r/Communist

Am I missing something?

Would have loved for people in that sub, mods included to actually have engaged with the content instead of immediate ban and zero expression of any counter points.

I tried to appeal apologetically because I initially thought the ban was due to my tone, and the mod replied that it was fascist content I was banned for and not tone, and proceeded to mute me for 7 days so I can’t even reply to the mod.

Anyone have any thoughts about what I wrote here?

Zohran Mamdani has gained a lot from ‘playing ball’ with the Black political establishment in New York. But if he wants to achieve his agenda in the long-term, he must turn to the Black socialist insurgents.

(I HAVENT READ THE ENGELS THING ABOUT ANARCHISTS YET) I just want to here you alls personal opinions, and communists in general. Really just the title

From the section, "Bourgeois and Proletarians:”

"Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole."

What Marx Means by "Bourgeois Ideologists:” Theory and Contemporary Examples

I. The Foundation: The German Ideology's Framework

To understand what Marx means by "bourgeois ideologists," we must begin not with the Manifesto but with the foundational theoretical argument about the relationship between ideas and material conditions developed in The German Ideology (1845-46) — the work in which Marx and Engels first systematically set out the materialist conception of history.
The core proposition is stated with characteristic directness: "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force."
The logic that follows is crucial. The ruling class simultaneously controls the means of material production (factories, land, capital, raw materials) and the means of mental/intellectual production (schools, universities, media, publishing, religion, the legal apparatus, the state's ideological institutions). People who lack control over material production — workers who must sell their labor — similarly lack control over intellectual production. The ideas that circulate in society as "universal truth," "human reason," "natural right," "common sense," are overwhelmingly ideas that reflect and justify the interests of those who own and control the means of production.

But Marx and Engels immediately introduce a further level of analysis. Within the ruling class itself, there is a division of labor. Some members of the ruling class "concern themselves primarily with the practice of domination" — they run businesses, manage estates, command armies, administer states. Others — the ideologists — are specialists in the production of justification: they elaborate, systematize, and broadcast the ideas that make the existing social order appear natural, rational, inevitable, and just. Marx notes with characteristic sharpness that this division "can even develop into a certain antagonism and hostility between the two parts," with the ideologists occasionally believing their own ideas and coming into tension with the "active" members of the ruling class — but insisting that whenever any real class clash develops, this antagonism evaporates and the ideologists return to serving their class's practical interests.

The German Ideology also identifies the specific mechanism by which class interests are universalized in ideology: "Each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society… it has to give its thoughts the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones." The genius of ruling-class ideology is precisely this: the interests of a specific exploiting class are presented not as particular interests but as the interests of humanity, of reason, of civilization, of freedom, of democracy.
This gives us the precise Marxist definition of a "bourgeois ideologist": someone who performs the professional function of producing, elaborating, disseminating, and legitimating the ideas that justify bourgeois social relations as natural, universal, and rational — whether or not they own significant property themselves, and whether or not they consciously understand themselves as performing this function.

II. The Two Sub-types: Conscious vs. Unconscious Ideologists

Marx's formulation allows for two quite different sub-types of bourgeois ideologist, and conflating them leads to serious political error.

The conscious ideologist knows, with varying degrees of explicitness, whose interests they serve. They are hired to produce justifications. The corporate law firm partner, the financial industry lobbyist, the defense contractor's think-tank analyst, the political strategist for a major capitalist party — these people are generally not deceiving themselves about the social function of their work. They are paid to make the case for their employers, and they do so with professional skill. Their "ideas" are openly instrumental.

The unconscious or self-deceived ideologist is more interesting and, in some respects, more politically important. This person genuinely believes in the universality and truth of the ideas they produce and disseminate. The liberal university professor who believes that teaching "critical thinking" is a politically neutral act of universal human development; the journalist who believes their commitment to "both sides" reporting is an expression of democratic neutrality rather than a defense of the existing power structure; the philosopher who believes their elaboration of "rights," "justice," or "the good society" transcends class interests — these people are performing an ideological function while experiencing themselves as independent thinkers pursuing truth. They are, in the German Ideology's terminology, people who "conceive the relation between mind and matter wrongly" because their social position systematically distorts their access to the material reality that produces the ideas they work with.

The Manifesto's specifically interesting sub-type — the "bourgeois ideologist who has raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole" — is someone who, through the exercise of their professional capacity for theoretical thinking, has arrived at a point where they can see through the universal pretensions of bourgeois ideology and recognize them as class-specific ideology. This is the rare case in which the professional apparatus of ideological production turns against itself — in which the tools of bourgeois intellectual work, pushed to their logical limit, begin to reveal what they were supposed to conceal.

III. The Contemporary Landscape: Mapping the Categories

With this framework, we can now map the concrete forms of bourgeois ideological production in 2026, organized by institutional sector.

The Major Media Apparatus
The corporate media is the most visible and socially pervasive instrument of ideological production in contemporary capitalism. David Walsh's WSWS series on the American media and democratic rights provides the definitive analysis: the leading media personalities — television anchors, senior columnists, editorial board members — "operate in effect as the public faces of their respective firms. There is no room for independence, no margin for error… These individuals have arrived at their lofty status in the media by demonstrating their unswerving loyalty to the conglomerates who employ them and with whom they fully identify. Maintaining their positions requires them unfailingly to lie about social reality."
The New York Times, the Washington Post (now owned directly by Jeff Bezos, who in 2025 decreed its editorial pages exclude any opinion hostile to "free markets"), CNN, MSNBC, the BBC — these are not primarily news organizations but ideological institutions, producing the narrative within which the ruling class's actions appear legitimate, necessary, and inevitable. Their journalists, editors, and commentators are, in Marx's terms, the ideologists of finance capital.
The liberal media deserves special attention because its ideological function is often more effectively disguised than the openly right-wing press. As Walsh's analysis shows, the liberal editorialists during the 2000 stolen election — the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe — knew the election had been stolen, "yet this extraordinary violation of democracy… cannot move them to make so much as a serious protest." Why? Because "Liberalism is in a sorry state for social, historical and moral reasons. Most of those who might once have protested are now wealthy, part of the establishment, more concerned about the health of the stock market than the state of democratic rights." Their liberalism is not the expression of a genuine opposition to capitalist power but a particular variant of bourgeois ideology — one that performs the function of providing the ruling class's domination with a humane, democratic face.
Specific contemporary figures: the Thomas Friedmans, Ezra Kleins, Fareed Zakarias, Rachel Maddows, and Nicholas Kristofs of the world — the prominent liberal columnists, commentators, and journalists whose work systematically frames every political question within the assumption that capitalism is permanent, that its major institutions are legitimate, and that the task of progressive politics is to influence those institutions rather than replace them. They are not necessarily cynical individuals — many are genuinely convinced of the universality of their values. But their institutional position, their material rewards, and the selection pressures of their profession all ensure that the ideas they produce serve the ruling class's need for legitimation.

The Academic and University Apparatus
The modern research university is one of the most important institutions of ideological production in bourgeois society. This is not merely a matter of universities being funded by corporations (though they are, extensively), or of specific departments being contracted for policy research (though this is ubiquitous). It is a structural matter: the university system produces the professional class that staffs every ideological institution of bourgeois society — the media, the law, the state bureaucracy, the think tanks, the NGOs. It trains people in the habits of thought that make the existing social order appear as the natural endpoint of human intellectual development.
The WSWS has documented the specific contemporary form this takes through the dominance of postmodernism and identity politics in the humanities and social sciences. This is not politically neutral "critical theory" — it is a specific ideological formation that denies objective truth, dissolves class analysis into identity categories, and provides bourgeois institutions with a vocabulary of "diversity," "inclusion," and "equity" that absorbs the language of liberation while leaving the structures of exploitation intact.
Contemporary figures: The academic proponents of Critical Race Theory — Kimberlé Crenshaw, Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo — are not marginal radicals but are funded by major corporations and foundations (Kendi's center at Boston University was given $43 million before rapidly collapsing into scandal and mass layoffs) and provide ideological cover for a ruling class that wants to present racial capitalism's perpetuation as "antiracist." Judith Butler's "gender theory," Slavoj Žižek's pseudo-Hegelian performances, Cornel West's academic radicalism — these figures circulate within the university system producing ideas that appear challenging to bourgeois society but in practice systematically direct radical energy away from the class struggle and into identity politics, philosophical speculation, and electoral reformism.

The Think Tank and Policy Research Apparatus
Between the academic world and the direct organs of state power stands the think tank — an institution specifically designed to translate the interests of the ruling class into the language of policy "expertise," "evidence-based" governance, and "solutions." The WSWS has analyzed the Center for a New American Security, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution, the RAND Corporation, the Heritage Foundation, and dozens of similar organizations as precisely these instruments.
Think tanks perform a specific ideological function: they employ people with academic credentials to produce "research" that justifies policies already determined by the ruling class's interests, present these as neutral expert analysis, and provide political cover for what is in fact class-interested policy. The revolving door between think tanks, government, and corporate boards ensures that the "experts" who staff these institutions are fully integrated into the social network of the ruling class.
The CNAS (Center for a New American Security), to take one example analyzed by the WSWS, has close ties to the Biden administration, the military, and the defense industry, and has played a central role in formulating US imperialist strategy against Russia and China. Its analysts appear as "independent experts" on television and in newspapers, providing the intellectual architecture for wars of aggression while presenting themselves as policy researchers.

The Legal Apparatus
Law is, in Marx's analysis, the formal expression of the ruling class's will given the appearance of universality. "The individuals who rule… give their will, which is determined by these definite conditions, a universal expression as the will of the state, as law." The legal profession, and especially its elite — Supreme Court justices, senior partners at corporate law firms, distinguished constitutional scholars — are ideologists in the precise Marxist sense: they take what are in fact the interests of the ruling class and express them as universal legal principles, "constitutional rights," "rule of law," and "due process."
The Supreme Court of the United States is a concrete example of this in action: nine lawyers appointed for life, whose decisions on every question from labor rights to campaign finance to abortion to voting rights systematically reflect and defend the interests of the capitalist class, presented as the interpretation of a sacred constitutional text.

The "Progressive" or Pseudo-Left Ideological Apparatus
One of the most important, and most specifically dangerous, forms of bourgeois ideological production is what the WSWS terms the "pseudo-left" — the intellectual formations that present themselves as socialist, radical, or progressive but in practice serve to channel class opposition back into bourgeois politics.
The Jacobin magazine and the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) represent the most prominent contemporary American example. Jacobin publishes articles with socialist-sounding titles while systematically promoting the Democratic Party and electoral reformism as the vehicle of social change. The DSA functions as a pressure group within the Democratic Party, diverting the genuine radicalization of youth and workers away from the building of an independent working-class political movement and toward the career advancement of a layer of middle-class "progressives" within existing institutions.
The case of Noam Chomsky, documented at length in the February 2026 WSWS analysis, is particularly instructive because it reveals — through the Epstein files — the social reality beneath the intellectual performance. Here is a man who spent decades claiming to oppose the ruling class while dining with sex traffickers, accepting the hospitality of oligarchs, pursuing meetings with fascist ideologues like Steve Bannon, and praising CIA directors. The WSWS identifies precisely what accounts for this: "Chomsky's aim was never to raise the consciousness of the working class but to influence the thinking of the ruling class and its intellectual representatives… He sought proximity to power because, despite all his rhetoric, that is where he believed consequential decisions were made."
Chomsky is the paradigm case of the pseudo-left bourgeois ideologist: someone who appears, by their critical language, to oppose the system, but whose actual politics consistently return to accommodation with it — "lesser evil" voting, defeatism about the possibility of socialist revolution ("we're not going to overthrow capitalism in a couple of decades"), and, ultimately, social integration into the very networks of ruling-class power they claimed to oppose.

IV. The Specific Meaning of "Comprehending Theoretically the Historical Movement as a Whole"

Returning now to the Manifesto's specific formulation about those bourgeois ideologists who have "raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole" — what distinguishes this rare individual from all the others?
The key is in the phrase "the historical movement as a whole." Most bourgeois ideologists, even intelligent and sophisticated ones, comprehend their own field, their own specialty, their own institution. The law professor understands law; the economist understands economics; the media commentator understands how public opinion is managed. But they do not comprehend — or actively resist comprehending — the totality of the historical process: the fact that capitalism is itself a historically specific, transitional social formation; that its productive forces have outgrown its property relations; that the working class as an objective social force contains within it the potential for a qualitatively different social order; and that all the "eternal truths" produced by bourgeois ideology are in fact the historically specific expressions of a class that is approaching its own supersession.
To "comprehend theoretically the historical movement as a whole" is, in other words, to arrive at something approximating the Marxist analysis of history — to understand that what appears eternal is historical, what appears universal is class-specific, and what appears permanent is transitional. It is to see, from within the bourgeois intellectual apparatus, that the apparatus itself is part of a dying order rather than the eternal expression of human reason.
This is precisely what Marx himself — bourgeois by social origin, educated in German universities at bourgeois expense, trained in bourgeois philosophy and law — achieved through the exercise of his intellectual capacities pushed beyond the limits that bourgeois ideology tries to enforce. He arrived, through the tools of bourgeois thought, at a comprehension of bourgeois society that those tools were designed to prevent. And this is what the Manifesto identifies as the specific mechanism by which bourgeois ideologists can break from their class: not through a general humanist sympathy with the oppressed, but through the specific theoretical achievement of comprehending the system as a whole, historically, in its contradictions and its trajectory.

V. The Practical Diagnostic: How to Identify the Genuine Article

Given the proliferation of pseudo-left intellectuals who claim to "comprehend the historical movement as a whole" while in practice serving bourgeois interests, it is worth identifying the practical markers that distinguish genuine theoretical comprehension, from its simulacra.

The test of class independence. Does the thinker insist on the political independence of the working class from all factions of the bourgeoisie? Or do they, at decisive moments, subordinate class struggle to support for the "lesser evil" bourgeois party, the "progressive" faction of capital, or some variant of popular frontism? The history of Chomsky, of Sanders, of the DSA, of every pseudo-left formation is the history of capitulation at precisely the moments when class independence matters most.

The test of the state. Does the thinker understand that the bourgeois state is an instrument of class domination that cannot simply be reformed or taken over but must be dismantled and replaced by organs of workers' power? Or do they perpetually return to electoral politics, legislative reform, and pressure on existing institutions as the vehicle of change? This test eliminates virtually the entire liberal and pseudo-left intellectual spectrum, which universally treats the existing state as, in principle, a neutral arbiter to be influenced in the right direction.

The test of revolution. Does the thinker take seriously the possibility and necessity of socialist revolution — the actual overthrow of bourgeois property relations by the organized working class? Or do they systematically channel every radical impulse into the safe harbor of reformism, presenting revolution as utopian, dangerous, or simply impossible under current conditions? As the WSWS analysis of Chomsky notes, his defeatism — "we're not going to overthrow capitalism in a couple of decades" — is not a practical observation but an ideological position that serves bourgeois domination by declaring the working class incapable of its historical task.

The test of Marxism. Does the thinker engage seriously and honestly with the tradition of Marxism — with the materialist conception of history, the theory of surplus value, the theory of the state, the theory of permanent revolution, the lessons of the Russian Revolution and its Stalinist degeneration? Or do they substitute various brands of post-Marxist theory (postmodernism, anarchism, social democracy, identity politics) that appear radical but systematically abandon the scientific basis for understanding capitalist society and the working class's role within it?

The vast majority of contemporary "progressive" and "left" intellectuals fail all four tests. They are, in Marxist terms, not the rare ideologists who have broken from their class but the more numerous ideologists who have absorbed the language of opposition while serving its function of managing and channeling class discontent.
The genuine "comprehension of the historical movement as a whole" — which the Manifesto identifies as the condition for the rarest and most significant class break — is not demonstrated by critical language or academic radicalism. It is demonstrated by political practice: the willingness to take the standpoint of the working class, to defend the Marxist program against all its opponents, to insist on political independence from bourgeois politics, and — when the objective situation demands it — to act on the conclusion that the working class, led by a revolutionary party, can and must overthrow capitalist society and build socialism.

That is the standard. It is a demanding one. It is the standard set by Marx and Engels themselves, who were bourgeois ideologists in origin and became the founders of scientific socialism in practice — not by renouncing their theoretical training but by deploying it, fully and without reservation, in the service of the historical movement whose comprehension their training made possible.

1. Education : ‌- Free education till 18 ‌- 50% scholarship for economically backward class students for bachelor degree

2. Healthcare ‌- Free first aid, checkups and basic medicines -‌ Free ambulance ‌- Affordable subsidies on expensive medicines

3. Public transport ‌ Affordable and efficient Train, buses, metro.

4. Housing and Land ‌- There are three basic needs for humans. Food, Shelter, Clothing. A common man can make a compromise in food and clothing, but he is struggling to build his own Shelter. Our main goal is to make housing affordable to a common man. -‌ Limitations on buying multiple houses. An 18+ adult can only buy one house. (If a capitalist wanted to invest and hoard a house he has to buy it in the name of his wife or other family members.) -‌ If a family have 4 adults and 4 houses by their names, and if a person unfortunately passed away, they have to sell any of 1 house within a year. ‌ - A foreigner can't buy a house which pumps up the housing market. -‌ Foreigners can only buy land for business
   ‌ If a person already owns land just for investment tax it based on the current market price. So people will stop hoarding the land and give it to young businessmen or people who wanna build a home

5. Income tax: (based on usa) ‌$ 0-15k - 8% ‌15-30k - 12% ‌30-60k - 18% ‌60-120k - 24% ‌120-240k - 28% ‌240-480k - 32% ‌480 - 960k - 36% ‌960k+ : 40%

This will be a very strict system in which we won't give them any loophole to dodge the taxes. We will collect every dime of that 40%. Plus which gives a reason to increase the minimum wage. Lower the work hours.

Unity on the basis of theory must be replaced by unity on the basis of a revolutionary programme. This requires that the different tendencies and groups on the far left embrace sharp debate and open factionalism. How can this be achieved?

"Common-sense anti-factionalism is beginning to be called into question. So the likes of Claudia Webbe, RS21 and the Mandelites have been putting up what passes as an argument. As Mike Macnair shows, the results are neither impressive nor convincing"

"The party grounded on theory - or on ‘method’, as Duncan Chapel quotes Livio Maitan as arguing - cannot tolerate any serious differences persisting over any prolonged period of time. But, for precisely that reason, the effect is inevitably the multiplication of sects and their ineffectiveness in face of the ‘official lefts’ like Pablo Iglesias in Spain, like Mélenchon in France, like Corbyn and his clique in Britain.

The alternative is to break with the method altogether and unite on the basis of a summary political programme, put to the vote and amendable, and accepting that there will be open and long-lasting factions and sharp debates. If we can achieve this among the Marxist left, we may be able to pose this method as an alternative to the method of bureaucratic-managerial controls the ‘official lefts’ seek. And then perhaps we can de-managerialise and democratise the workers’ movement. And by de-managerialising the workers’ movement, we may be able to pose the possibility that a socialist and democratic transformation of the society is possible."

I understand that the USSR had a eugenics programme, but what are your thoughts on it? What is the communist view of it?

hello, very young communist so my question is rather silly i think

but to what point can i look up to the u.s.s.r , should communist completely denounce the u.s.s.r?

how should ones interest for the u.s.sr be worded , is it okay to say you admire the u.s.s.r in certain ways or should you avoid praising the u.s.s.r as a whole and only word praise towards certain actions?

as well as certain nuances i should know when understanding the u.s.s.r

i am sorry for my poorly worded question, thank you

My opinion:

Well, it has nothing to do with the Jewish stereotype and is not wrapped in anti-Jewish propaganda. That would be oversimplifying, like how Nazis generalized Jews. It was absurd to call the people who were also murdered by the Nazis, fought the Nazis like no other power at the time, and to this day are usually thought of as left-wing, the political side that is most radically anti-racist, Nazis.

Hey comrades! I just got capital from my local library and I would like some suggestions for what and how I should annotate, and how I can read it. I am a 15 year old (potentially with undiagnosed ADHD) and the font size they use in this version is tiny wich my crappy eyes do not appreciate. Also, would you recommend any other books first or along side it? I've been very curious to read stuff about and by che guevara. Im about 150 pages into che a revolutionary life

Genuine question and one that I think of often. Military technology is so advanced now, if half the country had guns it seems like it wouldn’t matter as (the american) government could (and probably would) just use drones, carpet bomb us, chemical weapons & all kinds of more advanced technology.

Is there anything we can do at this point? Are there any ideas? Possibility if enough people got on board some country like China would take it seriously and help?

Hello, I don’t really use Reddit, so I don’t know if this post breaks the rules, but I really would like some advice from a communist perspective about an issue I’m having. Even if it’s the same advice I’d get from someone who isn’t a communist. I struggling to want a job.

I’ve actually already had a job. I got my first job two days before I turned 20 as a bakery clerk. And worked there for 8 months (almost nine months, it was like three days away from being nine.) I eventually quit. I didn’t like the low pay. I didn’t like that the management was pushing me to make this stupid food item even though I was already busy. They were changing the work hours. It was simple work. I even liked the job. But I didn’t like that the job didn’t provide for me and I thought I could do better. In hindsight this was a terrible decision but it’s too late now!

So I quit. And I was confident that I would find a new job in like two weeks of quitting. Cause when I got my bakery job, I did online and got an interview within a few days and got the job in that interview. So I figured it would be easy to get another one. I was on a “job high.” Confident that I could get something new and better. 🫩. It’s been 11 months 🙂 And admittedly, for a majority of that, I wasn’t looking for a job. I didn’t want a job. This feeling of not wanting a job came out of nowhere to me. Cause I had my job high! I thought I would just jump right back in. But then I thought about how meaningless it felt :( How I devoted all this time for nothing. And how it made me feel like my life was meaningless.

I feel like I’m back to being 18-19. Where I felt the same way. The way that I solved it back then was that I just jumped in. And hoped it would be good. Plus, I didn’t have any prior experience, so I didn’t really have anything to go off of. Anyway, so I was on the toilet one time and I got lectured by two 17 year olds who have their life infinitely more together than I do. And my former coworkers girlfriend (one of the 17 year olds) said that I liked living in misery. And that I wasn’t actually trying and that I needed to go out and give real applications cause online just wasn’t cutting it. So I did that. I stopped applying online (I had applied online to about 15 jobs or so. The farthest I got was a shadow shift where they then decided to choose someone else.) so I went and applied with real applications.

It worked! I got a job after applying to about 10 different places. I started my job at a restaurant/brewery. And… I quit on the first day 🙂 I worked as a dishwasher and hated every second of it. It wasn’t the kind of job for me. It was too still. Not enough moving but simultaneously too overwhelming of stuff to do. And I knew I wouldn’t make it there. So I quit cause I didn’t want to waste my time or theirs. Or, at least, that’s how I frame it. That happened like a month or two ago. I don’t know. I have a bad memory.

Anyway, so the way that this relates to communism is that I think communism had made my life worse. It’s made me miserable. Even more miserable than I was before. And I wanted to know if any of you had felt the same way and how you dealt with it. I’m tired of feeling useless. I hate that I’m a burden to my mom. I don’t really relate to my friends anymore because they all have jobs, and they’re fine with it (granted they’re not communists) and I feel like I can feel myself drifting away from them as they go further ahead and I get farther behind.

So yeah, I just wanted some advice. Or maybe you can berate me for being a chud.

Communism is not a party it is a disease. We do not negotiate with it we eradicate it. It has failed in every single country.

Quinn Slobodian and Ben Tarnoff’s newly released Muskism traces the biography and ideology of the Elon Musk, the man currently reshaping the digital world. In his review, Nik M. traces the inculcation of “fortress” and racialist ideas in Musk’s upbringing in apartheid South Africa, the new model of tech domination dependent on exploitation of state power, and, finally, the “woke mind virus” that terrifies Musk, explains his aggression, and may just be the ghost in the machine necessary to stop him.

the larg side (187 pages) is a whole introduction and a history and the effect of the communist manifesto. and some stuff about it version in different countries. the small part is where "the Manifesto of the Communist Party" "Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians" starts. i am really confused to where should i start reading as the online version i looked upon first doesn't have the first long part. i bought this book from a local small business that prints books. i thought the guy was just gonna print from the chapter one i didn't expect such long part. back to the point do i read the first long part? edit: the first part is "an introduction by GARETH STEDMAN JONES"