- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Does the closing of the cold war era open up the possibility of reading the Communist Manifesto in new ways? In the first teaching edition of the post-Cold War era, Toews proposes new guidelines for reassessing the work to help students reconstruct the meaning of the Manifesto in its time and at the close of the twentieth century. Together with the complete text of the work, this brief volume includes some key foundational documents by Hegel, Feverbach, Marx, Engels, and others that show the evolution of and influences on Marxist theory over time. The editor's introduction traces the trajectory of Marx's thought from the 1830s onward, while providing background on the political, social, and intellectual contexts of which the Manifesto was a historical product.
MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
A SPECTRE is haunting Europe-the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact.
I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power.
II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
I. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS*
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history ofclass struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master* and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms: Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.
Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune,* here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France), afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It 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 than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, 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.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage-labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing 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 revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. 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.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff.
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground-what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity-the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons-the modern working class-the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e.,
Excerpted from The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx Copyright ©1999 by Karl Marx. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Introduction: Historical Contexts of the Communist Manifesto
The Immediate Historical Contexts of the Manifesto
Historical Premises of the Manifesto
Specters of Politics and Ideology
From the Manifesto to Capital: The Lessons of History and the Laws of History
PART I. THE DOCUMENT
Note on the Text
Manifesto of the Communist Party
PART II. RELATED DOCUMENTS
1. A Credo for the Communist League
Frederick Engels, Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith, June 9, 1847
2. From Confession to Manifesto
Frederick Engels, from A Letter to Karl Marx, November 23/24, 1847
3. Lessons from England: The Nature and Impact of the Industrial Revolution
Frederick Engels, from The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1845
4. Utopian Socialism and the Principle of Cooperation
Robert Owen, from Report to the County of Lanark, 1820
5. Utopian Socialism and the Science of Attraction
Charles Fourier, from The Theory of the Four Movements and of the General Destinies, 1808
6. Utopian Socialism and the Labor Process: Fourier on Attractive Labor
Charles Fourier, from The Theory of Universal Unity, 1841-1843
7. Utopian Socialism and the Labor as the Core of Social Exchange
Robert Owen, from Report to the County of Lanark, 1820
8. The People's Charter
The Six Points of the People's Charter, 1838
9. Chartist "Socialism"
James Bronterre O'Brien, Private Property, 1841
10. Hegel on Freedom
G. W. F. Hegel, from Reason in History: A General Introduction to the Philosophy of History, 1837
11. Marx and the Momentum of Emancipation
Karl Marx, from Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law, 1844
12. The Critique of Political Emancipation
Karl Marx, from On the Jewish Question, 1843
13. The Principle of Sensuous Existence
Ludwig Feuerbach, from Principles of the Philosophy of the Future, 1843
14. Alienated Labor
Karl Marx, from The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, 1844
15. Constructing a Historial Materialism
Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, 1845
16. The Premises of a Marxian Theory of History
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, from The German Ideology, 1845-1846
17. Marx and the Lessons of Revolution I
Karl Marx, from The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, 1852
18. Marx and Lessons of the Revolution II
Karl Marx, from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852
19. The Impact of Revolutionary Failure: The Collapse of Working-Class Politics
Karl Marx, from Inaugural Address of the Working Men's International Association, October 1864
20. The Return to Hegel
Karl Marx, Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capitol, 1873
21. The Hidden Reality of Bourgeois Society
Karl Marx, The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof, 1867
22. Engels on Marx's Legacy
Frederick Engels, Speech at Karl Marx's Funeral, March 1883
Chronology for the Historical Contexts of the Manifesto (1765-1895)
Questions for Consideration
Posted March 28, 2009
No, the Pathfinder edition of the Communist Manifesto is not introduced by "renowned social theorist David Harvey," whoever he is. It's introduced by renowned world revolutionary Leon Trotsky. Trotsky's approx. 12 pg. introduction written in 1937 is (along with the prefaces by Marx and Engels) worth more than all the other hundreds of introductions put together. This is the best edition.
12 out of 14 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted August 4, 2006
In this particular edition of the Communist Manifesto, the reader is treated to an introduction by Leon Trotsky, one of the central leaders of the Russian Revolution as well as some correspondence from Marx and Engels. But it is the Manifesto itself which bears repeated readings and discussion. How could such a short work have been the basis for revolutions around the world? It is due I think to the fundamental points made: i.e. that workers of the world must unite---as they have more in common with each other than their own national rich and powerful. In very brief but cogent explanations, Marx and Engels give a concise history of mankind and prove that all history in the 'history of class struggles'. Be it feudal lords and serfs or autoworkers and General Motors, it is still the truth.
5 out of 8 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted December 25, 2011
The Communist Manifesto is probably the most misinterpreted and misused book in history, (probably second to the Bible). Though it may need few revisions to be applicable to the 21st Century global economy, the core message remains universal and timeless. Marx says that if globalisation is inevitable, workers must rise up to see to it that it serves for the best interests of all humanity. Though he wanted socialism to be established as a phase in fully industialised countries, history had other plans leading to the 1917 revolution in the backward feudal Russian Empire. Manay praise this book, a few curse it, but no one can ignore it. Simply, timeless.
4 out of 4 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 30, 2012
This book is a child story about a man who wants to take trading out of the world and trys to spark a revolution agaist the rich. Robin Hood with stupidity. With out rich we have nothing but Government. Government wants to take us over they will under Marxism. In China Communism kills religious practice. Karl was a spoiled brat who got money from his rich friend... So what is Capitalism? Free Trade, Property ownage, The right to work hard to get ahead. Communism? Mama government gives you food and water for work... Free healthcare sounds good but, nothing is really free. Government runs it, you gotta do what they say "but I don't wana have surgery it's against my religion" WELP TO BAD! Government owns you! So dear Communist and Socialist: Retardism is your real Party.
3 out of 15 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted September 27, 2002
Because of the tragic disasters of Stalinism, Maoism and other horrendous fascistic dictatorial regimes, the very word 'communism' brings with it many pejoratives. These misconceptions must be dispelled, and the Communist Manifesto can do that. It is clear that the current politco-ecomic model (i.e american capitalism) is failing so many people of the world; oppressing their democratic rights, and keeping them in repressed, subjigated conditions with little to eat or drink and nowhere to live. A better world must be built - a truly democratic world, ran by the people, for the people, not by the rich, for the rich as today's society is. Although the Communist Manifesto is specific to its time, its sentiments and programmes for a better world are still applicable today, and all those wishing to fight inequality, injustice and oppression should read this pamphlet. It is an essential for all revolutionaries.
2 out of 3 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 12, 2013
Am I the only one seeing the irony here? BUYING the Communist Manifesto? Anyone? No? Just me? Oh well, it's a nice socio-economic commentary on the 1800s, if you're into that. If you change you're views on socialism or capitalism because of it then I geuss that Marx achieved what he was trying to do: educating the proletariat of his views.
1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted August 4, 2012
Posted January 25, 2014
Posted December 21, 2013
I had to read this for the first time in graduate school and it was not as painful as I originally thought. It was definitely a better read than The German Ideology.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted December 4, 2013
Jugding from the nay reviews, it seems to me that many people missed the point. Karl Marx's beliefs were not practical. But they had some good in them. People in the reviews are jugding Marx's beliefs based on they way communism has been used. But that is not What Marx's really had in mind. Dictators have taken Marx's ideas and have used them, as humans usually do, for bad. That ia not Marx's fault. Marx had intended communism to be positive and helpful, but i would agree that he didnl not take into account that humans can not be trusted. So the point is: "true communism has been used, and because of human nature will be used as it was originally thought up."Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted November 29, 2013
Though, as time has shown, communism has its flaws and has continuously procured a dictorial rule, it provides an idealist's view on how the world COULD, and I emphasize could, work if all indivduals put forth their best. We would all recieve the benefits of our comullative work and would progress far faster than we do today. However, as I said before, it has yet to work.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted September 14, 2013
Posted March 5, 2013
Posted February 8, 2013
Posted September 5, 2012
Posted March 14, 2013
Every nation that followee this ignorant ideology was destroyed. To bad these stupid democrats believe this garbage can work. They will simply destroy this nation.
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted June 12, 2012
Posted February 7, 2012
Posted May 19, 2003
Marx is always fascinating. But if you read this, read Paul Johnson's 'Intellectuals'. Gives you a good perspective on Marx and why he wrote this watershed.
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted December 18, 2002