The

Project Gutenberg EBook of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and

Friedrich Engels

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the
terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.net

Title: The Communist Manifesto

Author: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Release Date: January 25, 2005 [EBook #61]

Language: English

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMUNIST

MANIFESTO ***

Transcribed by Allen Lutins with assistance from Jim Tarzia.

MANIFESTO OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY
[From the English edition of 1888, edited by Friedrich Engels]

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!

End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Communist Manifesto by Karl

Marx and Friedrich Engels
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COMMUNIST
MANIFESTO ***

***** This file should be named 61.txt or 61.zip ***** This and all associated
files of various formats will be found in: http://www.gutenberg.net/6/61/

Transcribed by Allen Lutins with assistance from Jim Tarzia.

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.

Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one owns a
United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy
and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.
Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge
for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You
may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works,
reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and
given away—you may do practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.
Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.

*** START: FULL LICENSE ***

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU
DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution

of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work
associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to comply
with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License (available with this
file or online at http://gutenberg.net/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of
this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do
not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and
return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of
this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you
paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or

associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most
Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full
terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you
can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of
this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or

PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-
tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the
public domain in the United States. If an individual work is in the public domain
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a
right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or
creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work.
You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in
the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you
share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you
can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of
change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in
addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations
concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to,
the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any
copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated)
is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the
terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.net

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from the

public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with
permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"
associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the
requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs
1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the

permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with
both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the
copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at
the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other
work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic

work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the
sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the
full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed,
marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing
or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a
Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm
web site (www.gutenberg.net), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to
the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a
copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License
as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with
paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or
distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that

- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of
Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to
calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this
paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare
(or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments
should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, "Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in
writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the
terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to
return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
works.

- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money
paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is
discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic

work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement,
you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and Michael Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to

identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread public domain works
in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored,
may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property
infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or
computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the

"Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED
IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS
AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT,
INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES
EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a

defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a
refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to
the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person
or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the
person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity
to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also
defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to
fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph
1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES
OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY
PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the
exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to
this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining
provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing
copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this
agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all
liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly
from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic

works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete,
old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds
of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they
need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring that the
Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to
come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created
to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive

Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3)

educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and
granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's
EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is
posted at http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.

The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. Fairbanks, AK,
99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City,
UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email [email protected]. Email contact links and
up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
official page at http://pglaf.org

For additional contact information:

Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of
public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine
readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities

and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance
requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork
and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit
donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for
any particular state visit http://pglaf.org

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not
met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting
unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to
donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any

statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and
addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
http://pglaf.org/donate

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic

works.

Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm concept

of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For
thirty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only
a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all
of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is
included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

http://www.gutenberg.net

This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how
to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to
help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to
hear about new eBooks.