It has since been recognized as one of the world's most influential political manuscripts. 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.
Rowson (The Wasteland), a political cartoonist whose scabrous style can be traced right back to Ralph Steadman, has produced a funny and nightmarishly dark graphic adaptation of communism's foundational document. Rowson reimagines the book as a kind of lecture, with the bearded authors Marx with a cigar in his hand and a cynical smirk on his face, Engels holding a great red flag yet to be unfurled strolling through a hellish landscape in which demonic steampunk machines grind up hapless proletarians into grist for the capitalist mill. At one point, Marx lectures in a "Kapitalist Komedy Club" open-mic night. Though the backdrops, with their Pink Floyd's The Wall aesthetic, can distract, this adaptation admirably boils down Marx's history lessons and luridly illustrates the warning that the bourgeoisie class produces "its own grave-diggers." While the book takes Marx's assumptions about the inevitability of a vast proletarian uprising at face value, it also includes a wry coda on the aftermath of Marx-inspired revolutions. The result is a jauntily irreverent but fundamentally serious take on a vastly influential political work.
But what about the book?
I somehow get the feeling that most of the reviewers here aren't actually discussing the book and the argument presented within, but rather their own views on Communism as it has evolved over the century plus since Marx and Engels wrote the "Manifesto". But if that's their wish, then who might we be to stop it?
Please though, try to keep the vitriol to a lower level; there is nothing "evil" or "un-American" about people who sympathize with or are followers of the Communist ideology. Communism may be flawed (in fact it is greatly flawed) but no more so than capitalism. Civilization exists to remove the normal constraints of nature and substitute them with an artificial set of rules. One of these is Darwinism; in nature it applies, in society it doesn't. That's why we have society, to remove the animalistic need to fend for ourselves.
So before you condemn Communism as an ideology, perhaps reading this book would be helpful.
Just remember: in America, you hold political opinions; in Soviet Russia, political opinions hold you.
Marx really lays bare the plight of the working man. Communism has been so demonized by the capitalist world that it is hard to know what is true about it and what is just propaganda. I am glad that I chose to research it myself rather than just blindly accept what I've been told about it.
Clever but impossible
The idea itself is completely impractical. Marx makes communism out to be a step forward while it is clearly a step toward a more primitive society. I, personally, am a lover of capitalism. However, I recognize marx's passion and love for society, and the idea, though made impossible by human nature, is thoughtful and clever. While I support capitalism, I think that those who demonize communism as evil have never read and truly understood The Communist Manifesto.