The reviewer "Scott" argues that the Communist Manifesto is "degrading", and I'd like to know exactly "for whom/what"? Sounds like Scott is either a boss who'd like to see the revival of the "Golden Age of Capitalism" (the Industrial Revolution, which included sub-living wages, child labor, forced overtime, 12-15 hour days, no worker's rights, etc.). Or, more likely, he has never read the Communist Manifesto, which contains within it nothing that is degrading for the working and poor classes, but is in fact a dignifying and uplifting rally-cry for the working class.
Only a person that has never read the Communist Manifesto, or a person belonging to the priveleged class, could argue, honestly, that the Manifesto was degrading. Scott, you should be ashamed.
(By the way, Marx was not the rabid anti-capitalist, pro-Statist, everyone thinks he was - he was in fact the rightful heir to the Paine, Smith, Mill, etc. He followed their arguments to their logical conclusions, and he could not reject history and what capitalism had become by his time. As had been said about communism time and time again, capitalism "is a great idea but doesn't work" - not in the long run, not for the working class. Rather, capitalism had went from liberating people in the 17th and 18th centuries to enslaving them in the 19th and 20th - and 21st - centuries. Marx, like the "founding fathers" of America, had realised that CERTAINLY man needs land/resources to be free, but unlike the founding fathers he was around to see that monopolies were an inevitability in capitalism, and that the population would grow too large for there to be enough land and resources to go around without SHARING. "Private property" had become, by this time, a means of forcing latecomers into service in exchange for table scraps. And of course, the capitalists had abandoned their belief in liberty and human welfare and had become dependent upon the State to protect their hordes of unused/horded wealth and property. Forget the fact that they didn't need all the land and resources they "owned legally", and forget the fact that there were people that DID need it bud didn't have it, and forget the fact that the choice between starvation and work is NOT "freedom" but coercion - forget all this. What became important for the capitalists long before socialism, anarchism, and communism became attractive alternatives to capitalism was not people, but profit. Marx simply was more of a libertarian than the capitalists of his day.)