The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

The Communist Manifesto

A rousing call to arms whose influence is still felt today, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' The Communist Manifesto is edited with an introduction by Gareth Stedman-Jones in Penguin Classics.Marx and Engels's revolutionary summons to the working classes, The Communist Manifesto is one of the most important political theories ever formulated. After four years of collaborati...

Title:The Communist Manifesto
Author:
Rating:
Edition Language:English

The Communist Manifesto Reviews

  • Xio

    Its awful fun to grow up marxist in the US. You get to go to meetings where you, as a kid, soon realize there's no point in paying attention so off you go with the other rowdy tots into the ghetto to make trouble with whatever you find to hand.

    And you get to read this novella and if you're bored and underchallenged but over bothered you can begin to argue against american capitalist imperialism and the growth of consumerist doctrine using your new found propaganda skills til you bait a teacher i

    Its awful fun to grow up marxist in the US. You get to go to meetings where you, as a kid, soon realize there's no point in paying attention so off you go with the other rowdy tots into the ghetto to make trouble with whatever you find to hand.

    And you get to read this novella and if you're bored and underchallenged but over bothered you can begin to argue against american capitalist imperialism and the growth of consumerist doctrine using your new found propaganda skills til you bait a teacher into telling you to move to Russia if you like that stuff so much (*true story)

  • J.G. Keely

    It is an error to assume that the problem with humanity is an inability to recognize our own problems. While it's true that we constantly look outside for answers, this is just because we are unhappy with the answers we have. We know that success requires hard work and knowledge, but we want something easier. We will accept an easier answer even when it isn't true. We are not motivated by what is true or likely, but by frightening or enticing stories.

    We are driven away from the necessary and the

    It is an error to assume that the problem with humanity is an inability to recognize our own problems. While it's true that we constantly look outside for answers, this is just because we are unhappy with the answers we have. We know that success requires hard work and knowledge, but we want something easier. We will accept an easier answer even when it isn't true. We are not motivated by what is true or likely, but by frightening or enticing stories.

    We are driven away from the necessary and the difficult by our inadequacies and fears, and so rarely move ourselves any closer to fulfillment. In a perversity of justice, those who do achieve the things which we imagine would fulfill us (wealth, fame, beauty, genius) are no more fulfilled than the average man, and just as beset by inadequacy and fear. Often, more so.

    Transhumanism represents a hope that we can escape this pattern of ignorance and self-destruction but only by escaping the human bodies and minds that cannot control themselves.

    The Manifesto always seemed little more than a sad reminder of our failings, though it did motivate people and provided a test of the mettle of humanity. Beyond that, it does more to rile than to increase understanding of the economy and our role within it. It is sad that a work which is at least based on some worthwhile principles falls to the same simple fears and ideals that plague our everyday lives.

    The manifesto tries to take all of the economic theory of its authors and create from it a story that will excite the common man. They did not expect that most of them would pick up Das Kapital and start really thinking about their role in things. It was enough to engage their greed and sense of injustice without intruding much on their understanding.

    The average man does not want to understand, he would prefer to believe. It is unfortunate that the main effect proven by the Communist movement is that any and every political system simply shifts wealth and power from one group to another, and little aids the serf or the unlucky.

    We Americans are in little position to stand over the 'failure of Communism', since democracy has not proven any kinder to mankind, nor can it deliver justice equally to the poor and the rich.

  • Jason

    Read this and understand why your imperialist capitalist government spent the better part of a century playing hot potato with ICBMs, invading and incinerating peaceful, peasant countries, and making your mom and dad piss themselves under school desks.

    The elite were scared shitless and by no means would they allow their slaves, errr labor force, a fraction of freedom or equality or means to resist. The 60 year propaganda campaign against Communism and the virtual disappearance of strong labor u

    Read this and understand why your imperialist capitalist government spent the better part of a century playing hot potato with ICBMs, invading and incinerating peaceful, peasant countries, and making your mom and dad piss themselves under school desks.

    The elite were scared shitless and by no means would they allow their slaves, errr labor force, a fraction of freedom or equality or means to resist. The 60 year propaganda campaign against Communism and the virtual disappearance of strong labor unions prove this.

    Marx is downright bold in his call for the "FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF ALL EXISTING SOCIAL CONDITIONS!" In fact, the Manifesto is a flat-out demand that you go out and set shit on fire, and that's cool enough for me.

    Of course, Marxism is flawed because any prick with enough power will undoubtedly exploit the little guy bla bla bla...

    The point is maybe there is a better system based on real freedom instead of free-trade.

  • Ken

    EH. You know. Marx. Reading Marx is like fucking a microwaved squash -- everyone's got to do it eventually, but you probably shouldn't get so into it that you start joining a club. Because the next thing you know you'll be standing on the back of a personnel transport humorlessly waving a huge flag and screaming through a bullhorn at a bunch of people who made the fatal mistake of not agreeing with you, while your comrades herd them through barbed-wire-lined corrals with rifle butts and... wait,

    EH. You know. Marx. Reading Marx is like fucking a microwaved squash -- everyone's got to do it eventually, but you probably shouldn't get so into it that you start joining a club. Because the next thing you know you'll be standing on the back of a personnel transport humorlessly waving a huge flag and screaming through a bullhorn at a bunch of people who made the fatal mistake of not agreeing with you, while your comrades herd them through barbed-wire-lined corrals with rifle butts and... wait, is this analogy still holding?

  • Jeremy

    Long overdue update (2013): I read this book five years ago and in almost every respect, I have mellowed considerably.

    You can read my review below. It's unchanged. You can read the comments below that. Also unchanged.

    I never seriously expected anyone to read this review, much less love or hate it so strongly. I am not apologizing for my view of the book or Marx. He put his entire life into this slender and influential book, and I respect that. I understand a bit more about where he was coming fr

    Long overdue update (2013): I read this book five years ago and in almost every respect, I have mellowed considerably.

    You can read my review below. It's unchanged. You can read the comments below that. Also unchanged.

    I never seriously expected anyone to read this review, much less love or hate it so strongly. I am not apologizing for my view of the book or Marx. He put his entire life into this slender and influential book, and I respect that. I understand a bit more about where he was coming from historically, and it doesn't seem as inherently ridiculous as I might have claimed five years ago. But I still largely stand by my original take on it. What Marx predicts is an oppressive totalitarian regime which would be able to commit all kinds of human rights abuses far too easily. I'm not OK with that. And I don't think it works from a philosophical point of view, mainly because I think it neglects the realities of human nature. I think free market capitalism does the exact same thing, though the end results are different. Or are they?

    It's funny. People commenting here seem to think I'm a proponent of free market capitalism (I do consider myself a capitalist, but not of the lassiez faire variety...its track record is poor as far as I'm concerned). I'm not. Whereas on other posts and comment threads on this same site I've been accused of being a socialist. Now that's funny!

    Anyway...

    Disclaimer: I read this book with a heavy bias against Marxist thought. That being said, I like to think of myself as a logical person so I have framed my thoughts as logically as possible instead of in the 'Communists are bad! They just are!' line of reasoning. That being said...

    The spectre of Communism is still haunting the world...it has died.

    Suffice it to say that I was sorely disappointed with Marx's argument. So much so that I fail to believe that anyone over the age of twenty-one could take him seriously even on a theoretical basis. Perhaps a century and a half of perspective is to blame. Maybe I'm missing a dimension of Marx's argument. It could simply be that the manifesto is a by-product of the industrial revolution that looks quite silly in "post-industrial" America.

    Summing up Marx in two sentences: Class struggle is the defining injustice and condition of human society. We, the proletariat, must rise up through a violent and sudden revolution and overthrow our capitalist oppressors.

    Let me get this straight. We're going to overcome class struggle by perpetrating a class war against the bourgoisie? If a major goal of communism is to eradicate social classes, why does it temporarily aim to establish the proletariat as the ruling class?

    Oh right. Becauase once the proletariat gains power it will someday voluntarily abdicate said power for the greater good of society. As Mugatu said about Zoolander when he points out that all of the latter's 'looks' are actually the same: "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" It makes little rational sense.

    Now onto more specific arguments regarding Marx's "generally applicable measures" that must be established by the proletariat after the violent overthrow of capitalism. It's pretty scary, actually.

    No ownership of land, a heavy income tax, no rights of inheritance, seizure of all property from "rebels" (whatever that means...presumably political enemies) and emigrants, centralized credit and capital in the hands of the state, state ownership of the means of transportation and communication, establishment of 'industrial armies', equitable distribution of the populace in town and country, and an abolition of child labor with concurrent establishment of public education (actually that last point I agree with).

    Such a strategy will ALWAYS lead to a totalitarian government that needlessly and wantonly causes suffering and economic hardship for the vast majority of its citizens.

    I have yet to hear anybody move beyond theoretical praise of Marxism. Even the most ardent supporters will be forced to conclude that in real life the Marxist state is not preferred over the capitalist state because there is still an inequitible division of power between the ruling class and the common man. And the 'evil capitalism' that they rail against is actually the governmental imperialism of capitalist states, not the economic structure of said state.

    The argument against capitalism is too much capital in the hands of too few. But Marxism advocates all capital be concentrated in the hands of a totalitarian regime that gives too little to the vast majority.

  • Traveller

    This tract by Marx and Engels is too enormous in implication to review fully in the small little space that GR allows, so what I'll do for now is take extracts from it and comment on them, piece by piece.

    Per the Maifesto:"

    This tract by Marx and Engels is too enormous in implication to review fully in the small little space that GR allows, so what I'll do for now is take extracts from it and comment on them, piece by piece.

    Per the Maifesto:"

    Marx and Engels are here addressing a snapshot in time of European history. I don't have much knowledge of conditions during the industrial revolution in the rest of Europe, but have researched the situation relatively extensively as it was in Britain, as a background to a lot of criticism that was launched against the status quo by a lot of Victorian writers of fiction.

    In the feudal system, "labor" did not remove laborers from their families at all, in fact, it rather strengthened family ties since most of what can be seen as the proletariat of feudal times, were indebted laborers on the fiefdom of their feudal lord.

    So, the only labor which compromised the family situation, was the kind of labor done by men, women and children in mines and factories during the industrial revolution, from around 1750 to the early 1900's.

    If you read up on reforms in Britain, you will see that by about 1831, public outcries against child labor and the conditions that adults and children were made to work under in mines, caused public commissions to be instituted by government, which started a slow and gradual reform of conditions via legislation, to the point that all kinds of laborers are pretty well-protected and well-represented at the present day.

    Ironically, the big bad fat cats these days are not the kind that deal with direct labor, but rather the type who deal in/with secondary products (like financial products) and services. (By services we do not mean of the "labour" kind that Marx addressed- Marx was addressing the kind of workers who were exploited in mines and factories.)

    Note that the industrial revolution, although it started off bringing such untold misery to so many, also had the following effect: average income and population began to exhibit unprecedented sustained growth. In the two centuries following 1800, the world's average per capita income increased over tenfold, while the world's population increased over sixfold. Finally it was within the grasp of those born outside of nobility to make a decent living for themselves.

    A lot of workplace reform has taken place since the IR started.. and not through rabble-rousers like Marx, but because people with a conscience raised their voices and cried out against the injustices being done by capitalists against fellow human beings.

    Authors like Charles Dickens, for instance, and Victor Hugo, helped to encourage the privileged to look upon their less fortunate brethren with greater sympathy, and to call for social reform in the name of conscience.

    ...so, Karl Marx is being a great opportunist here. At a time when history and society is in great flux and inner revolution, when a new era is dawning and social conscience still needs to become cognizant of the suffering of some of the members of society, Karl Marx exploits the situation, ironically by making use of the exploitation by one element of society, of another.

    It is the poor and the ignorant that is being exploited, and Karl Marx exploits their helplessness, ignorance and gullibility to shout for revolution instead of evolution. Marx and Engels call for violence where no violence is necessary, because peaceful change was already taking place in any case.

    Per the manifesto:

    The implication is obvious. According to the authors, the implication is that marriage is a bourgeois, patriarchal institution for the exploitation of women, a form of prostitution. You would think that anybody who is even in the slightest familiar with history, would be able to see immediately how fallacious and false such an accusation is, since marriage is a social institution that evolved gradually over many centuries, but has always been something that protected rather than exploited women. Remember, for centuries and centuries, women had no recourse save sexual abstinence (for which the best path was to become a nun) against falling pregnant.

    Women had exactly three choices: Be a prostitute, be a nun, or have the protection of marriage, where you could at least have the privilege of raising your children in a protected environment, and in which the father of the child had the responsibility to care for the children and their mother on a material level.

    It is only through birth control, which we at last have 99% effective technology for, that woman is emancipated from the hearth and can take her place next to males as a fully economically productive partner, since she doesn't have to be tied down in a perpetual cycle of pregnancy, childbirth and nursing anymore.

    This has nothing to do with the bourgeoisie except that it was people out of the horrible, terrible ranks of those dastardly bourgeoisie, that modern medicine was developed, modern medicine, which keeps child- and maternal mortality at bay, has brought better health to people of all walks and stations in life, and has given us the technology to be able to choose when we do or don't have children. (..except if you let The Pope tell you, of course).

    I have an overwhelming feeling that Marx was simply exploiting women's emancipation movements to gain more supporters for Communism, when he says the following:

    Yes, women were being marginalized, but by the fact that we were excluded from property holding rights (something Marx scorns in any case) and from having an equal right to vote (something else which he scorns too).

    Let's analyze this carefully:

    How are bourgeois males

    women by marrying them? ..by having sex with them and expecting of them to have children? ..but it is usually

    who want children in the first place. Certainly, in feudal times,

    sons were deemed an essential item for males to acquire in order to continue the family line, but, since the human species would discontinue should women stop having children, calling it an exploitation of women by men sounds like a rather strange, roundabout way of putting things.

    Certainly in the time that capitalism has steadfastly taken root, children have become really more of a liability financially speaking, than a prize.

    ..and calling a married woman more of a prostitute than an unmarried woman would be, who will still be used for sex, just this time by the entire mob instead of her husband, (unless the married woman decides to swing which will be HER decision to cuckold her husband - unless they both agree to swing) just sounds a bit crazy.

    In fact, if you think about it, it is

    who is making the implication that women are mere objects, property to be owned like cows or camels, by suggesting that they will be seen as fair game ("community of women", as he puts it, having a similar meaning to "community of property") under Communist rule.

    I just can't help finding his attitude massively patronizing and insulting, both towards men and women, as much as I decry the patriarchy of the past, because Marx himself is speaking with the very voice of patriarchy and sexism that he supposedly decries. He speaks their language, the language of the white, supremacist patriarchal 'master'.

    Also from the manifesto:

    ...and our children must be taken away from us and brought up in some state institution. See:

    It is generally accepted knowledge that institutionalized care away from any sort of notion of family, is psychologically

    healthy for children.

    See:

    ..so Marx wants to pull down the very fabric of society, to the point of removing even the notion of family - to remove from children the prerogative of having your own mother and father, of having brothers and sisters, and instead, humans must become cogs in the wheel of Communism, mindless automatons who have no individuality, no sense of self.

    No thanks, I don't buy into the hive-mind insect-think.

    This review is a work in progress, so more to follow soon.

    EDIT: Dear reader, if you feel you need to comment,

    take the time to read the discussion thread below first - these issues and even more regarding Marxism, Communism, etc, are discussed EXTENSIVELY in the comment thread below, and I fear that comments are starting to become repetitive, with clear indications that commentors are not bothering to check if their arguments might already have been discussed a few times over. Unfortunately all that is discussed cannot be worked into the review itself, since GR limits review space, and this is a HUGE subject.

    I'd also like to mention that I am absolutely to a large extent a fan of Socialism in general and a great fan of the Scandinavian mixed system. What I am criticizing in this review, is specifically this document, 'The Communist Manifesto', and not Socialism itself.

    I promise to make time soon to work more of the discussions into the review itself, but some very well-read and intelligent Marxian apologists have commented, so it might be worth your time to read the discussions in any case.

    Thanks. :)

  • Joseph

    A very important book at the time it was written. Some would conclude that it was the threat of the Communist that reformed the system to allow for leisure time for the working class. Organized labor reformed American business and transformed Europe. Americans still greatly oppose communism/socialism in all it forms (except for social security, medicare, public roads and parks, pork projects that benefit their neighborhoods, OSHA, veteran affairs......).

    ----------------------------

    A very important book at the time it was written. Some would conclude that it was the threat of the Communist that reformed the system to allow for leisure time for the working class. Organized labor reformed American business and transformed Europe. Americans still greatly oppose communism/socialism in all it forms (except for social security, medicare, public roads and parks, pork projects that benefit their neighborhoods, OSHA, veteran affairs......).

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reread this today and reminded myself how in the historical context this work was important and how so many today have little idea what it really says. Marx and Engels were not hell bent on Soviet type domination. They would never expect communism to take root in Russia a vast agrarian society. Oddly though that is the only place communism or a totalitarian state calling itself communism ever did take hold.

    Marx and Engels saw the problem in industrialized societies. People flooded the cities for jobs, wages went down, young children needed to work to help support the family. There were no safety nets that we enjoy today like 40-hour work weeks, minimum wages, and child labor laws, let alone any benefits. Industrialization had destroyed society and divided the population. The skilled labor class was displaced by mass produced goods. The population became two classes the very small property owning bourgeois and the huge working class proletariat. Skilled labor was absorbed by the proletariat. The bourgeois became the ruling class; they even used the proletariat to help rid them of the aristocracy.

    The movement Marx and Engels documented in the Manifesto was to end the deplorable conditions in the mid-19th century industrial world. They saw no way to do this except for revolution. As the unrest grew in Europe the bourgeoise and industry saved themselves. Rather than risk losing everything compromise came about. Government and labor unions worked to increase factory safety, labor, child labor. Education expanded, England reformed the Poor Law, and something unheard of developed --leisure time for the common man. A middle class developed. The middle class is important to capitalism because they are the consumers, and in order for capitalism to grow it must create new markets or it will stagnate. These reforms created a consumer class that allowed the bourgeoisie to continue in their ways making up for their losses at the factory with new markets. The middle-class saw it possible to advance and the unskilled worker pool shrank with new oppurtunity.

    Communism did fail, but not in the way most people think. It became a threat and it was appeased. The industrial world reformed to relieve the threat of violent takeover. The proletariat did have a steep numerical advantage over the bourgeoisie (much like today's 99%). Communism never took hold in the areas it was intended to. It could be reforms or the entrance into the world of consumption that allowed this either through availability of affordable housing, plentiful food, and material goods. People who own tend to be more content than those who long. Even if what they own is a tiny fraction of what others own. The failure of communism came in the form of social democrats in Europe and liberalism in America. Marx and Engels believed that capitalism could not be reformed and needed to be destroyed. History has shown otherwise. Reformed and regulated capitalism has created the greatest wealth for the greatest number of people on Earth. America, Europe, and Japan have regulated capitalism. Even "communist" China has jumped on the bandwagon. (Now what all this creation of wealth is doing to the planet and environment is another story.)

    I'll mention this again because it deserves mentioning. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and others were/are not communist. They never met the criteria; they never developed the system. Very little separated them from right wing dictatorships in reality. You can call a cat a dog all you want, but its not going to bark.

  • Barry Pierce

    What can I say? Marx was right. Almost.

  • Bookdragon Sean

    Communism doesn’t work. Its ideals are perfectly understandable, justifiable even, but the way it seeks to attain them, that’s just terrible. In reality communist policy falls apart or isn’t fully followed.

    The driving force is to achieve a classless rather than class based society. Sounds good on paper doesn’t it? But in order to achieve such a thing, the manifesto proposes a revolution that will wipe out private property. This is more than following the march of history. Mankind has seen count

    Communism doesn’t work. Its ideals are perfectly understandable, justifiable even, but the way it seeks to attain them, that’s just terrible. In reality communist policy falls apart or isn’t fully followed.

    The driving force is to achieve a classless rather than class based society. Sounds good on paper doesn’t it? But in order to achieve such a thing, the manifesto proposes a revolution that will wipe out private property. This is more than following the march of history. Mankind has seen countless revolutions that have failed. The Bourgeois (ruling class) is replaced by the Proletariats (working class) which then go on to form a new ruling class. The difference with communism, and why it will apparently succeed, is that the new rising class will destroy ownership; thus, the cycle has been broken: there will no longer be any class divides.

    But what’s left? A power vacuum and a new means to create more wealth and ownership? Then surely the system just begins anew. Surely people just belong to the government even more so than before. Then there’s the total lack of proof. There are huge statements in this, huge sweeping statements, that suggest that worldwide communism will end all wars. Isn’t that slightly naïve? What’s to stop two opposing communist nations fighting over natural resources or land? Nothing. Communism isn’t the answer to the world’s problems.

    And besides, the manifesto initially advocates war to create a temporary class. What kind of political party overtly advocates war, death and human suffering? It speaks of blood spilt over the ages, wasted blood, and then goes on to propose the shedding of more. Isn’t this just a little hypocritical? Sure, some extremists may deem that a necessary cost, but it’s just another form of corruption. Communism opposes the capitalist world on the idea that wealth is concentrated in the upper reaches of society. That’s true. Capitalism, obviously, has many flaws, but that’s beside the point. Communist rulers seek to grasp that wealth for the “good” of their people. What do they then do with it? They wage war, covertly or overtly, on the capitalist world and watch as their people starve. But that doesn’t matter, right? As long as communism spreads…….

    This is a most interesting read. And whist I obviously take issue with the politics, I’m glad I read it. This is a product of history, one that should be read and understood by all.

    Penguin Little Black Classic- 20

    The Little Black Classic Collection by penguin looks like it contains lots of hidden gems. I couldn’t help it; they looked so good that I went and bought them all. I shall post a short review after reading each one. No doubt it will take me several months to get through all of them! Hopefully I will find some classic authors, from across the ages, that I may not have come across had I not bought this collection.

  • Foad

    بعد نوشت:

    فرازی جالب از کتاب

    اثر میرچا الیاده:

    اجازه دهید وارد مسئلۀ اعتبار فلسفی مارکسیسم و سرنوشت تاریخی آن نشویم و تنها الگوی اسطوره ای کمونیسم و راز معادشناختی محبوبیت همگانی آن را در نظر آوریم، زیرا به گمان ما، صرف نظر از تمامی ادّعاهای علمی مارکس، روشن است که نویسندۀ مانیفست کمونیسم یکی از مهم ترین اسطوره های جهان خاورمیانه را گرفته و پرداخته است، از جمله: نقش منجی ای «بر حق»، «برگزیده»، «از خود گذشته»، «معصوم» و «مبلغ» که در زمان ما پرولتاریا باید آن را ایفا کند. همانی که

    بعد نوشت:

    فرازی جالب از کتاب

    اثر میرچا الیاده:

    اجازه دهید وارد مسئلۀ اعتبار فلسفی مارکسیسم و سرنوشت تاریخی آن نشویم و تنها الگوی اسطوره ای کمونیسم و راز معادشناختی محبوبیت همگانی آن را در نظر آوریم، زیرا به گمان ما، صرف نظر از تمامی ادّعاهای علمی مارکس، روشن است که نویسندۀ مانیفست کمونیسم یکی از مهم ترین اسطوره های جهان خاورمیانه را گرفته و پرداخته است، از جمله: نقش منجی ای «بر حق»، «برگزیده»، «از خود گذشته»، «معصوم» و «مبلغ» که در زمان ما پرولتاریا باید آن را ایفا کند. همانی که رنج هایش موجب تغییر وضعیت هستی شناسانۀ جهان می شود.

    در واقع جامعۀ بی طبقۀ مارکس و ناپدید شدن تمامی تنش های تاریخی، به شکلی دقیق در اسطورۀ «عصر طلایی» وجود دارد، که بنا به سنت های دینی مختلف عصری آرمانی است که در سرآغاز تاریخ وجود داشته و در پایان تاریخ بازگشت می کند. مارکس این اسطورۀ مقدس را با ایدئولوژی منجی گرایانۀ مسیحی-یهودی غنی می سازد: از سویی، به یاری کارکرد پیامبرانه و منجیانه ای که به پرولتاریا نسبت می دهد، و از سوی دیگر به کمک نبرد نهایی خیر و شر که می توان آن را با نبرد میان مسیح و ضدّ مسیح در مکاشفات یوحنّا مقایسه کرد که به پیروزی قطعی مسیح می انجامد.

    این بسیار مهم است که مارکس امیدهای معادشناسانۀ یهودی-مسیحی به «هدف مطلق تاریخ» را وارد گفته های خود می سازد، و از این لحاظ از سایر فیلسوفان تاریخ از جمله گروچه و اورتگایی گاست جدا می شود، زیرا در نظر آن ها تنش های تاریخ ملازم شرایط انسانی است و بنابراین هرگز نمی تواند به طور کامل از میان برود.

    ریویوی سابق:

    ١.

    حقيقت يكى بيشتر نيست، و قابل کشف است، و در تصرف منِ کارل ماركس است.

    ٢.

    تاريخ امرى عقلانى و مكانيكى است، و مى توان حتى قبل از پديد آمدن انسان بر روى سياره، با قطعيت نشان داد كه او دقيقاً به چه سمتى حركت خواهد كرد.

    ٣.

    همه ى جوامع چه ساكنان بدوى جزيره ى تاهيتى در ميان اقيانوس آرام، چه افريقاييان و چه ساكنان هر سياره اى كه فرض شود، لاجرم به سمتى خواهند رفت كه اروپاى غربى قرن نوزدهم در آن قرار داشت.

    ٤.

    تنها يك شكل پيشرفت قابل فرض است و آن پيشرفت اروپاى غربى قرن نوزدهم است، در نتيجه هر جامعه اى كه به سمت اين پيشرفت خاص نيامده باشد، هر حركتى هم در طول تاريخ كرده باشد، در حقيقت در جا زده.

    قرائت مارکس در عصر پسامدرن.


Books Finder is in no way intended to support illegal activity. We uses Search API to find the overview of books over the internet, but we don't host any files. All document files are the property of their respective owners, please respect the publisher and the author for their copyrighted creations. If you find documents that should not be here please report them. Read our DMCA Policies and Disclaimer for more details.