The article "The Communist Manifesto" by Egbert Munzer, published in *Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations* in March 1948, discusses the historical context and impact of Marx and Engels' famous document. The Manifesto, published in 1848, outlined the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and predicted a revolutionary transformation. However, Munzer argues that the Manifesto's predictions have been largely inaccurate, particularly in countries like Russia and Eastern Europe, where the Manifesto's ideas were misapplied to justify state capitalism and violent nationalism. Munzer critiques the Manifesto's religious and secularized approach to history, noting that it appeals to religious sentiments for secular ends. He also highlights the Manifesto's oversimplifications, such as the assumption of a two-class society and the belief that the proletariat must seize power through revolution. These assumptions have been challenged by the actual course of history, particularly in countries where the bourgeoisie did not exist or was unwilling to lead the revolution. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for a genuine religion, not science, to overcome the religious aberration of historic materialism. While acknowledging the Manifesto's partial truths, Munzer suggests that its predictions have been discredited by historical events, and that the true revolutionary potential lies in the working class's gradual integration into the ruling stratum rather than a violent seizure of power.The article "The Communist Manifesto" by Egbert Munzer, published in *Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations* in March 1948, discusses the historical context and impact of Marx and Engels' famous document. The Manifesto, published in 1848, outlined the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and predicted a revolutionary transformation. However, Munzer argues that the Manifesto's predictions have been largely inaccurate, particularly in countries like Russia and Eastern Europe, where the Manifesto's ideas were misapplied to justify state capitalism and violent nationalism. Munzer critiques the Manifesto's religious and secularized approach to history, noting that it appeals to religious sentiments for secular ends. He also highlights the Manifesto's oversimplifications, such as the assumption of a two-class society and the belief that the proletariat must seize power through revolution. These assumptions have been challenged by the actual course of history, particularly in countries where the bourgeoisie did not exist or was unwilling to lead the revolution. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for a genuine religion, not science, to overcome the religious aberration of historic materialism. While acknowledging the Manifesto's partial truths, Munzer suggests that its predictions have been discredited by historical events, and that the true revolutionary potential lies in the working class's gradual integration into the ruling stratum rather than a violent seizure of power.