Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • >>MANIFESTO OF

  • THE

  • COMMUNIST PARTY

  • A spectre is haunting Europe--the spectre of Communism.

  • All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to

  • exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot,

  • French Radicals and German police-spies.

  • Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as

  • Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition

  • that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism,

  • against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against

  • its reactionary adversaries?

  • Two things result from this fact.

  • I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers

  • to be itself a Power.

  • II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the

  • face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their

  • tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of

  • Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.

  • To this end, Communists of various nationalities have

  • assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be

  • published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and

  • Danish languages.

  • I. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS

  • The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history

  • of class struggles.

  • Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf,

  • guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed,

  • stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an

  • uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time

  • ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at

  • large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

  • In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a

  • complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a

  • manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have

  • patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages,

  • feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices,

  • serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate

  • gradations.

  • The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins

  • of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It

  • has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression,

  • new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the

  • epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive

  • feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a

  • whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps,

  • into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie

  • and Proletariat.

  • From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers

  • of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements

  • of the bourgeoisie were developed.

  • The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up

  • fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and

  • Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with

  • the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in

  • commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to

  • industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the

  • revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid

  • development.

  • The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production

  • was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the

  • growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took

  • its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the

  • manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the

  • different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of

  • labour in each single workshop.

  • Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising.

  • Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and

  • machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of

  • manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of

  • the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the

  • leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

  • Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the

  • discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an

  • immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication

  • by land. This development has, in its time, reacted on the

  • extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce,

  • navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the

  • bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the

  • background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

  • We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the

  • product of a long course of development, of a series of

  • revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

  • Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied

  • by a corresponding political advance of that class. An

  • oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an

  • armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune;

  • here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany),

  • there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France),

  • afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either

  • the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise

  • against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great

  • monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the

  • establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market,

  • conquered for itself, in the modern representative State,

  • exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is

  • but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole

  • bourgeoisie.

  • The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary

  • part.

  • The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an

  • end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has

  • pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to

  • his "natural superiors," and has left remaining no other nexus

  • between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash

  • payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of

  • religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine

  • sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It

  • has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of

  • the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that

  • single, unconscionable freedom--Free Trade. In one word, for

  • exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked,

  • shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

  • The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation

  • hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has

  • converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the

  • man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

  • The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental

  • veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money

  • relation.

  • The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the

  • brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists

  • so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful

  • indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can

  • bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian

  • pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has

  • conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses

  • of nations and crusades.

  • The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising

  • the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of

  • production, and with them the whole relations of society.

  • Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form,

  • was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all

  • earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of

  • production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions,

  • everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois

  • epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations,

  • with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and

  • opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated

  • before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all

  • that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face

  • with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his

  • relations with his kind.

  • The need of a constantly expanding market for its products

  • chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It

  • must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions

  • everywhere.

  • The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market

  • given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in

  • every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has

  • drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on

  • which it stood. All old-established national industries have

  • been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged

  • by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death

  • question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer

  • work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the

  • remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only

  • at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old

  • wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new

  • wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant

  • lands and climes. In place of the old local and national

  • seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every

  • direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in

  • material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual

  • creations of individual nations become common property. National

  • one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more

  • impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures,

  • there arises a world literature.

  • The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of

  • production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication,

  • draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation.

  • The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with

  • which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the

  • barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to

  • capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to

  • adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to

  • introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to

  • become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world

  • after its own image.

  • The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the

  • towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the

  • urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued

  • a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural

  • life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so

  • it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on

  • the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois,

  • the East on the West.

  • The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the

  • scattered state of the population, of the means of production,

  • and of property. It has agglomerated production, and has

  • concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence

  • of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but

  • loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws,

  • governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into

  • one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national

  • class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff. The

  • bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has

  • created more massive and more colossal productive forces than

  • have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's

  • forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry

  • and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs,

  • clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of

  • rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground--what

  • earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive

  • forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

  • We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose

  • foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in

  • feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these

  • means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which

  • feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of

  • agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal

  • relations of property became no longer compatible with the

  • already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters.

  • They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

  • Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a

  • social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the

  • economical and political sway of the bourgeois class.

  • A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern

  • bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange

  • and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic

  • means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is

  • no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he

  • has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history

  • of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of

  • modern productive forces against modern conditions of production,

  • against the property relations that are the conditions for the

  • existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to

  • mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put

  • on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the

  • entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only

  • of the existing products, but also of the previously created

  • productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises

  • there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would

  • have seemed an absurdity--the epidemic of over-production.

  • Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary

  • barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of

  • devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence;

  • industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because

  • there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence,

  • too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at

  • the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development

  • of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they

  • have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are

  • fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring

  • disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the

  • existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois

  • society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them.

  • And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one

  • hand inforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the

  • other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough

  • exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the

  • way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by

  • diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

  • The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the

  • ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

  • But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring

  • death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who

  • are to wield those weapons--the modern working class--the

  • proletarians.

  • In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed,

  • in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working

  • class, developed--a class of labourers, who live only so long

  • as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour

  • increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves

  • piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of

  • commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of

  • competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

  • Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of

  • labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual

  • character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He

  • becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most

  • simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is

  • required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is

  • restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he

  • requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his

  • race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of

  • labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion

  • therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage

  • decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and

  • division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden

  • of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working

  • hours, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by

  • increased speed of the machinery, etc.

  • Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the

  • patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial

  • capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are

  • organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they

  • are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers

  • and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class,

  • and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by

  • the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the

  • individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this

  • despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty,

  • the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

  • The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual

  • labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes

  • developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of

  • women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive

  • social validity for the working class. All are instruments of

  • labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age

  • and sex.

  • No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer,

  • so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is

  • set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord,

  • the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

  • The lower strata of the middle class--the small tradespeople,

  • shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and

  • peasants--all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly

  • because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale

  • on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the

  • competition with the large capitalists, partly because their

  • specialized skill is rendered worthless by the new methods of

  • production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes

  • of the population.

  • The proletariat goes through various stages of development.

  • With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At

  • first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by

  • the workpeople of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade,

  • in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly

  • exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the

  • bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments

  • of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that

  • compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they

  • set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished

  • status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

  • At this stage the labourers still form an incoherent mass

  • scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual

  • competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies,

  • this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of

  • the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its

  • own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in

  • motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this

  • stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies,

  • but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute

  • monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty

  • bourgeoisie. Thus the whole historical movement is concentrated

  • in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a

  • victory for the bourgeoisie.

  • But with the development of industry the proletariat not only

  • increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses,

  • its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various

  • interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the

  • proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as

  • machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly

  • everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing

  • competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial

  • crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The

  • unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing,

  • makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions

  • between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and

  • more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon

  • the workers begin to form combinations (Trades Unions) against

  • the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of

  • wages; they found permanent associations in order to make

  • provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and

  • there the contest breaks out into riots.

  • Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time.

  • The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate

  • result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This

  • union is helped on by the improved means of communication that

  • are created by modern industry and that place the workers of

  • different localities in contact with one another. It was just

  • this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local

  • struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle

  • between classes. But every class struggle is a political

  • struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the

  • Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries,

  • the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few

  • years.

  • This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and

  • consequently into a political party, is continually being upset

  • again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it

  • ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels

  • legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers,

  • by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie

  • itself. Thus the ten-hours' bill in England was carried.

  • Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society

  • further, in many ways, the course of development of the

  • proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant

  • battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those

  • portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become

  • antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all times, with the

  • bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles it sees

  • itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its

  • help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The

  • bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its

  • own instruments of political and general education, in other

  • words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting

  • the bourgeoisie.

  • Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling

  • classes are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the

  • proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of

  • existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements

  • of enlightenment and progress.

  • Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive

  • hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling

  • class, in fact within the whole range of 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.

  • Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie

  • today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class.

  • The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of

  • Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential

  • product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the

  • shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the

  • bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions

  • of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but

  • conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try

  • to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are

  • revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending

  • transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their

  • present, but their future interests, they desert their own

  • standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

  • The "dangerous class," the social scum, that passively rotting

  • mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may,

  • here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian

  • revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more

  • for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

  • In the conditions of the proletariat, those of old society at

  • large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without

  • property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer

  • anything in common with the bourgeois family-relations; modern

  • industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in

  • England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him

  • of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion,

  • are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in

  • ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

  • All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to

  • fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at

  • large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians

  • cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except

  • by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and

  • thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They

  • have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission

  • is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of,

  • individual property.

  • All previous historical movements were movements of minorities,

  • or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is

  • the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority,

  • in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the

  • lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise

  • itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official

  • society being sprung into the air.

  • Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the

  • proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle.

  • The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all

  • settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

  • In depicting the most general phases of the development of the

  • proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging

  • within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks

  • out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the

  • bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

  • Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have

  • already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed

  • classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions

  • must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its

  • slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised

  • himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty

  • bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to

  • develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary,

  • instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and

  • deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He

  • becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than

  • population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the

  • bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in

  • society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society

  • as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is

  • incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his

  • slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a

  • state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him.

  • Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other

  • words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

  • The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of

  • the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of

  • capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour

  • rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The

  • advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie,

  • replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition,

  • by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The

  • development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its

  • feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and

  • appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces,

  • above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of

  • the proletariat are equally inevitable.

  • II. PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS

  • In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a

  • whole?

  • The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other

  • working-class parties.

  • They have no interests separate and apart from those of the

  • proletariat as a whole.

  • They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own,

  • by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

  • The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties

  • by this only: (1) In the national struggles of the proletarians

  • of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front

  • the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of

  • all nationality. (2) In the various stages of development which the

  • struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass

  • through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the

  • movement as a whole.

  • The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically,

  • the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class

  • parties of every country, that section which pushes forward

  • all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over

  • the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly

  • understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate

  • general results of the proletarian movement.

  • The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all

  • the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into

  • a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of

  • political power by the proletariat.

  • The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way

  • based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or

  • discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They

  • merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from

  • an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on

  • under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property

  • relations is not at all a distinctive feature of Communism.

  • All property relations in the past have continually been subject

  • to historical change consequent upon the change in historical

  • conditions.

  • The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in

  • favour of bourgeois property.

  • The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of

  • property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But

  • modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete

  • expression of the system of producing and appropriating products,

  • that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the

  • many by the few.

  • In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in

  • the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

  • We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing

  • the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a

  • man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork

  • of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

  • Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the

  • property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of

  • property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to

  • abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent

  • already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

  • Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?

  • But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not

  • a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which

  • exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon

  • condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh

  • exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the

  • antagonism of capital and wage-labour. Let us examine both sides

  • of this antagonism.

  • To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a

  • social status in production. Capital is a collective product,

  • and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last

  • resort, only by the united action of all members of society,

  • can it be set in motion.

  • Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.

  • When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into

  • the property of all members of society, personal property is not

  • thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social

  • character of the property that is changed. It loses its

  • class-character.

  • Let us now take wage-labour.

  • The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e.,

  • that quantum of the means of subsistence, which is absolutely

  • requisite in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the

  • wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely

  • suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no

  • means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the

  • products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the

  • maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no

  • surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we

  • want to do away with, is the miserable character of this

  • appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase

  • capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of

  • the ruling class requires it.

  • In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase

  • accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour

  • is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence

  • of the labourer.

  • In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present;

  • in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In

  • bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality,

  • while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

  • And the abolition of this state of things is called by the

  • bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly

  • so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois

  • independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

  • By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of

  • production, free trade, free selling and buying.

  • But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying

  • disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and

  • all the other "brave words" of our bourgeoisie about freedom in

  • general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted

  • selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages,

  • but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of

  • buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production,

  • and of the bourgeoisie itself.

  • You are horrified at our intending to do away with private

  • property. But in your existing society, private property is

  • already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its

  • existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the

  • hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with

  • intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary

  • condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any

  • property for the immense majority of society.

  • In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your

  • property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

  • From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into

  • capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being

  • monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can

  • no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital,

  • from that moment, you say individuality vanishes.

  • You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no

  • other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of

  • property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and

  • made impossible.

  • Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the

  • products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the

  • power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such

  • appropriation.

  • It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property

  • all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

  • According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone

  • to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who

  • work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not

  • work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of

  • the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when

  • there is no longer any capital.

  • All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing

  • and appropriating material products, have, in the same way,

  • been urged against the Communistic modes of producing and

  • appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois,

  • the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of

  • production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to

  • him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

  • That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous

  • majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

  • But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended

  • abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois

  • notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but

  • the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and

  • bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of

  • your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential

  • character and direction are determined by the economical

  • conditions of existence of your class.

  • The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into

  • eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms

  • springing from your present mode of production and form of

  • property--historical relations that rise and disappear in the

  • progress of production--this misconception you share with every

  • ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the

  • case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal

  • property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of

  • your own bourgeois form of property.

  • Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this

  • infamous proposal of the Communists.

  • On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family,

  • based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed

  • form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this

  • state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of

  • the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

  • The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its

  • complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of

  • capital.

  • Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of

  • children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

  • But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations,

  • when we replace home education by social.

  • And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the

  • social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention,

  • direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The

  • Communists have not invented the intervention of society in

  • education; they do but seek to alter the character of that

  • intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the

  • ruling class.

  • The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about

  • the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the

  • more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all

  • family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their

  • children transformed into simple articles of commerce and

  • instruments of labour.

  • But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams

  • the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.

  • The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production.

  • He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited

  • in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than

  • that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the

  • women.

  • He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away

  • with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

  • For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the

  • virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women

  • which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established

  • by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce

  • community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

  • Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters

  • of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common

  • prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's

  • wives.

  • Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common

  • and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly

  • be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in

  • substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised

  • community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the

  • abolition of the present system of production must bring with it

  • the abolition of the community of women springing from that

  • system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

  • The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish

  • countries and nationality.

  • The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what

  • they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all

  • acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of

  • the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far,

  • itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

  • National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily

  • more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the

  • bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world-market, to

  • uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of

  • life corresponding thereto.

  • The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still

  • faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at

  • least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of

  • the proletariat.

  • In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another

  • is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will

  • also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between

  • classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation

  • to another will come to an end.

  • The charges against Communism made from a religious, a

  • philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint,

  • are not deserving of serious examination.

  • Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas,

  • views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes

  • with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in

  • his social relations and in his social life?

  • What else does the history of ideas prove, than that

  • intellectual production changes its character in proportion as

  • material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age

  • have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

  • When people speak of ideas that revolutionise society, they do

  • but express the fact, that within the old society, the elements

  • of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the

  • old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old

  • conditions of existence.

  • When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient

  • religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas

  • succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal

  • society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary

  • bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of

  • conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition

  • within the domain of knowledge.

  • "Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical

  • and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of

  • historical development. But religion, morality philosophy,

  • political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

  • "There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice,

  • etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism

  • abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all

  • morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it

  • therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

  • What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of

  • all past society has consisted in the development of class

  • antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at

  • different epochs.

  • But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all

  • past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the

  • other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past

  • ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays,

  • moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which

  • cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of

  • class antagonisms.

  • The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with

  • traditional property relations; no wonder that its development

  • involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

  • But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

  • We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the

  • working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of

  • ruling as to win the battle of democracy.

  • The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by

  • degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all

  • instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the

  • proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the

  • total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

  • Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by

  • means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on

  • the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures,

  • therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable,

  • but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves,

  • necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are

  • unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of

  • production.

  • These measures will of course be different in different

  • countries.

  • Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will

  • be pretty generally applicable.

  • 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents

  • of land to public purposes.

  • 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

  • 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

  • 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

  • 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means

  • of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive

  • monopoly.

  • 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport

  • in the hands of the State.

  • 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by

  • the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and

  • the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a

  • common plan.

  • 8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of

  • industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

  • 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries;

  • gradual abolition of the distinction between town and

  • country, by a more equable distribution of the population

  • over the country.

  • 10. Free education for all children in public schools.

  • Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form.

  • Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

  • When, in the course of development, class distinctions have

  • disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the

  • hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power

  • will lose its political character. Political power, properly so

  • called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing

  • another. If the proletariat during its contest with the

  • bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to

  • organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it

  • makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force

  • the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these

  • conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of

  • class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have

  • abolished its own supremacy as a class.

  • In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and

  • class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which

  • the free development of each is the condition for the free

  • development of all.

  • III. SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST LITERATURE

  • 1. REACTIONARY SOCIALISM

  • A. Feudal Socialism

  • Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the

  • aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against

  • modern bourgeois society. In the French revolution of July 1830,

  • and in the English reform agitation, these aristocracies again

  • succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political

  • contest was altogether out of the question. A literary battle

  • alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature

  • the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.

  • In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy were obliged to

  • lose sight, apparently, of their own interests, and to formulate

  • their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the

  • exploited working class alone. Thus the aristocracy took their

  • revenge by singing lampoons on their new master, and whispering

  • in his ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe.

  • In this way arose Feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half

  • lampoon; half echo of the past, half menace of the future; at

  • times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the

  • bourgeoisie to the very heart's core; but always ludicrous in

  • its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of

  • modern history.

  • The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the

  • proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so

  • often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal

  • coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.

  • One section of the French Legitimists and "Young England"

  • exhibited this spectacle.

  • In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to

  • that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they

  • exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite

  • different, and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under

  • their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget

  • that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their

  • own form of society.

  • For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary

  • character of their criticism that their chief accusation against

  • the bourgeoisie amounts to this, that under the bourgeois regime

  • a class is being developed, which is destined to cut up root and

  • branch the old order of society.

  • What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it

  • creates a proletariat, as that it creates a revolutionary

  • proletariat.

  • In political practice, therefore, they join in all coercive

  • measures against the working class; and in ordinary life,

  • despite their high falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the

  • golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter

  • truth, love, and honour for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and

  • potato spirits.

  • As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord,

  • so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism.

  • Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist

  • tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property,

  • against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in the

  • place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification

  • of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian

  • Socialism is but the holy, water with which the priest consecrates

  • the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.

  • B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism

  • The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by

  • the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence

  • pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society.

  • The mediaeval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were

  • the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries

  • which are but little developed, industrially and commercially,

  • these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising

  • bourgeoisie.

  • In countries where modern civilisation has become fully

  • developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed,

  • fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie and ever renewing

  • itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The

  • individual members of this class, however, are being constantly

  • hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition,

  • and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment

  • approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent

  • section of modern society, to be replaced, in manufactures,

  • agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.

  • In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more

  • than half of the population, it was natural that writers who

  • sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, should use,

  • in their criticism of the bourgeois regime, the standard of the

  • peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these

  • intermediate classes should take up the cudgels for the working

  • class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the

  • head of this school, not only in France but also in England.

  • This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the

  • contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid

  • bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved,

  • incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and

  • division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a

  • few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the

  • inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery

  • of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying

  • inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of

  • extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral

  • bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.

  • In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires

  • either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange,

  • and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or

  • to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange,

  • within the framework of the old property relations that have

  • been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either

  • case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.

  • Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture, patriarchal relations in agriculture.

  • Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all

  • intoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of Socialism

  • ended in a miserable fit of the blues.

  • C. German, or "True," Socialism

  • The Socialist and Communist literature of France, a literature

  • that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and

  • that was the expression of the struggle against this power, was

  • introduced into Germany at a time when the bourgeoisie, in that

  • country, had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism.

  • German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits,

  • eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting, that when

  • these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French social

  • conditions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with

  • German social conditions, this French literature lost all its

  • immediate practical significance, and assumed a purely literary

  • aspect. Thus, to the German philosophers of the eighteenth

  • century, the demands of the first French Revolution were nothing

  • more than the demands of "Practical Reason" in general, and the

  • utterance of the will of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie

  • signified in their eyes the law of pure Will, of Will as it was

  • bound to be, of true human Will generally.

  • The world of the German literate consisted solely in bringing

  • the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical

  • conscience, or rather, in annexing the French ideas without

  • deserting their own philosophic point of view.

  • This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign

  • language is appropriated, namely, by translation.

  • It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic

  • Saints over the manuscripts on which the classical works of

  • ancient heathendom had been written. The German literate

  • reversed this process with the profane French literature. They

  • wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original.

  • For instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic

  • functions of money, they wrote "Alienation of Humanity," and

  • beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois State they wrote

  • "dethronement of the Category of the General," and so forth.

  • The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of

  • the French historical criticisms they dubbed "Philosophy of

  • Action," "True Socialism," "German Science of Socialism,"

  • "Philosophical Foundation of Socialism," and so on.

  • The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely

  • emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express

  • the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having

  • overcome "French one-sidedness" and of representing, not true

  • requirements, but the requirements of truth; not the interests of the

  • proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who

  • belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm

  • of philosophical fantasy.

  • This German Socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously

  • and solemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade in such

  • mountebank fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic

  • innocence.

  • The fight of the German, and especially, of the Prussian bourgeoisie,

  • against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the

  • liberal movement, became more earnest.

  • By this, the long wished-for opportunity was offered to "True"

  • Socialism of confronting the political movement with the

  • Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas

  • against liberalism, against representative government, against

  • bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois

  • legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to

  • the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose,

  • by this bourgeois movement. German Socialism forgot, in the nick

  • of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was,

  • presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its

  • corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political

  • constitution adapted thereto, the very things whose attainment

  • was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.

  • To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons,

  • professors, country squires and officials, it served as a welcome

  • scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.

  • It was a sweet finish after the bitter pills of floggings and

  • bullets with which these same governments, just at that time,

  • dosed the German working-class risings.

  • While this "True" Socialism thus served the governments as a

  • weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time,

  • directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of the

  • German Philistines. In Germany the petty-bourgeois class, a

  • relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly

  • cropping up again under various forms, is the real social basis

  • of the existing state of things.

  • To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of

  • things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the

  • bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction; on the one

  • hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the

  • rise of a revolutionary proletariat. "True" Socialism appeared to

  • kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.

  • The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers

  • of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this

  • transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their

  • sorry "eternal truths," all skin and bone, served to wonderfully

  • increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public. And on

  • its part, German Socialism recognised, more and more, its own

  • calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois

  • Philistine.

  • It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the

  • German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every

  • villainous meanness of this model man it gave a hidden, higher,

  • Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real

  • character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing

  • the "brutally destructive" tendency of Communism, and of

  • proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class

  • struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist

  • and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany

  • belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.

  • 2. CONSERVATIVE, OR BOURGEOIS, SOCIALISM

  • A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social

  • grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of

  • bourgeois society.

  • To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition

  • of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies

  • for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner

  • reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of Socialism has,

  • moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

  • We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misere as an example of

  • this form.

  • The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern

  • social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily

  • resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society

  • minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish

  • for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie

  • naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the

  • best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable

  • conception into various more or less complete systems. In

  • requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby

  • to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but

  • requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within

  • the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its

  • hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

  • A second and more practical, but less systematic, form of this

  • Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in

  • the eyes of the working class, by showing that no mere political

  • reform, but only a change in the material conditions of

  • existence, in economic relations, could be of any advantage to

  • them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this

  • form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of

  • the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be

  • effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based

  • on the continued existence of these relations; reforms,

  • therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between

  • capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and

  • simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

  • Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression, when, and only

  • when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

  • Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective

  • duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for

  • the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the

  • only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism.

  • It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois--for

  • the benefit of the working class.

  • 3. CRITICAL-UTOPIAN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

  • We do not here refer to that literature which, in every great

  • modern revolution, has always given voice to the demands of the

  • proletariat, such as the writings of Babeuf and others.

  • The first direct attempts of the proletariat to attain its own

  • ends, made in times of universal excitement, when feudal society

  • was being overthrown, these attempts necessarily failed, owing

  • to the then undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as to

  • the absence of the economic conditions for its emancipation,

  • conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be produced

  • by the impending bourgeois epoch alone. The revolutionary

  • literature that accompanied these first movements of the

  • proletariat had necessarily a reactionary character. It

  • inculcated universal asceticism and social levelling in its

  • crudest form.

  • The Socialist and Communist systems properly so called, those of

  • Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen and others, spring into existence in

  • the early undeveloped period, described above, of the struggle

  • between proletariat and bourgeoisie (see Section 1. Bourgeois

  • and Proletarians).

  • The founders of these systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as

  • well as the action of the decomposing elements, in the prevailing form

  • of society. But the proletariat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them

  • the spectacle of a class without any historical initiative or any

  • independent political movement.

  • Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with

  • the development of industry, the economic situation, as they find

  • it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the

  • emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a

  • new social science, after new social laws, that are to create

  • these conditions.

  • Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive

  • action, historically created conditions of emancipation to

  • fantastic ones, and the gradual, spontaneous class-organisation

  • of the proletariat to the organisation of society specially

  • contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in

  • their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of

  • their social plans.

  • In the formation of their plans they are conscious of caring

  • chiefly for the interests of the working class, as being the most

  • suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most

  • suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.

  • The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their

  • own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider

  • themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to

  • improve the condition of every member of society, even that of

  • the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at

  • large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the

  • ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand

  • their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the

  • best possible state of society?

  • Hence, they reject all political, and especially all

  • revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by

  • peaceful means, and endeavour, by small experiments, necessarily

  • doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way

  • for the new social Gospel.

  • Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time

  • when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has

  • but a fantastic conception of its own position correspond with

  • the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general

  • reconstruction of society.

  • But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a

  • critical element. They attack every principle of existing society.

  • Hence they are full of the most valuable materials for the

  • enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures

  • proposed in them--such as the abolition of the distinction

  • between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of

  • industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage

  • system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the

  • functions of the State into a mere superintendence of production,

  • all these proposals, point solely to the disappearance of class

  • antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and

  • which, in these publications, are recognised in their earliest,

  • indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore,

  • are of a purely Utopian character.

  • The significance of Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism

  • bears an inverse relation to historical development. In

  • proportion as the modern class struggle develops and takes

  • definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest,

  • these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all

  • theoretical justification. Therefore, although the originators

  • of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their

  • disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects.

  • They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in

  • opposition to the progressive historical development of the

  • proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently,

  • to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms.

  • They still dream of experimental realisation of their social

  • Utopias, of founding isolated "phalansteres," of establishing

  • "Home Colonies," of setting up a "Little Icaria"--duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem--and to realise

  • all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to

  • the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees they sink

  • into the category of the reactionary conservative Socialists

  • depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic

  • pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief

  • in the miraculous effects of their social science.

  • They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the

  • part of the working class; such action, according to them, can

  • only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.

  • The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France,

  • respectively, oppose the Chartists and the Reformistes.

  • IV. POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO THE

  • VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES

  • Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the

  • existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England

  • and the Agrarian Reformers in America.

  • The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims,

  • for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working

  • class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent

  • and take care of the future of that movement. In France the

  • Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats, against the

  • conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the

  • right to take up a critical position in regard to phrases and

  • illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.

  • In Switzerland they support the Radicals, without losing sight

  • of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements,

  • partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of

  • radical bourgeois.

  • In Poland they support the party that insists on an agrarian

  • revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that

  • party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.

  • In Germany they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a

  • revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal

  • squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.

  • But they never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the

  • working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile

  • antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the

  • German workers may straightaway use, as so many weapons against

  • the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the

  • bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy,

  • and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in

  • Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately

  • begin.

  • The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because

  • that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that

  • is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions

  • of European civilisation, and with a much more developed

  • proletariat, than that of England was in the seventeenth, and of

  • France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois

  • revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately

  • following proletarian revolution.

  • In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary

  • movement against the existing social and political order of

  • things.

  • In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading

  • question in each, the property question, no matter what its

  • degree of development at the time.

  • Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of

  • the democratic parties of all countries.

  • The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.

  • They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by

  • the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.

  • 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!

>>MANIFESTO OF

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it