Scan barcode
richardiporter's review
2.0
It's no wealth of nations....
Who should read it? Students of history, philosophy, economics.
Primarily a book on philosophy secondarily history and only thirdly on economics.
Observes dynamics of power and oppression. Notes the oppressed often denied the rights liberties and privileges that the opponents of communism accuse them of trying to deny to all (family, choice, ownership etc.)
This book definitely lacks the rigor of The Wealth of Nations (also the excessive and unnecessary logs of grain prices and other commodities over time.) But the lack of rigor and surfeit of opinion makes it hard to take seriously, especially with the awful application and real world demonstrations of failures of the ideas.
2 Star reviews mean I did not like this book. If you liked it I may not understand fully but I won’t put much into arguing about it unless you want to.
Who should read it? Students of history, philosophy, economics.
Primarily a book on philosophy secondarily history and only thirdly on economics.
Observes dynamics of power and oppression. Notes the oppressed often denied the rights liberties and privileges that the opponents of communism accuse them of trying to deny to all (family, choice, ownership etc.)
This book definitely lacks the rigor of The Wealth of Nations (also the excessive and unnecessary logs of grain prices and other commodities over time.) But the lack of rigor and surfeit of opinion makes it hard to take seriously, especially with the awful application and real world demonstrations of failures of the ideas.
2 Star reviews mean I did not like this book. If you liked it I may not understand fully but I won’t put much into arguing about it unless you want to.
mcwyss's review against another edition
4.0
A seminal work both in the international canon, and in communist literature, The Communist Manifesto is a book that every person should read. With excellent story-telling and sound reasoning, Marx and Engles recount the origins of Capitalism and project the future where workers overthrow the social order and replace it with Communism. Although I disagree with many aspects of their solutions and their account of history is incomplete and simplistic, the Manifesto is still a great work. It is clearly understandable by the average proletarian due to both its jargon-free word choice and its story-telling form. I believe this form, telling the story of Capitalism, the Bourgeoisie, and the Proletariat, is its greatest strength. The introduction by Martin Puchner makes this argument well, and I am convinced by it. Socialist writers like Malatesta could have done well to study the Manifesto's style. However, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte included in this edition is a boring, dull work which does not stand the test of time. Where the Manifesto benefits from age more than it suffers, the proximity to the origins of capitalism do it a greater service than the disservice of referencing now-defunct political parties and ideologies, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte only suffers. It is full of dates and figures of the French February Revolution of 1848 which make it indigestible for anyone who is not a French historian. There are pieces of insight and wit that make it a bearable read, but I have a hard time saying it’s worthwhile to do so. While this text adds some volume to The Barnes and Noble Classics Edition, it is of little use to those in the twenty-first century.
muhannaln's review
3.0
بكل صراحة ما احس فهمت شيء غير اهمية توزيع الثروات لماركس ولا شيء كذاك. برجع له الكتاب في يوم آخر ان شاء الله.
amphybius's review against another edition
5.0
I fully agreed with the critique of proletariat and bourgeoisie but wasn't completely convinced about all aspects of the communist tenets.
lipsandpalms's review against another edition
2.0
Free trade is exploitation (who is being exploited? It's an agreed trade. If one did not like the deal, they could deny it. It's free, not compelled or obligatory)
National industry is destroyed (What is a national industry?)
Too much commerce and industry has broken down civilization (depends on what your definition of civilization is I suppose)
To cope with overproduction, the bourgeoise enforce destruction of a mass of productive forces. (I'd like to hear an example of this purposeful destruction of goods)
The price of a commodity is equal to its cost of production. (Price is determined by supply and demand)
As the repulsiveness of work increases the wage decreases. (I would think the opposite would be true)
As the use of machinery increases, the burden of toil increases. (I would think the opposite would be true)
Workers are slaves to their bourgeoise and to their machines. (I disagree. The worker has more freedom now than ever and other any other system.
The less skill and strength requirements of labor, more the labor of men is superceded by the women. (so?)
Confiscation of all property owned my immigrants and rebels (what?!)
Establish industrial agriculture army (forcibly? Why join voluntarily?)
Distribute people across the country (using appropriated land no doubt)
Free education for children(this one I agree with)
Capitalism is a dystopian nightmare. Every person stripped of any required skill or workmanship in order to become a cog in the everly increasing efficiency of the machine. Their lives revolving upon the accumulation of capital in order to achieve minimum subsistence. Or at least that's what Marx believes. It's odd to me that someone could understand so much about the benefits of the free market, namely its incentives for improvement, yet still believe it is inherently exploitative and evil. I wonder what Marx would think of the modern era after seeing what capitalism has achieved in technological advancement. Education, medicine, communication and so many more things could not have been achieved otherwise. I'd argue that, while it does have its faults, capitalism is the only system that could have brought us to the peak of advancement we enjoy today. It's interesting to me that Marx is primarily against what we would consider to be the middle class today. Factory bosses and landlords. Not the obscenely rich. Do contemporary Marxists understand they are the villains in their own story?
National industry is destroyed (What is a national industry?)
Too much commerce and industry has broken down civilization (depends on what your definition of civilization is I suppose)
To cope with overproduction, the bourgeoise enforce destruction of a mass of productive forces. (I'd like to hear an example of this purposeful destruction of goods)
The price of a commodity is equal to its cost of production. (Price is determined by supply and demand)
As the repulsiveness of work increases the wage decreases. (I would think the opposite would be true)
As the use of machinery increases, the burden of toil increases. (I would think the opposite would be true)
Workers are slaves to their bourgeoise and to their machines. (I disagree. The worker has more freedom now than ever and other any other system.
The less skill and strength requirements of labor, more the labor of men is superceded by the women. (so?)
Confiscation of all property owned my immigrants and rebels (what?!)
Establish industrial agriculture army (forcibly? Why join voluntarily?)
Distribute people across the country (using appropriated land no doubt)
Free education for children(this one I agree with)
Capitalism is a dystopian nightmare. Every person stripped of any required skill or workmanship in order to become a cog in the everly increasing efficiency of the machine. Their lives revolving upon the accumulation of capital in order to achieve minimum subsistence. Or at least that's what Marx believes. It's odd to me that someone could understand so much about the benefits of the free market, namely its incentives for improvement, yet still believe it is inherently exploitative and evil. I wonder what Marx would think of the modern era after seeing what capitalism has achieved in technological advancement. Education, medicine, communication and so many more things could not have been achieved otherwise. I'd argue that, while it does have its faults, capitalism is the only system that could have brought us to the peak of advancement we enjoy today. It's interesting to me that Marx is primarily against what we would consider to be the middle class today. Factory bosses and landlords. Not the obscenely rich. Do contemporary Marxists understand they are the villains in their own story?