Home · Book Reports · 2018 · Manifesto of the Communist Party

designates my notes. / designates important.

Thoughts

A lot of people attack communists and communism with as much fervor as you see towards someone like Hitler and his Nazis. After reading Mein Kampf and seeing there was nothing to be upset about in Hitler’s book, and after seeing in that very same book much vitriol towards the communists, I thought this would be worthwhile to read.

It turns out that, unlike the ill conceived hatred spewed towards Hitler, the invectives pointed toward this manifesto are, at least in my opinion, delivered not nearly frequently enough nor with as much ire as it is deserving.

Ridiculous doesn’t even begin; it boggles my mind that these ideas would ever survive a day, let alone over a century. In fact, these very ideals are still in practice today, taught, or should I say instilled, by our university educated university professors, propagating the idea of class struggle and property abolishment, however often couched in words like “reform”, despite a litany of failures history has to offer.

The main points are explicit, presented unapologetically. First, the obvious, abolishment of all private property. Everyone is familiar with that, but it is actually the tamest of the ideals espoused.

Next we have the abolishment of all religion. I know a lot of people today, at least those western-minded ones, those vanguards of science, extolling that religion is useless, a fantasy, a delusion, but what is religion if not faith? Do those same science zealots have faith, utter, non flinching, total faith in the beloved scientific method? The new religion IS science. But I digress.

Abolishing nations, building a supranational, one-world party, the world united in peace after the overthrow of capitalism. This is, almost, the end game of communism. I say almost because, once your national identity is removed, there is still one institution that remains, one final “social construct” to demolish. The family.

Yep, that is right, it calls explicitly for the abolishment of the family. How can it possibly be that the most anti-communistic people out there rail about the absurdity of abolishing private property, which I can at least understand both sides of that debate, while leaving untouched the tenderest point on which to upend any semblance of ground the would-be communist is arguing from. Who in their right mind things family is an oppressive structure? It is even more insane than the whole LGBT, I want to be a penguin on Tuesday, nonsense. At least, even if you “identify” as a whatchamacallit, you don’t deny the existence of mothers, fathers, and families, even fucked up ones full of trans loonies. That said, I see the LGBT as the next stage in the wedge that is being driven between families. Children being raised on smart phones, moving across the country to get what passes for an education, and then moving somewhere different, but not back home, in search of the ever more elusive job. But, again, I digress.

Coming back for a moment to the abolishing of all nations, you can see that this is being enacted today. The United Nations may not be the most prestigious of organizations, but it has, along with the League of Nations before it, cleared the path for the so-called refugees flooding into Europe right now. Whatever side you take, it is undeniable that left unabated these migrants will forever change the makeup of Europe. Similar, although less extreme, occurrences are slowly reshaping the ethnic makeup of the United States.

Another strategy, again seen today, is that the communist proposes to support all revolutions under the guise of solidarity. We see Black Lives Matter, one of many social justice warrior fueled movements, presented sympathetically by most of the media, a media that seems to be quite progressive, nearing on communistic at times. In reality all these revolutions, all these movements are supported for one reason and one reason only, destabilization. This is the reason Soros’ foundations, most noteworthy being The Open Society, as well as plenty of others, support these snowflakes. To destabilize the world, make it harder to make heads or tails out of anything, and make it easier to usher in their communistic dreams.

Even the tactics we see today are the tactics described in these pages. Everything is an us versus them, black versus white, bourgeoisie versus proletariat, always a clash, always a confrontation, always militaristic. Even once you get past the violent revolution, if you drink the Kool-Aid and say “Yeah, I buy it, sounds good”, there is a striking absence of what comes next. It only ever talks vaguely about proletarian state and community factories but never gives any detail how this would actually function. Bureaucracy? Even if you say it is all one class, there will still need to be administrators of such a state.

Lastly it seem written in excessively flower language for a document meant to be accessed by the common man. It is older and the people it targeted may have had better reading skills and more extensive vocabularies, but as it stands now I would not wager on it being successful in the modern world of common men. That isn’t to say it is unapproachable, far from it, but in a Twitter and Facebook dominated world, it would be beyond the common layman. This is not a criticism of the doctrine of course, simply an observation.

Finally, when juxtaposing this manifesto this against Mein Kampf, the latter appears as a breath of fresh air in its no nonsense critique of Marxism. The stories in Hitler’s work and what can be seen around us today both stand as testament to the fact communistic elements are not only alive and well, but proceeding swimmingly to bring about their world state, however different the path to reach it might be than that envisioned by Marx and Engels. Our universities still, in the most transparently veiled manner, fill our children’s heads with the same abolishments that are presented herein. These students fill the ranks of the Anti-fa and similar groups that employ the same tactics described by Hitler some 90+ years ago, employed then to inhibit the National Socialist German Labor Party meetings, shouting down any timid opposition and outright violence when their shrill cries fail. Look no farther than Berkley University or even Evergreen College to see a litany of modern examples.

Books

• Der Ursprung der Familie des Privateigentbums und des Staats [The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State] 2nd edition, Stuttgart, 1886 [Note by Engels to the English edition of 1888.]

Exceptional Excerpts

“The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation."

“In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

“We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the ground work of all personal freedom, activity and independence."

“Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily."

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths."

“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."

“Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class."

“The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got."

“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things."

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

Table of Contents

• Preface to the 1872 German Edition
• Preface to the 1882 Russian Edition
• Preface to the 1883 German Edition
• Preface to the 1888 English Edition
• Preface to the 1890 German Edition
• Preface to the 1892 Polish Edition
• Preface to the 1893 Italian Edition


• 01: Bourgeois and Proletarians
• 02: Proletarians and Communists
• 03: Socialist and Communist Literature
• 04: Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

• Pages numbers from the pdf.

· Preface to the 1872 German Edition

· Preface to the 1882 Russian Edition

page 4:

• Step by step the small and middle land ownership of the farmers, the basis of the whole political constitution, is succumbing to the competition of giant farms;

· Preface to the 1883 German Edition

page 5:

• The basic thought running through the Manifesto – that economic production and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch;

· Preface to the 1888 English Edition

page 8:

• This proposition which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin’s theory has done for biology…

page 13:

• Because today, as I write these lines, the European and American proletariat is reviewing its fighting forces, mobilized for the first time, mobilized as one army, under one flag, for one immediate aim: the standard eight-hour working day, to be established by legal enactment, as proclaimed by the Geneva Congress of the International in 1866, and again by the Paris Workers’ Congress in 1889.[24] And today’s spectacle will open the eyes of the capitalists and landlords of all countries to the fact that today the working men of all countries are united indeed.

• If only Marx were still by my side to see this with his own eyes!

· Preface to the 1890 German Edition

· Preface to the 1892 Polish Edition

· Preface to the 1893 Italian Edition

page 16:

• Without restoring autonomy and unity to each nation, it will be impossible to achieve the international union of the proletariat, or the peaceful and intelligent cooperation of these nations toward common aims.

• Autonomy and international union in the same sentence?

· 01: Bourgeois and Proletarians

page 17:

• Der Ursprung der Familie des Privateigentbums und des Staats [The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State] 2nd edition, Stuttgart, 1886 [Note by Engels to the English edition of 1888.]

page 19:

• The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

• Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.[32]

• Modern cybernetics talks of the only constant being change. This keeps people off balance and easier to manipulate.

• The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe.

page 22:

• The lower strata of the middle class – the small trades people, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants – all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists…

page 24:

• their [proletariat] mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

• This goes so far, limitations on generational transfer of capital, or possibly hard caps on individual capital, should suffice.

· 02: Proletarians and Communists

page 26:

• The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of Communism.

• All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

• The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

• The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.[45]

• In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

page 27:

• We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the ground work of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

• Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

• Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?

• But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation.

• This is hard to get a hold of. Work, be exploited if you will, for wages. Save capital. Buy property, i.e. real land.

page 28:

• In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

• The past, tradition, should (?) dominate the present. Progress and change may come, but we are all here today because what came before us was successful, however undesirable it may seem in hindsight.

• The hyper-individuality we see today is leading to the destruction of the family, nuclear and extended, and the larger communities have already been obliterated.

• You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.

page 29:

• Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

• On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

• The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

• I think this is off the rails. Parents exploiting their children? Societies are built up from smaller, tribal, communities. Individual to nuclear family, to extended family, to clan, to tribe, to nation. Some of what has been proposed could be contored to seem reasonable, this can not.span. I believe this shows the true colors of the communist, the destruction of the family.

• But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

• And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

• Education, modern that is, has tons of problems, and it is indeed directed by a ‘ruling class’, but education should not focus, much if at all, on social conditioning. Home based education is best, but if one must attend school it should be limited to reading, writing, arithmetic, and the trivium method of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. This can be instilled in a child between the ages of 3 and 6. Anything beyond that should be left up to the child or will account for delayed maturation.

• The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

• The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.

• Country and nation would be the largest scale of community or family, baring a global community. Speaking of global community, that seems about what is being brought forth through no-nations no-borders policies, through limitless migration, etc.

page 30:

• National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

• The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

page 32:

• (1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

• (2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

• (3) Abolition of all right of inheritance.

• How to stop parents from giving/selling cheaply their property prior to death? This seems like one of the less insane ideas, but it not practical.

• (4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

• (5) Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

• This is the first good idea I have seen! It needs to be non-inflationary though.

• (6) Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

• (7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

• (8) Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

• (9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction[50] between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.[51]

• (10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

• Education, at least in modern times, is already free (library/internet). The education itself is now indoctrination. The real problem is how society views education, that is, as a ticket to a job.

· 03: Socialist and Communist Literature

· 04: Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

page 41:

• In France the Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats…

• But they [communists] never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat,…

• The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation, and with a much more developed proletariat, than that of England was in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

page 42:

• In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

• The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.