Engels was the engine behind Karl Marx, one that gave him all the support he could, so to permit Marx to dedicate himself almost completely to the completion of his works. Judging himself many degrees bellow Marx in terms of intelect, Engels nonetheless is capable of writting a book such as this which describes all the impoverishment of the working class in the beginning of the industrialization in England, being helped by some well porputed factories labor fiscalization agents who allowed Engels to flip trough their reports. Strong terms like "the dark satanic mills" describe fully what were the working conditions of the time in a so rich country as England. An historical document lest no one forget what can happen again if the free hand of capitalism is allowed to run free of any barriers.

In this book, Karl Marx's friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels describes the lives of England's laboring classes in the worst days of the industrial revolution. This includes dangerous working conditions, meager pay, child labor and explotation. Being the son of the owner of a textile factory, Engels knew of these conditions first hand. In these days it was said that the fastest way out of Manchester was a bottle of gin. This book contains images that are pathetic in the true sense of word, one catches glimpes of life so wretched that they are scarely belivable. Writings such as this one eventually exposed the misery of the working classes and had a profound influence on socialists and labor movement leaders. The book is a tour-de-force and truly speaks for it's self.

This is the best Marx anthology available. Aside from selections taken from all of Marx's major works, it contains lesser-known selections on a variety of topics. The whole presents a steady stream of selections through Marx's life. Consequently, it gives the length and breadth of Marx's writing without burying you in a life-time of reading. Short explanatory introductions help place the selections in Marx's development and in broader history.

A good follow up is Main Currents of Marxism by Leszek Kolakowski (3 volumes). Unfortunately those books are out of print in America, but they can still be found in good libraries and in the used-book market.

This is an excellent selection of the writings of Karl Marx. This includes many writings which do not make it into the usual Marx/Engels Readers; Writings including Marx's Letters, his criticism of Bakunin, more writings on economics than in the usual Reader, and so on. One flaw of it, though, is that it does not contain the later writings of Engels writen after Marx's death. I suppose this is to be expected; It is after all *Marx's* writings, not Engels. However, the loss does not affect it much, and the book is still one of the most valuable tomes of Marxism I've bought. I'd recommend anyone interested in the thought of Karl Marx to get this book; If one is interested in both the writings of Marx and Engels, I'd recommend they get this book and the Marx/Engels Reader to supplement it. I have both, and both are fascinating.

This work is an essential history of the usage of the term 'democracy' as this crystalized in the era of the 1840's leaving Marx and Engels stranded with a series of acute but now misleading assertions and critiques of its meaning and actual content. The more is the pity since these views of Marx and Engels were at the onset far more democratic than those who fixed the word's meaning. Small wonder a legacy of bitterness festers here. To this is added the unfortunate confusion over the term, 'dictatorship of the proletariat, and the thinking of Marx is indeed ambiguous in this regard. The perceptions of those passing through the revolutions of 1848 are hard to reconstruct, as the brief alliance of classes led to the victory of one and the betrayal of the rest. This factor is what is responsible for the mistruct of 'democracy so-called'in the name of democracy in Marx and Engels, in a period before universal suffrage was an intrinsic part of the word 'democracy'.

Capital, from Karl Marx,has to be respected as a book that moved all the intellectual scenario of the late past century and early twientieth century. But, altough Adam Smith's Wealth of the Nations still is a scientifically and theoretically valid work, the Capital was completelly refuted book (in that Karl Popper's sense). The Capital was based in a deterministic view of world, which was comprensible in that period of history, when the Newton's Science was the gratest scientific achievement. But that determinism was crushed with the advent of Enstein's theory of Relativity, and the most important of all, the advent of Quantum Mechanics, in the early years of this century. In a indirect way, the whole point made by Marx was destroyed: His premise which says that, studying the past, we can predict the future. Appling a method used in the Exact Sciences (inferential-deductive) Marx thought was possible to known the future (the inexorable Communism, coming from the struggle of classes)from simply analising the past, as the mathematics would do with a theorem. Marx viewed Economics as a static system(not the way Smith already viewed the Economics, a century earlier), and the free will as a illusion, since all ideologies was merely a subproduct of particular economic era (again determinism). And the worst of all, the moral fundaments of his revoluttionary ideals was: since we already known that capitalism will be replaced by Communism, one way or another, let's end it ourselves, right now, no matter how much blood we'll provocate. In other words is something like this: If you, my friend, are going to die one day, one way or another, I'll kill you right now! A interesting book, but only as a curiosity (because of his influence) and nothing else. As a economic work, its tottaly refuted for a long time.

...P>The key to grappling with Vol. 2 involves two major problems.

First, Marx took capital as irrational, and the capital-labor relation as an anatagonistic relation of domination. So part of the problem with Capital involves explaining how capitalism can even function in the first place. This helps us to grapple with Marx's discussion of circulation sans crisis.

Secondly, think of department one and department two as capital and labor respectively and it makes a lot more sense. As with Vols. 1 and 3, every aspect of Capital is steeped in a description of the antagonistic social relations (class struggle) and the forms in which they appear (form here means 'mode of existence', the way in which the antagonistic social relations make themselves apparent to us.)

The reason that Marx investigates the forms of the underlying social relations has to do with Marx's conception of science. Marx uses the term science to denote thought which critiques, which does not assume that essence and appearance (form and content) mirror each other, but are mediated and therefore distorted and not directly perceived.

As for the people who continue to insist that Marx wrote an alternate economics textbook, wake up. The book is not about economics per se, since Marx felt that the separation of the economic from the political, legal, artistic, etc. was a specific manifestation of the capital-labor relation. He critiques this separation and does so, not through a transhistorical set of 'laws' (as so many claim), but through a critique of bourgeois society's own understanding of itself (most prominently for Marx, via political economy.) For Marx, the 'laws' of capital are the forms of motion of the class struggle, not transhistorical, disembodied rules.

A complete argument can hardly be made here, but do yourself a favor if you wish to make a comment on or engage with Marx: read what Marx says. Like any other worthwhile intellectual, Marx takes a lot of effort (an acquaintance with Hegel helps a lot). Unlike most, Marx really was serious, even (especially) in relation to Das Kapital, that the point is not to understand the world, but to change it. Theory can never resolve the contradictions of the practical world, only revolutionary practice, the self-activity of the working class (most of us), can produce a society based on the 'free association of producers', in which 'the freedom of each is the precondition of the freedom of all'. Hardly the vision of a totalitarian.

The book is fascinating because it has exerted so much influence. It is frightening because very few that acted on the theories presented in the book can have properly understood them. When they had understood them they would have found them to be useless. In order to arrive at this conclusion I have read the book thoroughly, which is hard work. The influence of the book derives from the dramatic but accurate description of the way capitalism functioned at the time Marx lived. Apart from a few responsible capitalists such as the Quakers, capitalists were only chasing profit without any consideration of the health of their employees and their families. Acts of parliament to reduce labour hours from 15 hours during six days as well as the extensive use of child labour were fiercely opposed by the capitalists referring to their certain ruin if these laws were passed. Marx writes: "capital never becomes reconciled to such changes". Marx does not point out that the exploitation of farm labourers was just as bad or even worse. Exploitation is as old as civilisation. That is however not a justification for the absence of moral standards.
The economic theory is presented as if it is scientific and that the laws will lead to a replacement of the capitalist system by a superior one. Unfortunately there is no science and the description of the superior system is extremely limited.
What Marx refers to, as laws are hypotheses and effects that are the result of the hypotheses. All examples are based on the idea that a worker works for six hours for a capitalist to earn enough to pay for his subsistence and works another six hours without being paid for by he capitalist. A typical example of a "law" derived from this hypothesis is that when the labour costs of a product declines profits decline. This strange idea is based on the idea that if the total cost of raw materials and machinery depreciation and labour costs are 100 and the labour cost thereof declines from 40 to 20 that the profit also declines from 40 to 20 as paid labour time is equal to unpaid labour time. This leads to the next "law". As the profit declines with increasing investment in equipment the capitalist increases sales more rapidly than the profit percentage declines so that his absolute profit increases. It is obvious that if the volume increases more in percentage than the price declines as a percentage that the absolute profit increases. Marx devotes many pages to explaining this "law". The sentences are however very cumbersome and loaded with emotions that make it very hard work to discover that the laws are mathematical necessities. Marx does not recognise any work having value other than that of manual labour, " only the labourer is productive". He does not consider selling, product development, accounting, figuring out in what to invest, analysing risk taking as work. He therefore considers that all "profit" made is theft from the worker. Marx specifically excludes competition from his theories "actual movement of competition belongs beyond our scope". He nevertheless makes some negative comments like referring to it as " capitalism begets by its anarchical system of competition, the most outrageous squandering of labour power".
As far as the new superior system Marx only writes: "But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation". "This does not re-establish private property for the worker but will be based on co-operation and the possession in common of land and of the means of production".
The conclusion "Marxist" countries logically drew from Marxists theories were, (1) the only owner of the means of production can be the state (2) there is no needs for marketing and sales (3) profit can never be justified (4) there is something wrong with competition and that can be avoided by central state planning and (5) our success is assured as our actions are based on scientific laws. In that way they did accept his hypothesis with disastrous effect.
Some examples of emotional language, that makes the book fascinating to read. "Capital pumps the surplus-labour (unpaid working hours) directly out of the labourers", on supervision, " The place of the slave-driver's lash is taken by the overlooker's book of penalties, on profit "the profit made in selling depends on cheating, deceit and inside knowledge" and finally "If money comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek, capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt".

It is fascinating that a book that describes real problems with powerful emotional language can make many intelligent people with good intentions believers without critically analysing the proposed theories. It is frightening that many powerful political leaders applied these theories (with or without good intentions).

This is an extremely brief overview of the term "ideology." But in these few pages, David McLellan manages to trace the concept as it was interpreted by many different people and schools of thought from Marx and Marxists to structuralists and postmodernists. Usually, "ideology" is a word used very liberally without much thought given to its meaning, but McLellan shows us the political meanings and intricate history that lie behind it.

This book is an excellent wealth of post-Marx Marxism. It is hard to find a book that can clearly explain and contrast the different factions of Marxism; whether it be Lenin, Guvera, or Mao it is an excellent source of information. The only downfall of this book is it is geared towards a more scholastic audience; Not a good book for begining Marxists.

The Communist Manifesto was among the most feared and banned books in the 20th century. After reading it, I wondered why. What could cause so much fear in less then a hundred pages? The book, though short, is a good read, and doesn't talk above the heads or down to it's readers. But it proves the absurity of communism and why it was destined to doom. Pitting the workers (the prolitares) against the upper class in a constant struggle for a piece of the pie, it dictates that the workers will forever be the stepping stones of the elite to gain, control, and retain wealth. Some of Marx and Engels theories make sense, and many labor unions of today adopt many of the manifestos beliefs, but the authors forgot to take one very serious downfall of the human race into account: that of greed. As most of the communist countries show the people that become powerful and retain the control of the communist parties become rich and often the exact people that they claim to hate, living it great wealth while the "workers" suffer. (though it is mostly a satire of socialism, check out Animal Farm, a perfect example). This short books is a good read, and I encourge everyone (especially those that fear communism taking over the world, yet knowing nothing about it) to read it, and seeing why their fears are unfounded, and why it wouldn't (and didn't) work.

Marx's "Communist Manifesto" is a response to human cost of Industrial Revolution. It was a time when Europe was coming of age, with the development of modern industry and the potential world market. This market had an immense development to commerce, to navigation and to industry. These improvements were enacted at a cost of society as a whole divided into two hostile camps -the bourgeoise and the proletariat. Marx immersed himself into the suffrage of the new urban proletariat at the hands of bourgeoise modern capitalist. His solution lay in the abolition of private property living in a society where all are equal.

I found this document an interesting read, as this short concise book simply explains the "theory" of one economic system. It should be noted the democracy prevalent at the time of this books introduction closely resembled an oligarchy, in which the rich and powerful ruled the weak. The impact of socialist ideology on this situation was great: labor movements were created, egalitarianism became a greater part of democracy ideology and the lower classes became more significant to the political system than they had ever been before.

The greatest weakness one can note of Marx's argument, is his failure to predict the significance of the middle class in the nations. Marx's view was that the middle class would either be absorbed into the working class or proprietors. The success of the middle class in present times accounts for the failure of Marx's theory.

The Communist Manifesto is a superior piece of political work. Karl Marx was able to put great information of his Workers theories into one small volume that is 20 times lighter than his work of "Das Kapital"; - having nevertheless great information and inspiration descibing the idea of Communism. This explains the motivations and stages of his idea of a Socialist government, written in a key time when the industry and modern Capitalism first started to develop, using each other to exploit the working class for capital. This book can be read by anyone, and includes a small glossary of important terms to help the reader understand what Marx and Engels are trying to explain. I recommend this book to anybody who considers themself a non-bigot and open-minded person. This is truly one of the greatest, if not the greatest pieces of political literature ever written.