The Communist Manifesto (version 2)

Read by Mark F. Smith

(4.3 stars; 144 reviews)

The Communist Manifesto was conceived as an outline of the basic beliefs of the Communist movement. The authors believed that the European Powers were universally afraid of the nascent movement, and were condemning as "communist," people or activities that did not actually conform to what the Communists believed. This Manifesto, then, became a manual for their beliefs.

In it we find Marx and Engel's rehearsal of the idea that Capital has stolen away the work of the artisan and peasant by building up factories to produce goods cheaply. The efficiency of Capital depends, then, on the wage laborers who staff the factories and how little they will accept in order to have work. This concentrates power and money in a Bourgeois class that profits from the disunity of workers (Proletarians), who only receive a subsistence wage.

If workers unite in a class struggle against the bourgeois, using riot and strikes as weapons, they will eventually overthrow the bourgeois and replace them as a ruling class. Communists further believe in and lay out a system of reforms to transform into a classless, stateless society, thus distinguishing themselves from various flavors of Socialism, which would be content to have workers remain the ruling class after the revolution.

The Manifesto caused a huge amount of discussion for its support for a forcible overthrow of the existing politics and society. (Summary by Mark F. Smith) (1 hr 27 min)


1 - Bourgeois and Proletarians 35:59 Read by Mark F. Smith
2 - Proletarians and Communists 23:22 Read by Mark F. Smith
3 - Socialist & Communist Literature; 4 - Position of the Communists in Relatio… 28:34 Read by Mark F. Smith


Excellent Reading, Regardless of View

(5 stars)

Regardless of whether you agree politically or not, this is an excellent reading of a historically significant text, which should be applauded.

Great job as always by the reader

(4 stars)

Mr Smith turns in another stellar performance. Funny thing about the manifesto; almost everything they said wouldn't happen did. what they said would happen didn't. The thing is almost uniformly wrong.

Working men of all nations, kiss my ass

(4 stars)

Reader is great, but I simply cannot give 5* to book that caused deaths of milions.


(4.5 stars)

An essential philosophical text for our time - whether or not one agrees with the content, Marx&Engels have been and remain one of the most influential social philosophical forces for the global economic north-west, in just about every sphere of life. And this recording is clear, well-modulated and a great listen. Interesting to hear it in a South Carolina accent, I dig it

(4.5 stars)

The audio quality is excellent. The reader is great, at times expresses too much emotion in my opinion. But hey, this is a manifesto!

A great reading of a great manifesto

(5 stars)

This could nearly have been written in the 21st century. The great thinkers of the 19th century still outlive mere human lifespan and their works are still influential today. Workers of the world will unite against a decaying capitalism

Really a Unifesto

(3.5 stars)

Of course, a great read by Mark Smith. Given that, much of this reads as if written in the 19th century instead of the 18th. Many similar struggles between workers and owners continued especially into the middle of the 20th century. Much of that was due to the great depression. For the greatest part, workers hold a great amount of power and are not usually seriously trifled without a cost. Marx however, as he was the primary composer, had a very limited world view and understanding of world events. He certainly did not know the common man of America. That man had a great amount of freedom and discretion. Even more so was his lack of understanding regarding the Christian church. He was greatly biased and apparently willfully ignorant of Biblical doctrines in that he dismissed it out of hand. The entire writing is based on great generalizations and absolute solutions or remedies for what he saw as the basic challenge for man to become the whole and perfect man. He seems to believe that this can only be accomplished by a group or groups of people's. His most fundamental problem is that he thinks that man is basically good or can develop into something that is basically good. Quite naive but understandable when you do not take an honest look at history and have drawn up your conclusions without an objective mind.

fine reading of a ridiculous book

(4 stars)

I can understand how they could promote this idea in the mid-19th c. the fact that it's still popular even resurgent now (when society is so level at least in developed country) shows an incredible lack of thinking.