1

Communist Manifesto
Executive summary
The bulk of the analysis of the Manifesto is in the first two sections. A third section critically
examines other forms of socialism. This is shorter than the others, and there is a tendency to see it as
less important. However, what it demonstrates is that Marxism had to compete with a variety of other
socialist theories and movements. In 1848 it did not seem that Marx and Engels had succeeded.
The Manifesto did not influence any of the revolutions of that year. The Manifesto seemed doomed to
oblivion. Yet in 1888 Engels claimed that it is undoubtedly the most widespread, the most
international of all Socialist literature. [F. Engels, preface to 1888 English edition of Karl Marx and
Freidrich Engels The Communist Manifesto (Penguin, 1967) p.61]
The Communist Manifesto starts with the famous words "The history of all hitherto societies
has been the history of class struggles," and proceeds in the next 41 pages to single-mindedly
elaborate this proposition (79). In section 1, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," Marx delineates his vision
of history, focusing on the development and eventual destruction of the bourgeoisie, the dominant
class of his day. Before the bourgeoisie rose to prominence, society was organized according to a
feudal order run by aristocratic landowners and corporate guilds. With the discovery of America and
the subsequent expansion of economic markets, a new class arose, a manufacturing class, which took
control of international and domestic trade by producing goods more efficiently than the closed
guilds. With their growing economic powers, this class began to gain political power, destroying the
vestiges of the old feudal society which sought to restrict their ambition. According to Marx, the
French Revolution was the most decisive instance of this form of bourgeois self-determination.
Indeed, Marx thought bourgeois control so pervasive that he claimed that "the executive of the
modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" (82).
This bourgeois ascendancy has, though, created a new social class which labor in the
new bourgeois industries. This class, the proletariat, "wage-laborers who, having no means of
production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live," are the
necessary consequence of bourgeois modes of production (79). As bourgeois industries expand
and increase their own capital, the ranks of the proletariat swell as other classes of society,
artisans and small business owners, cannot compete with the bourgeois capitalists. Additionally,
the development of bourgeois industries causes a proportional deterioration in the condition of the
proletariat. This deterioration, which can be slowed but not stopped, creates within the proletariat
a revolutionary element which will eventually destroy their bourgeois oppressors. As Marx says,
"What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers" (94).
2

In Chapter 2, "Proletariats and Communists," Marx elaborates the social changes communists
hope to effect on behalf of the proletariat. Marx notes firstly that the interests of communists do not
differ from the interests of the proletariat as a class; they seek only to develop a class consciousness in
the proletariat, a necessary condition of eventual proletariat emancipation. The primary objective of
communists and the revolutionary proletariat is the abolition of private property, for it is this that
keeps them enslaved. Bourgeois economics, i.e., capitalism, requires that the owners of the means of
production compensate workers only enough to ensure their mere physical subsistence and
reproduction. In other words, the existence of bourgeois property, or capital as Marx calls it, relies on
its radically unequal distribution. The only way the proletariat can free itself from bourgeois
exploitation is to abolish capitalism. In achieving this goal, the proletariat will destroy all remnants of
bourgeois culture which act to perpetuate, if even implicitly, their misery. This includes family
organization, religion, morality, jurisprudence, etc. Culture is but the result of specific
material/economic conditions and has no life independent of these. The result of this struggle will be
"an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the development of all"
(104).
Chapter 3, "Socialist and Communist Literature," encompasses Marx's discussion of the relationship
between his movement and previous or contemporaneous socialist movements. In this chapter he
repudiates these other movements for not fully understanding the significance of the proletarian
struggle. They all suffer from at least one of 3 problems: 1) They look to previous modes of social
organization for a solution to present difficulties. 2) They deny the inherent class character of the
existing conflict. 3) They do not recognize that violent revolution on the part of the proletariat is the
only way to eradicate the conditions of oppression. Only the Marxist communists truly appreciate the
historical movement in which the antagonism between the proletariat and bourgeois is the final act.
The final chapter, "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties,"
announces the communist intention to "everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the
existing social and political order of things" (120). The communist contribution to this ongoing
revolutionary discourse will be the raising of the property question, for any revolutionary movement
which does not address this question cannot successfully rescue people from oppression. As Marx
thunders in conclusion, "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians
have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL
COUNTRIES, UNITE!" (121).



3

2. Introduction
Karl Marx (1818-1883) is known as the father of Marxism, but he is also the most frequency cited
scholar during the last two decades of the Sodal Sdcm'c Citation Index. His writings are typical of the
mid-19th century: they are scholarly, turgid, and lengthy. Marx devoted his scholarly and political
life to a critique of capitalism. He believed that people cannot develop their full human capacity
within a capitalist system because most individuals are alienated from their work. For Marx, as with
Spencer, private property is a critical element in the development of societies, but in con-trast to
Spencer, Marx felt that private prop-erty was linked with alienation. A vital component of Marx's
argument concerned the link between the ownership of the mode of production and the class struggle
in capital-ist society. Marx and Engels worked on the Communist Manifesto during the period of
political and social upheavals in Europe during the year 1848. They believed, wrongly we now know,
that the liberal capitalist states of Europe might be overturned rather easily and con-verted to
communist societies.
The Communist Manifesto was a product of the social, economic and political turmoil that
characterized Europe before 1850. Both of its authors, Marx and Engels, were touched by elements of
this turmoil. Karl Marx, born in 1818, came from the Rhineland, an area occupied by the French
during the Napoleonic Wars. During this period the French abolished feudal restrictions, introduced
religious toleration and secularised the state. Many, like Marxs father, benefited from this liberal
regime. When, after Napoleons defeat, the Rhineland passed under Prussian control, Hirschel Marx,
Karls father, abandoned Judaism for Christianity to retain the right to practise as a lawyer. Friedrich
Engels, born in 1820, came from a family of German industrialists: he had, therefore, first-hand
knowledge of the effects of rapid industrialisation. In 1842 Engels moved to Manchester to work at
the family cotton mill. This took him to the heart of the worlds first industrial nation.
3. Origins of the Manifesto
Like many young Germans, Marx and Engels were profoundly influenced by the German philosopher
Georg Hegel (1770-1831). Confronted by the upheavals of the French Revolution, he developed a
theory of history that explained change. This was Hegels dialectic. Throughout history, he argued,
there was an interaction of ideas (the dialectic) that led to change. This was expressed as a thesis
(original idea) conflicting with an antithesis (new idea) to produce a third idea, a synthesis, different
from either thesis or antithesis. A concrete example of this process was his belief that the conflict
between the absolute freedom of post-revolutionary France and the absolute monarchy of Prussia had
led to the synthesis that was the 19th-century Prussian state. This was a state where citizens enjoyed
greater freedoms than in the past, but where, unlike in France, freedom consisted of accepting ones
duty to obey the state.
4

Hegelianism could, however, be interpreted in two ways. The Prussian state saw it as confirming its
legitimacy, believing that Hegel had argued that Prussia represented an ideal state at the end of
history. Against this, German radicals, the Young Hegelians, stressed the dynamic element of
Hegels philosophy and argued that the Prussian state was simply one stage of an on-going historical
process, or dialectic. This perspective provided a philosophical justification for demands for greater
political freedom and social reforms. Independently, both Marx and Engels gravitated towards the
Young Hegelians.
When Marx left University in 1841, his radical opinions prevented him from taking up an academic
career, and so he turned to journalism. By 1842 he was editor of the Rheinische Zeitung. This
experience led Marx to question the validity of Hegels stress on the importance of ideas (Idealism).
The practical problems that he confronted opened up the possibility that it was the physical conditions
of life that brought about historical change. At the same time Engels British experience was moving
him towards materialism. In his 1845 work, The Condition of the Working Class in England, he
argued that The condition of the working class is the real basis and point of departure of all social
movements [Frederick Engels The Condition of the Working Class in England (Panther, 1969)
p.18]
Collaboration between Marx and Engels began in Paris in 1844. Marx had gone there, following the
suppression of the Rheinische Zeitung, to edit the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher. Paris also
attracted him because it was the centre of Europes revolutionary tradition, and it gave him the
opportunity to meet French socialists. While there he embarked on an intensive course of study which
resulted in his final rejection of Idealism. States were not shaped by ideas, he decided, but by the
material interests of the dominant groups in society. Hence in a capitalist society the state will
embody the values of the capitalist. From this it followed that society could only be changed by a
grouping with no material stake in it. This, according to Marx was the working class.
In 1844 Engels wrote an article for the Deutsch-Franzosiche Jahrbucher which accorded very well
with Marxs developing viewpoint. When Engels visited Paris they established a life-long partnership.
Initially they worked on clarifying their philosophical views, producing works such as The German
Ideology. In 1847 they made contact with and joined an organisation of working-class German exiles,
the League of the Just. A number of changes made at the 1847 congress of the League indicate their
growing influence within it. The name, for example, was changed to the Communist League. In the
aftermath of these changes, Marx and Engels were invited to draft a statement of aims. This was the
genesis of The Communist Manifesto.

5

4. The message of the Manifesto
The Manifesto, primarily Marxs work, is a short accessible document providing the clearest outline
of Marxist principles available. Marx produced a useful summary of its main points in 1852:
What I did that was new was to prove (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular, historic
phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the
proletariat; (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to
classless society. [Karl Marx, letter to J. Weydemeyer, 5th March 1852 in Karl Marx, Frederick Engels Selected
Works Vol.1 (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977) p.528.]
Marxs comments are significant because they indicate what he saw as important in the
Manifesto and, at the same, they provide a useful starting point for a consideration of the work.
Marxs comments are significant because they indicate what he saw as important in the
Manifesto and, at the same; they provide a useful starting point for a consideration of the work.
The opening sentence of the Manifesto states: The history of all hitherto existing societies is the
history of class struggle. It goes on to argue that the nature of that class struggle varies according to
the nature of the principal form of production. Hence in feudal societies, where the main form of
production was agriculture, the class struggle was between those who owned the land and those who
worked on it, between, that is, the lord and the serf. However, Marx had learnt from Hegel that history
was not static, and he argued that out of this conflict emerged a third class, the bourgeoisie. These
were people who had left agriculture to concentrate on manufacture and commerce. Over time,
stimulated by the global expansion of the 18th century, the bourgeoisie reached a point where its
further progress was inhibited by the priorities of the feudal state. In 18th-century France, for
example, the bourgeoisie provided a disproportionate share of taxation and had to endure a large
number of controls and restrictions on commerce. This conflict culminated in the French Revolution
of 1789, where the bourgeoisie rose up and destroyed the aristocracy and the feudal state.
Within bourgeois societies class conflict still continued, but now the contest was between the
bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production, primarily in the form of industrial factories, and the
proletariat or working class, which owned nothing except its ability to work. This conflict flowed
from what Marx saw as the contradictions of bourgeois society. Capitalism, the name that Marx
used for the economies developed by the bourgeoisie, was a profit-driven system that was forced
constantly to expand. This it did by creating a global market, dividing labour processes into simpler
and simpler tasks, and deploying new technology.
At the same time all relationships were reduced to a question of cash; labour became a commodity to
be bought and sold at the market rate. The mechanization and simplification of labor processes, which
reduced the need for skilled workers, tended, according to Marx, to reduce wages to the lowest
6

possible level. So, as the ability to produce goods expanded more rapidly than ever before,
particularly in Britain, the ability of the proletariat to enjoy the benefits of that expansion declined.
Capital, the wealth created by capitalism, was, Marx argued, the product of the proletariats labour,
but its benefits were enjoyed, as private property, principally by the bourgeoisie.
Capitalism suffered from further problems in Marxs view, like crises of over-production. These
occurred not because more goods had been produced than could be used, but because there were not
enough people to buy them at prices that would sustain profits. This was the product of a
contradiction between societys capacity to produce goods and the social organisation that regulated
the distribution of goods. Just as the feudal state blocked the advance of bourgeois commercial
interests so in the 19th century, Marx contended, bourgeois society prevented the full benefits of
industrialisation reaching the population at large. This contradiction was the basis of the revolution
that would lead to the rule, or dictatorship, of the proletariat.
Marxs view of history is a materialist version of the Hegelian dialectic (and hence is often called
dialectical materialism), where the conflict is between social classes not ideas. Like Hegel, Marx
points to the possibility of the end of history. This will be initiated by the proletarian revolution that
will overthrow the bourgeoisie. Marx is not very specific about the nature of this revolution, although
he does predict despotic inroads on the rights of property. Marx saw such measures as part of a
process that would lead to the national control of all industry. Once that had occurred the unequal
distribution of goods that had characterised previous societies would also disappear. Material plenty,
created by a modern industry controlled for the benefit of society as a whole, would also ensure the
disappearance of class conflict, and without such conflict historical change, would, in his view, cease.
But the end of old-style history (with its inequality, exploitation and alienation) would be the
beginning of a new history (of human freedom and fulfillment).
5. Components of Communist manifesto
Mainly divided into four major chapters
Bourgeois and Proletarians
Proletarians and Communists
Socialist and Communist Literature
Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties




7

Bourgeois and Proletarians
In this chapter, Marx famously states 'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of
class struggles'. The chapter lays out the position that the bourgeois, through competition and private
ownership of land, are forever exploiting and oppressing the proletariat (working class). Marx then
states that the system always results in class conflict and revolution, and should be replaced by
communism -- a society without class distinctions. The Communist Manifesto begins with Marx's
famous generalization that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles"
(79). Marx describes these classes in terms of binary oppositions, with one party as oppressor, the
other as oppressed. While human societies have traditionally been organized according to complex,
multi-membered class hierarchies, the demise of feudalism affected by the French Revolution has
brought about a simplification of class antagonism. Rather than many classes fighting amongst
themselves (e.g. ancient Rome with its patricians, knights, plebeians, and slaves), society is
increasingly splitting into only two classes: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
Proletarians and Communists
Marx begins this chapter by declaring that communists have no interests apart from the interests of
the working class as a whole. Communists are distinguished from other socialist parties by focusing
solely on the common interests of all workers and not the interests of any single national movement.
They appreciate the historical forces that compel the progress of their class and help lead the
proletariat to fulfill their destiny. As Marx says, "The immediate aim of the Communists is the same
as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the
bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat" (95).
This chapter explains the relationship between the communist party and other working parties,
stating that the communist parties would not organize against them. The chapter also declares the
intention of the party to focus on the interests of the proletariat as whole, and not any particular
group. This section of the manifesto also clarifies the main points of the communist platform, which
includes the following ten short term demands: Abolishing ownership of all private property,
Establishing system of heavy taxation
Abolishing the right to inherit
Centralizing credit and establishment of a state bank
Centralizing communication and transport with the state
Confiscating all emigrant and rebel property
Extending the means of production to the state
Equalizing liability to all levels of labor
8

Combining agriculture and manufacturing industries
Establishing free public education system

Socialist and Communist Literature
In this section Marx explores the evolution of European socialism up to his own day. Not surprisingly,
he charges all previous movements with theoretical and practical inadequacy while hailing his own
communist alternative as the best expression of a shared concern with the working-class.
I. Reactionary Socialism
A. Feudal Socialism
This was the earliest form of socialism. It was developed by aristocrats who were opposed to the
social changes brought about by the expanding bourgeoisie. Rather than focusing on their own plight,
though, they trumpeted the concerns of working classes. Marx repudiates these feudal socialists for
ignoring the fact that they were exploiters too when they were in power. Most importantly, though,
they had no appreciation of historical progress. They did not understand that the bourgeoisie were
their own offspring as the proletariat are the offspring of the bourgeoisie. Their primary concern was
in reinstating the old feudal order, and they thus objected to both the bourgeoisie and proletariat
insofar as each threatened to destroy previous social systems. Marx also identifies feudal socialism
with Christian socialism, remarking that "Christian socialism is but the holy water with which the
priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat" (108).
B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism
As Marx has noted in earlier chapters, bourgeois dominance increasingly divides society into two
classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat. There still exists a third class, though, which constantly fluctuates
between bourgeoisie and proletariat, the petty-bourgeoisie. Increasingly, though, this class in being
assimilated into the proletariat as society becomes more urbanized and reliant on industrial
production. Petty-bourgeois socialism arises from this class, but holds up the standard of the
proletariat, with whom the bourgeoisie are a shared enemy. Marx credits this school of socialism with
"dissect[ing] with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production," but
ultimately upbraids them for wanting to reinstate old social formations. They do not see that the
answer to bourgeois exploitation is to develop the proletariat into a revolutionary class rather than to
return the worker to the country and renew a failed feudalism.
C. German or 'True' Socialism:
German Socialism began as a response to French socialist literature. These early socialists, though,
did not appreciate that the French ideas grew out of a social environment which did not exist yet in
9

Germany. Unlike the French bourgeoisie, the German bourgeoisie had barely begun their struggle
against feudalism and there was no proletariat to speak of. As socialism lacked practical significance
for Germany, German thinkers universalized the French ideas, raising them to the status of immutable
laws of human Reason, transcending the narrow concerns of any particular class. Those who
championed these ideas in the political area forgot that they were developed for a society different
from their own; the result of this premature valorization of socialistic values was a hardening of
aristocratic resistance to the bourgeoisie. This has slowed the progress of industrialization and kept
Germany less developed economically than France. While the political rhetoric of this movement has
earned it many admirers, its lack of class character and its decrying of violent revolution make it weak
and ineffectual.
II. Conservative, or Bourgeois, Socialism
This is the form of socialism practiced by those sections of the bourgeoisie who wish to reform their
class rather than destroy it. They want to enjoy the social developments which their economic and
political supremacy has affected, but they do not want to accept the necessary consequences of that
development, a suffering and revolutionary proletariat. They beg for social harmony yet refuse to
realize that the exploitation of the masses will not end until their form of society has been vanquished.
To this end, they simply prolong the misery of the proletariat and stand in the way of historical
progress.
III. Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism
The first great expositors of Socialism and Communism (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, etc.) appeared
very early in the bourgeois epoch. Accordingly, they did not fully appreciate the character of the
proletariat as the revolutionary class, the vehicle of historical action. For them the proletariat was
merely the locus of social misery, the class most in need of assistance. Their primary concern was
with the well-being of society as a whole and they directed their entreaties to those who they thought
could effect change, those already in power. Change was to occur peacefully from above rather than
violently from below. Their critical faculties, though, extended to all portions of society and have
helped the working classes focus their own struggle. The visions of society that they propose, though,
are Utopian to the point of being fantastical. Notably, as class antagonism develops, their suggestions
become more far-fetched and less inspiring. They want to abolish class conflict without abolishing the
conditions for the existence of classes. At the moment of revolution, then, they become reactionary,
resisting the inevitable emancipation of the exploited masses for which they originally toiled.



10

Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties
In this final chapter Marx recapitulates the immediate political aims of Communism. He identifies
allied parties in various European states, noting that while communists support all working-class
parties, they always stay focused on the long-term interests of the proletariat as a whole. Importantly,
Marx claims that Germany is the chief focus of Communist interest because while the bourgeoisie in
Germany have not yet achieved victory over the aristocracy, the proletariat there is more developed
than it was when either the French or English bourgeoisie won their independence. The result of this
is that the proletariat revolution will arrive first in Germany. Despite this focus, Communists will
support any and all revolutionary movements which advocate the abolition of private property and
advance the interests of the proletariat. As Marx powerfully concludes, "Let the ruling classes tremble
at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a
world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!"















11

Summary
The Communist Manifesto opens with the famous words "The history of all hitherto societies has
been the history of class struggles," and proceeds in the next 41 pages to single-mindedly elaborate
this proposition (79). In section 1, "Bourgeois and Proletarians," Marx delineates his vision of history,
focusing on the development and eventual destruction of the bourgeoisie, the dominant class of his
day. Before the bourgeoisie rose to prominence, society was organized according to a feudal order run
by aristocratic landowners and corporate guilds. With the discovery of America and the subsequent
expansion of economic markets, a new class arose, a manufacturing class, which took control of
international and domestic trade by producing goods more efficiently than the closed guilds. With
their growing economic powers, this class began to gain political power, destroying the vestiges of the
old feudal society which sought to restrict their ambition. According to Marx, the French Revolution
was the most decisive instance of this form of bourgeois self-determination. Indeed, Marx thought
bourgeois control so pervasive that he claimed that "the executive of the modern State is but a
committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" (82). This bourgeois
ascendancy has, though, created a new social class which labor in the new bourgeois industries. This
class, the proletariat, "wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to
selling their labor power in order to live," are the necessary consequence of bourgeois modes of
production (79). As bourgeois industries expand and increase their own capital, the ranks of the
proletariat swell as other classes of society, artisans and small business owners, cannot compete with
the bourgeois capitalists. Additionally, the development of bourgeois industries causes a proportional
deterioration in the condition of the proletariat. This deterioration, which can be slowed but not
stopped, creates within the proletariat a revolutionary element which will eventually destroy their
bourgeois oppressors. As Marx says, "What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own
grave-diggers.
In Chapter 2, "Proletariats and Communists," Marx elaborates the social changes communists hope to
effect on behalf of the proletariat. Marx notes firstly that the interests of communists do not differ
from the interests of the proletariat as a class; they seek only to develop a class consciousness in the
proletariat, a necessary condition of eventual proletariat emancipation. The primary objective of
communists and the revolutionary proletariat is the a bolition of private property, for it is this that
keeps them enslaved. Bourgeois economics, i.e., capitalism, requires that the owners of the means of
production compensate workers only enough to ensure their mere physical subsistence and
reproduction. In other words, the existence of bourgeois property, or capital as Marx calls it, relies on
its radically unequal distribution. The only way the proletariat can free itself from bourgeois
exploitation is to abolish capitalism. In achieving this goal, the proletariat will destroy all remnants of
bourgeois culture which act to perpetuate, if even implicitly, their misery. This includes family
organization, religion, morality, jurisprudence, etc. Culture is but the result of specific
12

material/economic conditions and has no life independent of these. The result of this struggle will be
"an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the development of all"
(104).
Chapter 3, "Socialist and Communist Literature," encompasses Marx's discussion of the relationship
between his movement and previous or contemporaneous socialist movements. In this chapter he
repudiates these other movements for not fully understanding the significance of the proletarian
struggle. They all suffer from at least one of 3 problems: 1) They look to previous modes of social
organization for a solution to present difficulties. 2) They deny the inherent class character of the
existing conflict. 3) They do not recognize that violent revolution on the part of the proletariat is the
only way to eradicate the conditions of oppression. Only the Marxist communists truly appreciate the
historical movement in which the antagonism between the proletariat and bourgeois is the final act.
The final chapter, "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties,"
announces the communist intention to "everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the
existing social and political order of things" (120). The communist contribution to this ongoing
revolutionary discourse will be the raising of the property question, for any revolutionary movement
which does not address this question cannot successfully rescue people from oppression. As Marx
thunders in conclusion, "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians
have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL
COUNTRIES, UNITE!" (121).











13

References
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1967). The communist manifesto (1848). Trans. AJP Taylor.
London: Penguin.
Marx, K., Engels, F., Moore, S., & McClellan, D. (1992). The Communist manifesto. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Marx, K. (1983). The Portable Karl Marx (p. 131). Penguin Books.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2002). The communist manifesto. Penguin.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1949). The communist manifesto in sociology and economics. The Journal
of Political Economy.