Talk:The Communist Manifesto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Karl Marx was nothing more than a depressed man. That's why he wrote the Manifest

I added the POV-Section Template to the "Effect on Modern Countries" section. My reasoning for this was that it seemed like an attack on the US Government. Plus, that outside-link is horribly unprofessional, with the multiple exclamation points in a row, and the capitalized words. The sentence "Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!" illustrates my point nicely. I can't think of any way to fix this, but if you can, go ahead and do so. Cheapy 02:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any medical evidence to suggest he was depressed at the time he wrote the manifest? Glich (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So how was it 'very very destructive'? Simply just saying it without proof of merit doesn't really strenghten your case beyond a reasonable doubt. People tends to be less credible everytime they 'cite' things without proof of research. I'll give you an example; "Communism is very very destructive against the evil forces of Capitalism", if I simply say that - no one would listen to me, because I didn't say 'How' it is destructive or 'how' capitalism is evil. The idea is to cite 'how' 'what' and 'why' when it comes explaining your position, and also citing your source (also a link to a source would work)

Why does manifest point to a triple redirect, and doesn't talk about other meanings, like manifest freight trains? --Cctoide 10:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This page isn't particularly NPOV, is it? The claim that Lenin and Stalin "misused" the term "Communism" is a Trotskyist or Menshevik assertion against Leninism or Bolshevism. (That most remaining Communists in the West today are anti-Soviet doesn't change the fact that it is a politically rife assertion historically.) --FOo

Communism is a hypothetical classless society. As such, Bolsheviks and all so-called "vanguard parties" do not represent communism as described by Marx. The same can be said for any "communist" group (including Trotskyists) that advocates anything less than the complete dismantlement of the state.--205.206.139.41 14:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles", Marxism in practice has never succeeded. Marxism, or Communism, is an effort to eliminate this war between the classes and create equality among men while eliminating the need for or reliance on a supreme being. As we find in history and illustrated so well in Orwell's writing, is that the state cannot function without the Party functionaries, which inevitably puts itself above the proletarians. This then becomes the same situation as all other societies that have class warfare - the fight against, of which, is the whole purpose of Communism. To me, this circular logic becomes illogical.

Whittaker Chambers summed it up best in Witness when he said that in the 'crisis of history', men must choose whether God or Man can solve the problem. In the macro view, Communism is a very young philosophy, meaning, only very recently put into practical terms and use (although I believe the underlying principle is used, and has been used by Satan since the beginning of this world as we know it) and it is already fading away. Religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian religion has been on the earth since the dawn of time and is still very persuasive.Layne1975 05:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Layne1975

Better to rewrite than to whine, I have discovered. I'm not a Communist or socialist of any ilk myself, but I have tried to give a sympathetic reading of Marx and the early Communists as historical figures -- while also mentioning the tension between Marxism and the Soviet system as well as the critics of Communism. The interstitial quotes from the Manifesto are intended to convey its style as a piece of writing, as well as its political content. (It is to exemplify its style that I chose these three, rather than (for instance) its enumeration of the Communist program.) Of course, they include the famous opening and closing, in a little more context than the previous revision of this page. I would like to ask that those who edit this page keep NPOV strongly in mind. There are few topics in recent world history more disparate in people's feelings than Communism: there are many who see it as virtuous and noble, and many who see it as evil; many who romanticize pre-Soviet Marxism, and many who condemn the whole affair as a road to hell paved (at least at first) with good intentions. I for one am compelled by my education to admire the spirit of Revolution, though compelled by my learning to agree with the critics I mention in the article. --FOo

You state, and I agree, that Communism is a very divisive set of ideas. You then say that people should keep an open mind about it. That seems impossible when the nature of Communism, or its polar opposite, pure religion, are man's search for completeness. If you're lukewarm about this topic, you'd better get your blood pressure checked.Layne1975 05:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Layne1975

I think your middle quotation particularly important for understanding how deterministic the authors believed history to be (i.e., "communism" would be unavoidable at a certain point in the development of "capitalism" and would happen automatically by the conditions of life of the workers brought about by the great "capitalist" monopolies.) These conditions were never reached in any "capitalist" country and other means were found of handling monopolies (e.g., unions, anti-trust laws). RTC 02:48 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

The way this article is worded indicates that the author accepts that Marx intended a distinction between "socialism" and "communism." A textual analysis of Marx's and Engels' works shows that, at least as far as they were concerned, the terms were interchangeable. It was Lenin, in his 1917 book The State and Revolution, that specifically distinguished between socialism as the transitionary phase and communism the terminal phase of the revolution. So with that in mind, if no one objects, I'd like to edit the article to read as follows:

The program described in the Manifesto -- that is to say, the policies the Communists of its day sought to implement -- is termed socialism or communism. These policies included, among others, the abolition of land ownership and inheritance, the progressive income tax, and the nationalization of means of production and transportation. These policies, which would be implemented by a revolutionary government (the dictatorship of the proletariat), would (the authors believed) be a precursor to the stateless and classless society envisioned by the socialists. The term "Communism" is also used to refer to the beliefs and practices of the Communist Party, including that of the Soviet era which differed substantially from Marx and Engels' conception.

[...]

It is this concept of the transition from capitalism to communism which many critics of the Manifesto, particularly during and after the Soviet era, have alighted upon....

[...]In other words, the dictatorship of the proletariat fades into communism when the representative democracy of the revolution fades into the direct democracy of communism.

This will more accurately reflect the wording of the Manifesto as well as Marx's and Engels' other works. I'm also adding a link to the text of the Manifesto at the Marxists Internet Archive (available under the FDL).--Eric 03:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You said "The way this article is worded indicates that the author accepts that Marx intended a distinction between 'socialism' and 'communism.' A textual analysis of Marx's and Engels' works shows that, at least as far as they were concerned, the terms were interchangeable." My copy of the manifesto states distincly, either in the manifesto or in the numerous prefaces to various editions compiled with it (all authored by Marx or Engles) that the two terms are not seen as interchangeable by either author. 66.57.225.4 05:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC) DEL

February 21st or 26th?

I have seen some sources claiming that the Manifesto was published February 26th and not 21st. Is there a reliable printed source for the exact date? I thought Marx and Engels were on the continent in February and March of that year. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

socialist

well actually communism is all about socialism it realy is just the idea that if you become socialist enough classes will disaper

it is the human thing to do.

Socialism is a economic system. Communism is a government system.

Are you using these terms as they were defined by Marx, or just how you heard them used on talk radio?

Socialism is the gov. system and communism the economic philosophy.. im not sure what part you are confusing.. what section are you referencing? marx was an economist.. if we are writing a ref. article its best not to address minor points as though they are sig. details... for the most part communism is economic philosophy, at least the way marx and engels wrote it.

Im not sure what the relevance is. the first point is an interesting one, worth discussion..

As the words were used by Marx, "communism" refers to a stage of history which develops after the socialist stage has been lived through and served its purpose. The proletariat's revolutionary overthrow of capitalism brings to an end the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and begins the class dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat now sets about seeking to build socialism. The task occupies an entire historical epoch of some undefined duration. In the process of building socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat also nullifies the old system of class relations and thereby makes the class dictatorship itself redundant. At this point the state can begin to wither away as the need for the state to suppress class contradictions has now ended. As the state withers away, the new communist society begins to come into being. Marx in his usage did not counterpose socialism and communism as one economic and the other political. Rather, these were two separate stages of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

how relevant is the communmist manifesto today?

can we still say that the motor of history is the class struggle? if the classes polarisation of bourgeois and proletariat is not similar to our present society, the exploitation of the many by the few is nonetheless still present. another point is that capitalism was see nby marx as a necessary stade for the communist revolution. if this revolution is hard to imagine nowadays, what is the next step?

This isn't a forum for the discussion of communism or the manifesto, it's solely for discussion of the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just would like to point out that Marx would reject modern ideas of socialism, labor unions, and so on. He feels that these conventions are not what he wants, and they delay the "revulution" of capitalism to communism. This can be found in his critique of these societies in the third section of his communist manifesto. This makes Marx both an optimist and a pessimist. This is only a suggetion... 66.168.21.163 22:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A link that might be appropriate
I think this is an interesting link you all might like. It is to a site with lots of public domain literature and philosophy, including the Communist Manifesto and works of Locke, Rousseau, etc. along with a really innovative hypertext linking engine. Anyone can read and anyone can also contribute to the commentary of the texts on the site. For instance, check out the Manifesto page: http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=198

I might've posted the link myself, but I'm beginning to learn that such edits tend to be deleted immediately. In my estimation, the commentary on the site, thefinalclub.org, is interesting as well as accessible to the average reader. If you agree, feel free to contribute or post a link on the Communist Manifesto page. Let me know what you all think. I'd love to hear your thoughts.--Andrewmagliozzi (talk)

Changes

I've drafted a few changes for this page here: The_Communist_Manifesto/draft.

I wanted to address a few problems in the current page. Mainly the excessive quoting (about 1/3 of the text is lifted directly from the tract, when it could be abridged), the point/counter-point regarding the withering away of the state (if we include one argument against Communism and its refutation, wouldn't we have to include them all?), and the final section about the effect on modern countries (these nations may have adopted policies supported in The Communist Manifesto, but I doubt that they adopted these policies *because* of the Communist Manifesto.)

I've written a part about its style, and a seperate section on its publication, translations, and direct influence. The new version looks shorter, but it's mostly because I removed the quotes I felt were superflous. What does everyone think? -Small Profit 10:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Public education"

I removed the reference to Public Education in Effect on Modern Countries because it is untrue. Marx did not advocate the abolition of child labour, only child labour "in its present form", he wanted children to have their educations combined with "industrial production", a thinly disguised advocacy of child labour.

The clause also advocates the education of all children in public schools, leaving no room for a private education system.

Can there be a distinction between public and private schools if private property is abolished? --205.206.139.41 01:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote:"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production"

As of NOW the child labor in the form practised in early 1900 is ABOLISHED(We still have child labor in other forms such as Farm labor for childre of farmers is ussually allowed, also a lot of teenagers have part-time jobs and/or volunteer for community service etc.) therefore this plank is followed in modern western societies, i am putting it back(also see trade school).--Hq3473 03:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

this is "the communist manifesto," not "communism"

I've just finished a fairly major rewrite. My removal of a few passages may be controversial. However, I think they were clearly inappropriate in an article on the Communist Manifesto, the document itself, rather than the ideology Communism, which has its own article. Kalkin 06:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jean Laffite?

This article claims that the original publication of the Manifesto was paid for by the pirate Jean Laffite. That is actually impossible as he disappeared "never to be heard from again" in the 1820's, decades before Marx' manifesto was first published. I am removing that statement from the article. here is text from Laffite's article.

"After being run out of New Orleans around 1817, Lafitte relocated to the island of Galveston, Texas establishing another "kingdom" he named "Campeche". In Galveston, Lafitte either purchased or set his claim to a lavishly furnished mansion used by French pirate Louis-Michel Aury, which he named "Maison Rouge". The building's upper level was converted into a fortress where cannon commanding Galveston harbor were placed. Around 1820, Lafitte reportedly married Madeline Regaud, possibly the widow or daughter of a French colonist who had died during an ill-fated expedition to Galveston. In 1821, the schooner USS Enterprise was sent to Galveston to remove Lafitte's presence from the Gulf after one of the pirate's captains attacked an American merchant ship. Lafitte agreed to leave the island without a fight and, in 1821 or 1822, departed on his flagship, the Pride, burning his fortress and settlements and reportedly taking immense amounts of treasure with him. All that remains of Maison Rouge is the foundation, located at 1417 Avenue A near the Galveston wharf.

After his departure from Galveston, Lafitte was never heard from again. Rumors have long circulated that Lafitte died in a hurricane in the Gulf or in the Yucatan around 1826. A controversial manuscript, known as the Journal of Jean Laffite, relates how, after his announced death in the 1820s, he lived in several states in the United States, and raised a family until his death in St. Louis in the 1840s. Reportedly at his request, the publication of the journal was delayed for 107 years and surfaced in the 1950s in the hands of a man claiming to be the pirate's descendant" Blockader 18:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources for 'Influence on capitalist countries'?

I've added an 'unsourced' template to this section, as it cites none. Whilst the points made are interesting, several seem quite POV and the whole section has the appearance of original research. Can we get some sources for this stuff, otherwise it should be removed. SeanLegassick 12:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, User:Lordmetroid's latest edit doesn't seem to have improved this situation, and reintroduced a spelling mistake I fixed. I don't get the feeling that this section is being edited well, so I think it should be moved here until sourced.

Some measures recommended by the Manifesto are currently widespread in developed capitalist countries. In particular, most Western capitalist nations adhere to the following Manifesto measures:

• Property taxes have, in effect, abolished property in land. Since you can be deprived of your land and home for failure to pay property taxes.
• A progressive income tax system.
• Inheritance tax makes the government rather than the family entitled to the property.
• American law subjects people renouncing U.S. citizenship for what the government terms "tax avoidance purposes" to U.S. taxation for ten years after renunciation.
• Confiscation of property without due process by various government agencies. The imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the government in the United States(1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill).
• The Central banks. The Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice fractional reserve banking.
• Departements regulating traffic or communication, mandatory driver's licenses.
• Corporate regulations, subsidies and Zoning laws.
• Laws giving Trade unions special privileges in contracting and conflicts.
• A universal free public education system and the abolition of child labor (in the form practiced in Marx's time).

Many western capitalist countries in the past also nationalised communications (telephones, radio), transportation (railroads) and energy (electricity, natural gas, oil); the last group of industries obviously omitted from Manifesto due to relative insignificance at the time. In some countries these industries have been recently privatised.

The private banks of Australia were nearly nationalised in 1948. Heavy inheritance taxes in some states of Australia were a half-measure towards the call for inheritances to go the state.

Any takers to turn this into sourced encyclopaedic material? SeanLegassick 13:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I will work on this when I have time. I know that a lot of conservatives cry wolf about Marxists planks being implemented in America, there are numerous published articles on the subject. For example see google results for communist manifesto implemented planks. Of course this section will have to be NPOVed to explain that only certain people hold this view.--Hq3473 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. This is definitely interesting material (no conservative am I), but given its contentious nature it definitely needs to be sourced. SeanLegassick 12:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the conservative diatribes on this carry a number of false analogies. For example, the plank in the Communist Manifesto which speaks of a Central Bank is very explicit that this should be a state bank, no more, no less. The construct of the Federal Reserve System is a bit more complex than that and involves quasi-public, quasi-private elements. Conservatives will ignore this when asserting that the Federal Reserve is fulfillment of the Communist Manifesto, but then they'll turn around and maintain that the Fed is a "private bank," which is itself another overly simplistic characterization. But conservatives never logically reconcile this charge with the assertion in the Manifesto that a purely state-owned national bank is what's needed. A logical discrepancy, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Source for 'Legacy/Russia' section?

This section is also entirely unsourced, although at least it does seem to fairly represent the range of views on the matter. It could really do with sources and thus with the removal of weasel words. For now I've added the pertinent templates to the section in the article. SeanLegassick 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Music

The music section doesn't seem relevant to the article's topic in that the article is about the document. The music section doesn't add anything of relevance to the information regarding the document itself but rather about Erwin Schulhoff. Lord Metroid 14:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Although it's not essential information, it is interesting, and no less relevant than any number of 'References in popular culture' section in other articles. The section could also do with sources, but otherwise I see no problem with it. SeanLegassick 22:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is interesting information, is it really necessary. If we are to include it in the article, it surely does not deserve its own section. I think having an entire music section on the Communist Manifesto article is misleading.GreekXboxMaster

It's not necessary. but does that mean it shouldn't be included? It's directly relevant, notable and informative, so I see no reason to exclude it. As to the section header, perhaps something like "References in popular culture" would be better? There are many paraphrases of "A spectre is haunting..." around in various works, and other references, so we could rename the section ready to be expanded with further items. SeanLegassick 21:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just an example of backwards referencing. This would be like discussing the theory of the "Bible Code" on the main page for the Bible. It makes sense to reference the manifesto on the page for Erwin Schulhoff, but certainly not on the page for the Manifesto, since the Manifesto itself was not affiliated with, nor revised into the composer's piece (as in a derivitive work or a development like ammending a constitution). Further, we are not including subsiquent literary works that examine the Manifesto and we are not including critiques of the Manifesto here. It is only a page to inform a reader about the history of THE WORK itself and its contents. Let's keep it on point. At best it is a bit of trivia but it belongs on Schulhoff's page, not the Manifesto. Icactus 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm persuaded by your arguments and changes. SeanLegassick 16:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Already Oversourced

Removed box saying it needed more references, as it stands now it doesn't. Short of including the full text with glosses something more appropriate to Wikisource, there could hardly be a need for more than what's there now, it is a relatively simple and small document, not exactly the Tanach or Mahabharata. Lycurgus 15:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Workers of the World Unite

The latest amendment changed WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! to PROLETARIANS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!. The Marxist Internet Archive makes this interesting point:

"The famous final phrase of the Manifesto, “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”, in the original German is: “Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!” Thus, a more correct translation would be “Proletarians of all countries, Unite!”

“Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!” is a popularisation of the last three sentences, and is not found in any official translation."

It was, however, in the English translation was approved by Engels. - Dave Smith 20:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Names on the title page?

Probably the names appear in some later edition on the title page, but it seems to me that starting the paragraph "Authorship" with "Although the names of both Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx appear on the title page ..." is rather misleading, as the title page of the first edition shown in the same paragraph (Image:Communist-manifesto.png) contains neither name. It doesn't contain an author's name at all. Granted, the whole rather long sentence can be read as referring to the later 1883 edition only:

Although the names of both Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx appear on the title page alongside the "persistent assumption of joint-authorship", Engels, in the preface introduction to the 1883 German edition of the Manifesto, said that the Manifesto was "essentially Marx's work" and that "the basic thought... belongs solely and exclusively to Marx."

... but then a) why this emphasis on the title page of the 1883 edition and b) why no word about the lack of either name on the first edition's title page?Gestumblindi (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite for "wither away"?

"Anarchists, liberals, and conservatives have all asked how an organization such as the revolutionary state could ever (as Marx put it elsewhere) "wither away"." -- So then, what is the exact cite for "wither away"? - 24 december 2005

Stateless communism currently has one source I believe I placed. "Withering" is an English word so it won't be found in German source texts. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Authorship

In this section the view that the Manifesto was exclusively drafted by Marx is attributed to "McLellan", presumably meaning David McLellan. In his Karl Marx: selected writings, McLellan says the following:

At a Conress in London in November 1847, the need was expressed for a clear formulation of the League's principles, and Marx and Engels were asked to draw up a statement. Engels had already composed a draft after the June Congress, and Marx incorporated some of this material when he wrote the Manifesto in Brussles in December and January.

This more or less matches with my own personal understanding, which is that the Communist League asked Engels to draw up a statement, which he did, but which was rejected. Marx then took Engels' draft, and finding its substance to be acceptable, rewrote it in order to provide a text with the necessary persuasive style. I have modified the article to fit the passage from McLellan. --Benwilson528 (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement on the current Wikipedia page is a gross misunderstanding of Engels' preface. In it, Engels says that the basic thought behind the manifesto, that is, that the proletariat has been constantly put down throughout history and will never be at peace until classes are destroyed, was Marx'. He does not say that Marx wrote the Manifesto any more than he did, just that Marx solidified the basic premise of communism more adequately before he could. Tancrisism (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oopshee

I accidentally edited this entire page with something I was inserting onto my own wiki. I have reverted the page back to last edit. Sorry about that :D

Trivia

The Cardinal, singer with punk band The Blood, identifies The Communist Manifesto as the Never Mind the Bollocks of the 19th Century, arguing that it challenged both belief and class systems with the same ferocious imagination.

... the above is what i the cardinal want to put in this article under the influence section ...if you read marx's communist manifesto ... it has all the bollocks and energy of the work never mind the bollocks ...

my point is when you identify this type of work in a ... doldrumatic ... vapid ... sterile .... style ... it does not represent the work ... and is in fact an injustice to the people who created the work and in no way an encyclopedic reference ...

thereto ... the comparison i make between never mind the bollocks and the communist manifesto is the kind of comparison that marx would have expected ... its about the people and the developing perception of the street ... and the worker against the establishment ...

remember wikipedia is for every one in the world not just those who have been to university ... the cardinal The Blood

--I'm not sure if a quote from a band whom, no offence to 'The Blood', is not at the least--iconic--is really trivia. It seems kind of like saying, "John Smith" from West Anytown, Carolina says that, 'The world is flat.'" Not a very important piece of info. This particular trivia section doesn't fit in an encyclopedia such as this(IMO). =Rust_In_Peace (Steve)

Prefaces

Does anyone else think that this page should include info about, or at least mention the seven prefaces written by Marx and Engels? Npalumbo58 (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npalumbo58 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes ! I think the importance of 7 prefaces should be present . I am ready to contribute for it Commons sibi (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Page Title

Why is this page's address "The Communist Manifesto" not "The Manifesto of the Communist Party"? Any objections to moving it to the latter? Stephen MUFC (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. Google shows three times more results for the current title. It's also been widely published under the current name. See for example [1] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't make it right thought does it? Still fair enough after having read WP:COMMONNAME. Stephen MUFC (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not the most right, though looking at articles like Libya and Bangkok, you can see why it can sometimes be good not to be too right. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How did this page turn into a critique of Marx and Engel's 'Communist Manifesto' and not reflect the actual text of the Manifesto as previously hosted? If I am missing the specific link please correct me, but nobody in the Party would ever condone the slapshod summaries made in the current sub-academic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venzen (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Article a bit one sided

You know, being a lefty myself, I think the Communist Manifesto to be a pretty important and relevant document. However, I've heard others say different, and so it'd be nice to get some alternative opinions under "subsequent reception". WMdcu (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100%! Looking through the Talk Page, I can see that the article's pendulum has swung from overly critical of the document to overly praising to the document itself. In its current state, it seems overly praising. Here are some suggested criticisms:

- Marx and Engels seem to be overly angry, and allow their anger to guide their conclusion--by violently overthrowing all existing social conditions by force. No other outcome is acceptable, they claim.

- As they wrote, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Then why do they have the naive utopian ideology that there is no struggle in a communism society?

- The manifesto was written as a response to the industrial revolution and the perceived condition of 19th century western society. In the last 160 years (since the manifesto was written), the middle class has grown bigger, richer, and more powerful. Fukuyama, for example offers a worthy criticism in the Future of History: "Yet even as the great ideological conflicts of the twentieth century played themselves out on a political and military level, critical changes were happening on a social level that undermined the Marxist scenario. First, the real living standards of the industrial working class kept rising, to the point where many workers or their children were able to join the middle class. Second, the relative size of the working class stopped growing and actually began to decline, particularly in the second half of the twentieth century, when services began to displace manufacturing in what were labeled “postindustrial” economies. Finally, a new group of poor or disadvantaged people emerged below the industrial working class -- a heterogeneous mixture of racial and ethnic minorities, recent immigrants, and socially excluded groups, such as women, gays, and the disabled." --Lacarids (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agreed! There must be an enormous corpus of work critical to Marx that we could draw from - but I'm not a scholar in that area.

The Fukuyama quote seems very relevant, so I've added it - thank you.

While I personally think your first two points are good ones, we'd need references. Have these arguments been made, in a notable way, by critics? Or are there other criticisms that are more worthy of being added? --Chriswaterguy talk 13:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

New section

So it is made out that Communism is argued as a non-predictive model by the point "Commissioned by the Communist League, it laid out the League's purposes and program. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms.[2]" - I and other in the party would argue that Communism is a model applicable a 1000 years hence and that Socialism is our preferred form of government in the interim. Who is saying these things? Not the Party, for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venzen (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Preamble: How did this page turn into a critique of Marx and Engel's 'Communist Manifesto' and not reflect the actual text of the Manifesto? If we are missing the specific link please correct, but nobody in the Party would ever condone the slapshod summaries made in the article. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venzen (talk • contribs) 01:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the original text of the Communist Manifesto, We would like to add references to Joe Slovo and the South African Communist Party to this article (which is currently in a sadly anorexic state). Communism is becoming more and more relevant and yet we have a sliver of the article that existed only 2 years ago. Who sabotaged it? Any opinions, please voice here before 30 June 2011. Nothing will be deleted, but the full text of the original added. Reasonable, surely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venzen (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the absence off any objections I will revert this page to the actual contents of the Communist Manifesto on 6 Sept 2012 in replacement of the subjective running commentary by the current commentators ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venzen (talk • contribs) 22:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

Of course there are objections. This is an article about the Communist Manifesto, not the Manifesto itself. You are welcome to make well-sourced and sensible changes to the article. But the action you propose could be considered as vandalism. and might lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Commissioned by the Communist League

I think using word "Commissioned" gives wrong impression on the origin of the manifest. In Communist League "mandated" is used, for example, which is somewhat better. From "Commissioned" people make some particular conclusions like quote below:

"The phrase "Commissioned by the Communist League..." appears in the very first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on the Communist Manifesto... ...the common meaning of the word "commissioned" in this context is clear: it is generally accepted to mean ordering work to be done, usually for pay. Dictionary.com says "to give a commission or order for: The owners commissioned a painting for the building's lobby "Further yet, there is no conflict involved in the fact that Marx and Engels were members of the organization. There is no law against some organization hiring one of its members to build a new meeting hall... in fact I would think that they would usually hire from within before going outside the organization. Similarly, there is no law against some organization hiring someone to write a book. Why you seem to feel that this did not take place I do not know, but the word "commissioned" is pretty clear, and I read elsewhere that Marx was indeed paid for the work.I have not managed to locate a copy of the book cited by Wikipedia"

I think the wording should be more precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.174.56 (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cites vs. Common Sense

Fact tagging digests of something very well known (without cause) is picayune, small minded, and pointless. Digests of say the U.S. Constitution, or the Gettysburg Address, are not contentious in the way quotes from say the Book of Job or the Anglo Saxon Chronicle might be. The former are extremely well known texts about which there is no contention as to the original text so any misrepresentation of them, POV, pushing etc. can easily be determined by inspection and fact tagging should only be used when such a discrepancy has been detected. If the tagging I removed has such a justification, please restore them with a comment on what needs to be addressed. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Awkward writing style in Reception

I've read through these sentences several times and find them awkward and nearly meaningless. There has to be a better way to express this.

The revolutionary wave throughout Europe in 1848, which began in France in February and immediately spread to most of Europe and parts of Latin America,[18] owed nothing to The Communist Manifesto, but within a year the revolutions collapsed.[19] Subsequently, traditional authorities found in The Communist Manifesto and its contents a good excuse for action against its authors.

--Davjosmes (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Reception

There is a danger that this section is turning into a general section about Marx's relevance today, rather than a specific consideration of the work in question. Comments about what Francis Fukuyama or anyone else considers as defects in Marx's thought seem far off the point. Rachel0898 (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

CM quote

civilization = private property for Marx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Troubling trends in page edits and lack of Talk page text

One of the things that I liked (past tense) about Wikipedia is that you could hit the talk button to see why particular edits were preformed and what the rational was for the edits. However, with this page and with "Iran and state-sponsored terrorism" the talk pages have been moved elsewhere (or removed) so that dissent about the edits cannot be seen. With this page, the planks of the communist manifesto have been removed and the talk page has no content to explain this removal. This gives Wikipedia a feel of being corrupted/co-opted. What gives? 70.171.238.95 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has been removed or hidden. As with all talk pages, closed threads are archived; they can easily be seen here. RolandR (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

RolandR (talk), there is no explanation at that archive link as to why the ten planks are not present in the entry. I used to link to that sub-topic and now it is not in the article. HafizHanif (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I asked about the relevant and popular information regarding the short-term demands / ten planks of this work without response, so I recently added that portion along with some other edits. My contribution identifies the clear edict and sums up the approach this ideology has. --HafizHanif (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ten points

Added the summary list of demands from source text per conversation [with Indopug from last year]. --HafizHanif (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Where Indopug strongly disagreed with your proposal, and nobody supported it. Unless you can cite a reliable source which explicitly identifies these "ten planks" and singles them out as particularly significant, your edit is unacceptable original research. RolandR (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If the issue is the use of "ten planks" then I will remove that... but the "measures" (the term used) are clearly listed at page 243-44 at the source I cited. Why is there such a fuss about this clear source summary of the manifest?? --HafizHanif (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the OR and RS issues that RolandR brings up, I have to say that if you think the ten points are a good summary of the Manifesto, you've missed the entire point of the Manifesto. Please read Eric Hobsbawm's "On the Communist Manifesto"—cited in the article—for a good primer on the topic.—indopug (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV would state otherwise. You went on for several months putting together an article according to your point of view, what YOU believed to be a substantial effort in defining what this work is, meant, and what it spoke to... without including what the general public is familiar with. Some time ago this article was fine until people began butchering it, writing in their own fanfare, and removing important and vital summaries, like the ten measures. If Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic effort, these ten points speak to the effort of the manifesto. I say "summary" in speaking to the soluble effort the manifesto is identifying; the ten measures are summarized solutions. The ten measures are easy to understand. They are easy to read points that would assist someone desiring to find what the message of the manifesto would render... and you think they are not important or not worth listening. They are highlighted and counted in the manifesto itself. Referencing what another man opines regarding the work is besides the point of the actual work and what the work is highlighting. Arbitration sounds like the next step to cease these silly objections.--HafizHanif (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Indopug:, @RolandR:, In response to your assumption that I was using OR; starting from page 90 to 96 at this citation, you can read for yourselves how the central bank in the U.S. was developed in following measure 5 of the Communist Manifesto. I advise you two to also peruse the citations this author uses.

Looking again at the U.S.; I think measure 10 regarding free public schools is a given, but I can also find that citation if necessary to elaborate the obvious. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And that is exactly what I mean by original research and synthesis: using your own tendentious interpretation of a primary source, to draw your own highly contentious conclusions. An edit such as that is explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia; you nead to find a {{WP:RS|reliable source]] which advances this claim. And I doubt that you will find one; this is a staple of the wilder fringes of the US right, not to be found in any acceptable mainstream source. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@RolandR:, please identity my contentious conclusion. Where have I written any of my own opinions in editing the article?? Or extrapolating what I opined in this talk thread? I simply copied and pasted ( quoted without using quotations ) the ten measures directly from the source. So, what any reader would interpret would be their own private interpretation, not something I am "contentiously" proposing or advancing any "claim," for where have I claimed anything?? Please QUOTE my "contentious claims" I've edited into the article. --HafizHanif (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you already forgotten what you wrote above just an hour ago: "starting from page 90 to 96 at this citation, you can read for yourselves how the central bank in the U.S. was developed in following measure 5 of the Communist Manifesto"? RolandR (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@RolandR:, as I just stated, this is the first instance of writing my opinion. No where in the article did I express any such opinion. You are arguing after the fact of my expressed opinion here in the talk page, but can you find my opinion or whatever you are suspiciously calling "contentious" in the main article??? I'll wait. --HafizHanif (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the exact edit / contribution I made:

List of measures:'

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

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.

6. Centralisation of the means of communications and transportation 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 labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

. --HafizHanif (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus that not enough sources give weight to the list as a summary of the whole; also, requester has withdrawn. --GRuban (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

---

These simple and short ten phrases / measures succinctly summarize the aim of the manifesto's effort ( they are listed in the above section ). They speak volumes in addressing the changes Marx and Engels wrote about ( the rest of the manifesto ). The general public would best be served if allowed to read and identify these ten measures. This would assist the reader in understanding what Marx and Engel's aims / demands were. Since the Wikipedia effort is providing an encyclopedia where the common person can find decent citations and concise information when conducting research for school, work, or the like, not having these ten measures included in the article would be a disservice to those searching Wikipedia for highlighted and summarized information. When has any manifesto not been known to have a list of demands? Not having the list of demands of the Communist Manifesto in this wiki entry neuters the article.

Regarding the manner in which this objection is being voiced:

I've found the manner in which I've been treated quite discouraging in furthering the wiki effort. Two individuals are calling "consensus" when only three ( myself and them two ) have opined recently on this particular matter and article. Not sure if one of them is a WP:SOCK, but further discussion may make this entire matter clearer and show motive in obstructing the simple addition of the ten measures. I expressed my concern when my edit was removed several months ago when one of these individuals took it upon themselves to conduct an entire rewrite of the article. I didn't object and let them continue without issue. That effort did affect the statistics of readership of the article. I applaud the effort of this person in editing, but again, not including what is so simple and concise as those ten measures is like not including water when trying to make soup. They initially desired to assist in including the ten measures, then chose against them, which I found quite odd. One could review the editing history and the dialogue at my talk page for clarity and the dubiousness of the editor who rewrote the entire article and now acts as the article's co-manager. --HafizHanif (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion, that you strike through, or remove the comments about other editors. This helps bot-summoned editors like me concentrate on the content issues.Pincrete (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. I separated my complaint from the request and reasoning for my editing contribution. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment @HafizHanif. The bot sent me here. It would seem, based on your claims above, that you should have no trouble finding an RS to back you up. Have you tried checking, e.g., Brittanica? Costatitanica (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Costatitanica:, thank you for that suggestion. My question then is: Do I need to find a viable RS if I am simply quoting a portion of the manifesto and not adding my opinion or elaboration of what it means? My only words are in introducing the ten measures. Do I have to find an author who has also quoted or mentioned the ten measures in order to share them in the article? Thanks. --HafizHanif (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question. I've given up on trying to fully understand Wikipdia's crazy rules. I can only offer you a suggestion that I think would render the argument moot. Costatitanica (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

HafizHanif, returning, having read the sections above. No one seems to dispute that this text is in the manifesto, the dispute seems to centre on whether, these 10 points are sufficiently important to include in the article. It may seem obvious to you that these 10 points are significant, but if their importance has not been widely commented on by sources writing about the manifesto, thinking them important enough to include is probably WP:OR, even if you don't 'elaborate' on their significance yourself. That APPEARED to me to be the dispute, though this discussion isn't wholly clear.Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete:, @Costatitanica:, I appreciate the time you've two taken in looking into this matter. I also appreciate the clarify you've brought in assisting me elaborate this particular article's section. I'm adding at the article's "read" page what I believe to be sufficient RS that speaks about and quotes the ten measures in their full context. Please let me know if there's anything I missed or should further. Thank you. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

HafizHanif, what I think is missing, is evidence that a significant body of reliable sources think the 10 points are important (and why they think they are important). Failing that, you are thrown back to persuading fellow editors that the benefit from listing them justifies the space they occupy. I believe I am correct when I say that the contents of a book summary do not necessarily need RS, since the book itself is the source, but a with a book as well known and as much written about as the CM, it is probable that sourcing requirements will be strict. Pincrete (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted HafizHanif's latest edit because they have still not established a consensus, or anything approaching one, for this contentious addition. No-one questions that this text exists in the Communist Manifesto; the issue is whether it constitutes a distinct and significant section, sufficient to accord it such weight and prominence in the article. It may be obvious to HH that this is the core of the book, but that assessment is clearly not shared by other editors. My reluctance to accept this edit is compounded by the fact that the only references I can find to this assessment are in US conservative publications which are using this supposed programme in an attempt to show that the US government is in fact a communist front. Unless and until HH can persuade other editors here that this passage should be included in the article, it should not be added. RolandR (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since Roland considers the ten measures as contentious, and seems to have conspiratorial suspicions ( no where have I mentioned anything suggesting what his rational is in removing my contribution ) I removed the ten measures until this issue is resolved by further consensus. However, if my other contributions are to be resisted, then it may be clear Roland simply desires to prevent me from editing anything which doesn't pass his opinion, and that is another issue altogether. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

My username is RolandR; please do not use edit summaries to make disparaging or mocking alternatives. RolandR (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Roland, don't you hate reading about arrogant and self-appointed experts who rarely exude any objectivity regarding their pet subjects? In my honest opinion, your opinion is narrow and your suspicions are unfounded. Why not simply add RS regarding your opinions. If not, YOU are pushing your POV. Your obstinate manner is the reason editors simply ditch any effort to contribute. You calling my contribution "contentious" is actually what you are doing ( being contentious where there is no pushing of POV on my part, as my editing history shows ). You are acting as if you are an expert on this subject matter. Just because you fill your page full of self-promotion regarding Marxism doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.

As to my contribution, which was immediately deleted by Roland, here it is sans the ten measures. Judge for yourselves if I'm pushing a fringe or suspicious theory or simply finding RS regarding the ten measures as suggested:

Ludwig Von Mises, in his essay “Middle of the Road Socialism”, first published as a two-part essay in 1991 by Auburn University, explains how Marx and Engels had two methods to establishing socialism. Mises sees in the Manifesto a plan for a “step-by-step transition from capitalism into socialism” where the proletariat becomes the ruling class by pursuing political supremacy in going after property rights. Mises mentions the ten measures being the second means to effect the “revolution” the Manifesto argues for. The Cambridge Companion to The Communist Manifesto calls the ten measures “admirably 'interventionist,' though most of them (like Progressive tax, abolition of inheritance, state-owned enterprises and public schools) had been largely realized in democratic countries.” The Journal of Democracy cites the ten measures in full when referencing the efforts of the Portuguese Coup of 25 November 1975 immediately following the Carnation Revolution: --HafizHanif (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

At this point I support reinserting HafizHanif's edit. I think the full text of the ten points might be better suited for a footnote or some kind of quote box, though. Costatitanica (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Costatitanica for that suggestion. I find the measures to be much needed and helpful addition in elaborating the definition of the manifesto ( again, what manifesto is messaged without its list of demands? ). Back in Oct 2015, Indopug also suggested putting the ten measures in a quote box ( Indopug's actual linked suggestion ), which I agreed to. I'd like to add a section that could open up more references to the controversies and suspicions Roland has brought up. Perhaps that section would befit my latest attempted edit which references three sources regarding the ten measures, but I think any further editing of mine to the article would be immediately undermined and obstructed by this particular editor. I sense I need to meet their personal approval and adapt my edits to their sense of what is acceptable despite being clearly referenced and widely published. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Costatitanica, Pincrete: the ten points are already mentioned in Synopsis, "The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances; free public education etc.—the implementation of which would be a precursor to a stateless and classless society." I plan to expand this mention, and also discuss the points (along with other things) in a new Anaylsis section. What I object to is inserting a nearly 200-word quotation in the article. Remember the point of this encyclopedia article is to explain the Manifesto, and towards that end summarise the text. Thus quoting large portions of the text (written in archaic English) would run contrary to this endeavour (if somebody wanted to read large segments of the Manifesto, they'd directly read the Manifesto, why would they come here?).

Lastly, there's also the fact that setting a precedent for including large quotations would encourage other editors to wholesale add their favourite bits of the Manifesto in the article. That'll just make the whole thing look very bulky.—indopug (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@indopug I agree that you can't just shove 200 words of archaic English into a Wiki article. That's why I suggested some sort of footnote or quote box. Costatitanica (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, the above sentences from a Von Mises essay (thankfully removed from the article) are a total misrepresentation of the cited text. Von Mises mentions the ten points in passing, "In this vein they enumerate by way of example ten measures", and doesn't quote a single one of them. Other big misrepresentations (apart from getting the name of the essay wrong) include what Von Mises thinks is the "second way to realise socialism". The above editor thinks it's through the ten points; Von Mises actually points to something Marx wrote in Capital, written a whole twenty years after the Manifesto. I urge everybody here to read the actual text (it's just a couple of short paragraphs on pages 28–29).—indopug (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Costatitanica, Pincrete, I hope you two and others perusing this debate can clearly see how certain editors believe to have ownership of this particular article. They seem to only allow edits which adhere to their own opinions and interpretations. This is a major problem with the Wikipedia effort ( what I've encountered, sadly, far too many times ). And btw, the title of that particular essay is correct; the original printing contained two essays ( thus two titles ), while the one I sourced is a recent reprint of that single essay I used. As to one's personal interpretation and argument of a failure to expound on any of the measures, as the editor opines, perhaps others now need to read everything ever written about Marxism, Communism, by Marx or Engels in order to qualify and meet someone's personal view and opinion of the manifesto's impact in the world.

Am I the only one who recognizes the futility of arguing with self-proclaimed experts? Regarding quoting those ten measures, I was thinking it would be wiser to let them speak for themselves and use what published writers have said about them, even some having done so in passing ( the one you quoted ), without including my personal interpretation or opinion to derive meaning. Isn't THIS the manner in which Wikipedia is enriched? If anyone doesn't like or sees error in any editor's work, they can edit what has been contributed, not simply delete the entire efforts of others.

There are some really long articles on Wikipedia, and someone is worried about this article becoming long due to bulk quotes? What a poor argument. Some people like arriving at a single place, properly sourced, and reading the highlights. Some people, looking for information, like long exhaustive articles. To piecemeal the measures as they are or supposing casual wiki readers will find them easily elsewhere is to perform a disservice. I would understand if they were several pages long, but they are only ten sentences / points / measures! These two descending editors are puffed up bullies in my opinion, desiring to forward their personal interpretations and not allowing the actual published information to speak for itself, let alone for a neutral summary of published work. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't expect you to read all of Marx. I expect you to be able to accurately summarise sources you cite, especially when the relevant portion is only two paragraphs long. And please don't engage in personal attacks.—indopug (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I was joking about reading so much stuff while expressing my point. What is your response to not building together but only deleting what you don't agree with or what doesn't fit your perception? You assume YOU accurately summarize things you read. And what about responding to taking control of the article and your statements of elaborating certain things in the future, as if it is your occupation to not only write this article but also decide what and how it is developed? This article was extensive a few years ago, but was butchered, and now is being butchered again. You and another editor seem to think yourselves as the bosses of this article. In my opinion, that is quite arrogant and presumptious, besides my opinion that you think you know what you're interpreting regarding Marx or the manifesto's impact on society. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to build the article together with anybody who doesn't misrepresent sources and call me names. And yes, you absolutely did misrepresent Von Mises's position, I'll show you. Firstly, this is what he wrote:

Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels recommended successively each of these two ways for the realization of socialism. In 1848, in the Communist Manifesto, they outlined a plan for the step-by-step transformation of capitalism into socialism. The proletariat should be raised to the position of the ruling class and use its political supremacy "to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie." This, they declare, "cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which in the course of the movement outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production." In this vein they enumerate by way of example ten measures.

In later years Marx and Engels changed their minds. In his main treatise, Das Capital, first published in 1867, Marx saw things in a different way. Socialism is bound to come "with the inexorability of a law of nature." But it cannot appear before capitalism has reached its full maturity. There is but one road to the collapse of capitalism, namely the progressive evolution of capitalism itself. Then only will the great final revolt of the working class give it the finishing stroke and inaugurate the everlasting age of abundance.

The highlighted bits are the "two ways for the realization of socialism". You, however, summarised this as

Mises sees in the Manifesto a plan for a “step-by-step transition from capitalism into socialism” where the proletariat becomes the ruling class by pursuing political supremacy in going after property rights. Mises mentions the ten measures being the second means to effect the “revolution” the Manifesto argues for".

The highlighted bit here is your fabrication, which conveniently backs your opinion that the ten points "succinctly summarize the aim of the manifesto's effort". For this you slander me as an "arrogant", "presumptious", "puffed up bully" who is "not building together but only deleting what you don't agree with or what doesn't fit your perception?".

I have no interest in engaging with you any longer.—indopug (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

My opinions regarding your behavior is not slander.. it is an opinion regarding your character by reading the manner in which you have dealt with me and my efforts to add to this article. My discouragement and diminishing patience has shown in me choosing to express my opinions of your activity.

Regarding misrepresenting Mises' opinion and interpretation of the manifesto, your response actually supports my summary. My question is: what is the step-by-step plan if not the inclusion of those ten measures? Mises concludes his paragraph with the statement "In this vein they enumerate by way of example ten measures."

Your rebuttal is refuted using your own response.

Your position that YOU know what others have meant in writing about the manifesto, or the measures, is giving YOUR opinion and pushing your view. You have been treading POV and OR.

By the way, the ten measures are 165 words in length. The argument about weighing down the article with a lengthy quote is bogus. Two lengthy quotations currently exist in the article ( neither quoting the manifesto itself, but opinions ), with the longest being 127 words. The block quote would be a 38 word difference AND would be quoting the actual writing of the subject matter. The rationale to not add this portion of the manifesto is deaf and baseless. Three of the measures already exist in many countries ( which have been alluded to in the article ), where is an honest argument as to why not simply include the entire list so readers can consider the measures for themselves?

This isn't your personal article. This is a public space, and your efforts are contentious on their own, your reasoning is diminutive and naive ( again, my opinions in reading your responses and poor arguments ).

Perhaps I should request for a return to the article as it stood a year ago, perhaps that would eliminate the misinterpretation and misleadings you've given it with your choice of authors to quote in forwarding your personal interpretation of what the manifesto has meant and it's societal impact. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Costatitanica, Pincrete, indopug, RolandR, I hope the argument regarding a lengthy quote box has been resolved, for it was initially argued the measures were 200 words in length, but that was a false claim ( see above for actual numbers and numbers of other article quotes ). There is ample evidence ( the citations so far listed, many others outstanding ) the ten measures have been quoted in scholarship sources and explored regarding their implications, thus warranting having them listed for readers to see first-hand.

Here are two more citations, one from Political Studies (journal), and the other by Bertell Ollman, a notable, award-winning and widely published author. These are two legitimate sources citing and further exploring the ten measures. The ten measures are notable, and by the size of citations where they are wholly quoted and explored, they may even qualify as a Notable article on their own.

So far, from the five editors who have made suggestions and shared opinions, we have two in support of adding the ten measures, and two opposed, with one yet to suggest either way. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The request was removed yesterday, and no other dissenting opinions have been given. Since there are sufficient citations which fully quote the ten measures and explore their implications, I added the ten measures in a text box as previously suggested by indopug. I also added a section regarding some controversial interpretations of the manifesto, the measures, and how some people view certain government agencies. Dissenting voices can expand further on my editing efforts, so please also feel free to edit or clarify according to your view / your sources what I share regarding whichever author I added. -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, your edit is seriously misleading in presenting as the view of the The Cambridge Companion to The Communist Manifesto, this book's editors' succinct summary of Karl Popper's hostile analysis. This alone establishes that you are indeed attempting to smuggle in to this article the fringe view that western society is already communist. I have reverted this highly POV and undue section, and I urge you not to add it again without first establishing a consensus here, which you have so far signally failed to do. RolandR (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And now I see that while I was researching and posting this comment, you have indeed reverted me, and been reverted by another editor. Please stop this edit-warring, and instead present reasoned arguments (not your own assertions) that may persuade other editors that this edit is justified. RolandR (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Those are your opinions. Firstly, you removed my ENTIRE contribution, not bringing the contention to the talk page regarding specifics. The consensus is for the ten measures, NOT anything else I have considered adding. Removing any other efforts I've contributed is vandalism.

You brought two issues here ( now ). You seem to be critical of my summary. Fine. But is the purpose of this article to support what YOU agree with? Thus why I made a new section entitled "Controversy." Why, then, don't you add in clarifying the controversy? Why not offer the contrary or controversial points with citations?

Without doing so, it is YOU who is pushing your POV. A popular consensus in terms of what men interpret to be the manifesto's affect since its writing is NOT reality, it simply is people agreeing with one another person's interpretation. And it is clear where your interpretation and opinion stands, but your opinion and your interpretation is NOT based on anything, because YOU are not to be adding your perspective. This is exactly what Ollman writes about. Do you have issue with his work? If so, add a response with citation.

If you have issue with my summaries, then edit your perceived corrections... or highlight where I am contriving a false summary from what is cited and let's hash it out here on the talk page.

I called for consensus only regarding the ten points and whether they have sufficient mention in scholarship to warrant their addition, and they do! You've already lost that argument. Your showing yourself to be committing vandalism by removing the entire contribution I've made. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Outside opinion. A large, contentious addition to an important article requires consensus building. From what I have read, this proposed text is problematic and requires further discussion, well beyond the few editors that have weighed in so far. A formal request for comment should be undertaken. HafizHanif has shown a great deal of bad faith editing up to and including accusations of vandalism where no vandalism occurred. Please read WP:BRD on how to handle disputes. Edit warring is never justified. From what I have read of the proposed text, there is a great deal of WP:OR at play and other editors need to weigh in before any of the proposed text is added. And finally, a combative attitude, long-winded talk page diatribes, and attacks to other editors is never acceptable. freshacconci talk to me 00:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:freshacconci, now you are parroting what other dissenting editors have labeled my contribution, without any cited rebuttal. Mere opinion is what you are sharing. How about reading the history ( top of this section ) of where we are at today, and also the reality that I requested for comments, and the request for comments expired. Although I added another request hours ago, it was again removed ( check edit history ). You call my edits bad faith, but perhaps reading the context of how we've arrived here will grant an insight. I am frustrated ( your mention of diatribes ) because men desire not to add depth to the article, but only their perspective... which is a fail as far as objectivity goes. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, in my effort to include twelve simple sentences, I believed I had to also include more insight from the sources where the ten measures are fully quoted. So, I attempted to also include what authors had mentioned. I failed. I thought I had found enough sources that warranted the ten measure's inclusion, but I felt compelled to add summaries, and doing so I made mistakes. I quit. My apologies for my relentless and childish attitude, my meanderings and my diatribes. Cheers. --HafizHanif (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Socialism, communism and stages

In the article it is said that the manifesto "briefly features their ideas for how the capitalist society of the time would eventually be replaced by socialism, and then finally communism".

As far as I know there are no mention of stages/phases of communism/socialism in the manifesto. Isn't that a later idea? An idea born partly from the experiences of the Paris commune? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.157.253 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up, because your point highlights the misunderstanding that some have pushed onto this article by taking it upon themselves to rewrite it and defeat the input or contributions of other editors. But sadly, it is very difficult discussing such things with self-proclaimed experts on the subject. The article is leaning towards misinterpretation instead of highlighting the manifesto itself and the manifesto's message. There is too much "after the fact" conclusions summarizing the initial message of the manifesto. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1