles. The rest of the book is instead a history and analysis of class struggle.
Nonetheless, some of my favourite quotes include:
“... the proletariat — cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class — the bourgeoisie — without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction, and class struggles.”
“No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.”
“In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of entire proletariat, independently of nationality.”
“The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property... property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence... But does wage-labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labor, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labor for fresh exploitation.”
“All that we want to do away with, is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.”
“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.”
“Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation.”
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
dorothy_gale's review against another edition
2.0
Surprising relevance for something written in 1848, but unfortunately I had the world's worst narrator who ruined most of it for me (Matt Montanez). The word 'bourgeois' occurs 303 times and he mispronounced it as "ber-juss."
Another term, proletariat, was a bit jarring since after 1970 most people just say 'working class.' My generation has to google it!
Content-wise, the CM is clearly an attempt to influence history by spreading information about a movement... which we see a lot of today. Marx was passionate and confident in his writing, so I haven't given up on him... but I think I will seek out his Hegel-ish content.
"One of Marx's primary intellectual influences was the work of G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel's theory presents history as a process in which the world becomes conscious of itself as spirit. Marx took this idea and furthered it, arguing that as man becomes conscious of himself as spirit, the material world causes him to feel increasingly alienated from himself. Escape from this alienation requires a revolution."
Another term, proletariat, was a bit jarring since after 1970 most people just say 'working class.' My generation has to google it!
Content-wise, the CM is clearly an attempt to influence history by spreading information about a movement... which we see a lot of today. Marx was passionate and confident in his writing, so I haven't given up on him... but I think I will seek out his Hegel-ish content.
"One of Marx's primary intellectual influences was the work of G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel's theory presents history as a process in which the world becomes conscious of itself as spirit. Marx took this idea and furthered it, arguing that as man becomes conscious of himself as spirit, the material world causes him to feel increasingly alienated from himself. Escape from this alienation requires a revolution."
barkernoahd's review against another edition
4.0
Sorry Marx a bit to radical for me. It’s written very well though.
demillesfahan's review against another edition
3.0
Good broad strokes intro to Marxism and Communism, but extremely overhyped. It's much more a propaganda pamphlet—as stated by Marx and Engels in the early portions—than a serious sociological or economic text. Still worth reading, but the enterprising Marxist or critic can skip it.
orcamagicka's review against another edition
I don’t think I can give this a traditional star rating so I’ll just type my thoughts.
Definitely interesting and an important piece of historical literature. I surprisingly found myself agreeing with certain sections. Ironically, for this being a book aimed for the working class, I feel like the language becomes too academic and complex to understand at various points. I had to use supplemental material to better my understanding of the material. Given the modern Red Scare occurring in the US and the fact most members of the far right accuse *any* progressive measure as being “communist” without even understanding what communism actually is, I recommend this especially to any American.
Definitely interesting and an important piece of historical literature. I surprisingly found myself agreeing with certain sections. Ironically, for this being a book aimed for the working class, I feel like the language becomes too academic and complex to understand at various points. I had to use supplemental material to better my understanding of the material. Given the modern Red Scare occurring in the US and the fact most members of the far right accuse *any* progressive measure as being “communist” without even understanding what communism actually is, I recommend this especially to any American.
beatrizdizon_'s review against another edition
3.0
Provides valuable insight and an essential read, but constantly throws me for a loop that I had to reread some parts (arguably can be because of my goldfish attention span but I stand my ground).
jdizzle's review against another edition
3.0
Given the context most people read this book, I think it is worth noting that in my opinion this text shouldn't be read without a fair bit of knowledge on the topic. Other than that it was a good read, I recommend, not much else to say.