The Communist Manifesto (Books That Changed The World) Paperback – 26 April 2013

Totally nuts he was as daft as a brush but its an interesting read.I think people should read it and understand it as well. its a religion more than politics.Marx has no economic understanding just a moral position so it doesnt matter that 3 of his children died on him probably becasue of poverty when he could have got himself a job in a factory like I didNo Marx gets engles to pay for his house and has an unpaid housekeeper to boot and they without going into a factory preaches how to run one ( I have worked at the very bottom and run one !)There are more classes than them and us . There are lots of ways to positioning yourself in societyMarx's was almost simple minded thought it was the working class V everybody else it isnt like that at allyou can be working class with millions and upper class in poverty today

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.

If you have not had a classical education and you are new to reading, then you will have to re-read several parts of this book several times before you "get it". A must read classic, I just wish there was a "simplified" version to at least allow for easier interpretation and understanding.

There are millions of people who regularly misquote or pour vitriol on this little book and the ideology it helped create. Given the very compact nature and the final impact the volume had, I feel it is at the very least required to read it prior to pontificating on its qualities or lack thereof - can better understand that not everyone finds the time or inclination to go for  Das Kapital .The book is very compact and concise. It presents the basic elements of the authors' economic and political views first and foremost, then goes on - as somewhat understandable for a political manifesto - into how the communist party differentiates itself from various other left wing political groupings and why it is the right choice to back.It does not have the space to expound the economic theory of Marx and Engels in much detail and frankly, the general readership of the day was probably just as little interested as is the case for currently novel economic theories and today's public.One reason why I would also recommend everyone to take the half an hour's time to read the book is that many of the 'negatives' always implied or associated with communism simply have no basis in the Manifesto - i.e. they are not advocated or often not mentioned at all. As such the book can form a first step towards a better and more balanced understanding of the economic theories behind communism, as dated as they may be from today's perspective.If you then want a really first rate analysis in the next step, Heilbronner's  Heilbroner Marxism - for and against  is a must read (as is his  The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers (Penguin Business Library)  for an overview of the development of economic thinking). It is a work of an expert rather than an ideologue, so it can point out the failures as well as the qualities in a balanced fashion.In any case, irrespective of your politics, I personally find the book should be read, if nothing else, to properly understand the real arguments, as opposed to the endlessly regurgitated half-truths and misrepresentations that are only natural for a - from a Cold War perspective - hostile ideology.