You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.64 AVERAGE
3.64 AVERAGE
Mr. Marx's Philosophies could apply to today's world.
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
In some sense, this seems a bit silly to give a traditional book review to, as my approach to reading it was mostly for its historical significance, rather than for the quality of the writing itself.
That being said, the first part of the Manifesto does a good job of identifying the issues around living as a member of the working class in a capitalist society. The historical account of class struggle feels oversimplified, but that is partially a necessity of the short length of the Manifesto.
From there Marx and Engels jump into a defense of communism and a critique of alternate forms of socialism, which raise some good points on occasion, but don't always feel completely thought-out.
An important historical document, this does serve as a good starting point for exploring socialist and communist ideas.
That being said, the first part of the Manifesto does a good job of identifying the issues around living as a member of the working class in a capitalist society. The historical account of class struggle feels oversimplified, but that is partially a necessity of the short length of the Manifesto.
From there Marx and Engels jump into a defense of communism and a critique of alternate forms of socialism, which raise some good points on occasion, but don't always feel completely thought-out.
An important historical document, this does serve as a good starting point for exploring socialist and communist ideas.
challenging
informative
fast-paced
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
challenging
informative
slow-paced
I am not anti-communist, I just gave it three stars because I was underwhelmed by Marx in relation to more modern black radical Marxists.
What an inspiring read. Even though it was written in the mid 19th century, most of the issues in this book are relevant today. Whether one identifies as a communist or not, you cannot deny that Marx's critique of the bourgeois political economy is spot on.
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Read it finally!
Hmm, I like the open, boisterous proclamation of the Communists for a proletariat revolution to change, well to overthrow, the extant socio-political order of things in countries, the material conditions of existence of the working class.
It's worth noting how Marx seems impressed by the emergence of the bourgeoisie against the feudal societies. How it rapidly spread its limbs over the world to "exploit" things using ever improving means of production and exchange. However, he correctly observed how the rampant proliferation and scouring of markets has led to class antagonisms, and led to terrible conditions for work for the proles. It's admirable how systematic the bourgeoisie are to preserve itself. But, following dialectic materialism, it's inevitable that the bourgeoisie society will also come to an end someday. Commies aren't against bourgeoisie, in my opinion, because the book also mentions how in Germany they support the bourgeoise revolution to overthrow the predecessors like feudalism. Commies are the default representatives of the working class interests in any situation of any country in the world.
So, in my opinion, they wish to be active agents of change for the better in all contexts. It's admirable, but personally I think it's good in theory. When it comes to practice, the supposed goal to have a classless society often devolves into a dictatorial regime where non-conformists or other factions face persecution from the most powerful group within. I find it amusing that proper antagonism(unity of proles against bougies) is required for revolutionary overthrow to achieve a state of non-antagonism. Where would the bougies go? It can't ever work I think, because the real problems are the messed up relationships between individuals, and the greed, envy, hate etc. Communism is just the impossible utopia in disguise of a practical revolution. Good to strive towards, but the vehement rejection of all possible things associated with the existing order is just dumb.
Religion and culture gathers people like nothing else, and they discard this outright, which is a mistake to me. Probably, according to the book I'd fall into the petty bourgeois socialists or the critical-utopian ones, but it's preferable to me over an uncertain aftermath of an overthrow.
Hmm, I like the open, boisterous proclamation of the Communists for a proletariat revolution to change, well to overthrow, the extant socio-political order of things in countries, the material conditions of existence of the working class.
It's worth noting how Marx seems impressed by the emergence of the bourgeoisie against the feudal societies. How it rapidly spread its limbs over the world to "exploit" things using ever improving means of production and exchange. However, he correctly observed how the rampant proliferation and scouring of markets has led to class antagonisms, and led to terrible conditions for work for the proles. It's admirable how systematic the bourgeoisie are to preserve itself. But, following dialectic materialism, it's inevitable that the bourgeoisie society will also come to an end someday. Commies aren't against bourgeoisie, in my opinion, because the book also mentions how in Germany they support the bourgeoise revolution to overthrow the predecessors like feudalism. Commies are the default representatives of the working class interests in any situation of any country in the world.
So, in my opinion, they wish to be active agents of change for the better in all contexts. It's admirable, but personally I think it's good in theory. When it comes to practice, the supposed goal to have a classless society often devolves into a dictatorial regime where non-conformists or other factions face persecution from the most powerful group within. I find it amusing that proper antagonism(unity of proles against bougies) is required for revolutionary overthrow to achieve a state of non-antagonism. Where would the bougies go? It can't ever work I think, because the real problems are the messed up relationships between individuals, and the greed, envy, hate etc. Communism is just the impossible utopia in disguise of a practical revolution. Good to strive towards, but the vehement rejection of all possible things associated with the existing order is just dumb.
Religion and culture gathers people like nothing else, and they discard this outright, which is a mistake to me. Probably, according to the book I'd fall into the petty bourgeois socialists or the critical-utopian ones, but it's preferable to me over an uncertain aftermath of an overthrow.
informative
reflective
medium-paced