Karl Marx - The Communist Manifesto

l<arl Marx selected writings

Edi ted by

David Mclellan

OXFORD UN I VERSITY PRESS

18

The Communist Manifesto

The Communist League, li nk ing t he ma in centres of communist activities in Paris, London,

Brusse ls, and Cologne, was form ed out of the League of the Just in June 1847, largely at the

instigation of Marx and Engel s. At a Congress in London in November 1847, the need was

expressed for a clear formulation of the League's principles, and Marx and Engels were

asked to draw up a statement. Engels had al ready co mposed a draft after the June Congress,

and Marx incorporated some of this material when he wrote the Manifesto in Brussels

in December and January. By t he t ime it was published in February 1848, the series of

revolut ions that mar ked t hat year had al ready broken out.

The Communist Manifesto has four sections. The first gives a history of society as class

society since t he Middle Ages and ends with a prophecy of t he victory of the proletariat over

the present ru li ng class, the bourgeoisie. The second section descri bes the position of com-

munists within the proletar ian class, rejects bourgeois objections to communism, and then

characterizes t he communist revolution, t he measures to be taken by the victorious prole-

tariat, and ~he nature of the fu ture communist society. The thi rd section contains an

extended cri t icism of other types of socialism-react ionary, bourgeois, and utopian. The

fi nal section provides a short description of commun ist tactics towards other opposition

parties and fi nishes with an appeal for proletarian unity.

None of the ideas in the· Communist Manifesto were new, and its ideas on revolution and

history were obviously influenced by French social ists such as Babeuf, Sa int-Simon, and

Considerant; and the concept of class, with which t he Manifesto begins, was first used by

French bourgeois historians. What is new is t he force of expression and the powerfu l syn-

thesis afforded by the materialist concept ion of history. For many parts of the Manifesto are

simply brill iant summari es of views put forward in The German Ideology. Marx and Engels

cont inued to recognize this pamphlet as a classic expression of the ir views, though they

wou ld subsequently have wished to mod if y some of its ideas- particu lar ly (in the light of the

Paris Commune l those relati ng to the pro letariat's appropriation of the state apparatus and

the rat her simp li stic statements on immiserization and class polarization.

A spectre is haunting Europe-the sp ectre of Comm unism. All the Powers of

o ld Euro p e have entered into a ho ly a lli a nce to exorcise this spectre: Pope and

Tsa r, Metternich a nd Guizot, Frenc h Radicals a nd German police-spies. W here is the p a rty in opposit io n that has not been decried as Communistic

by its op po nents in power ? W he re the Oppositio n that has no t hurled back the

246 I KA RL MARX: SELECTED WRITINGS

brand ing rep roach of Com munism, aga in st the more a dvanced op position parties, as we ll as aga in st its reactionary adversaries?

Two things res ult fro m this fact.

I. Communism is a lready acknowledged by a ll Europea n Powe rs to be itse lf a Power.

II. It is high time th a t Communists should o p enl y, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their a ims, their tendenc ies, a nd meet t his nu rsery

ta le of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.

To this e nd, Communi sts of vari ou s natio na lities have assembled in London ' and sk etched the fo llowi ng Manifesto, to be publishe d in the English, French,

Germ an , Italian , Fle mish , and Danish la nguages .

I Bourgeois and Proletarians

Th e history of a ll hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freema n and slave, patric ian and p lebeian , lord and serf, guild -master and

jo urneyma n-in a word , o ppressor a nd oppressed, stood in constant oppos- itio n to o ne another, carried on a n uninterrupted, now hidden, now ope n fight,

a fi ght that each time en ded either in a revo lut ionary re-constituti o n of socie ty at large o r in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the ea rlier epochs o f history, we find a lmost everywhere a complicated a rrangem ent of socie ty into various orders, a ma nifold g ra dation of social ra nk. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the

Middle Ages, feudal lo rd s, vassals, g uild-masters, jou rneymen, app rentices, serfs; in a lmost a ll o f these classes, again, subordinate grad ations .

T he modern bourgeois society tha t h as sprouted from the ruins of fe udal soc iety has not d o ne away with class antagonisms. It has but established new cl asses, new conditio n s of o ppression , new fo rms of struggle in place of the old ones.

O ur epoch, the epoc h o f t he bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this disti nctive feature: it has simplified the class a ntago ni sm s. Society as a who le is more and

more splitting up into two great hosti le camps, into two great classes direc tly facing each other: Bourgeoisie a nd Pro le taria t.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of t he

ea rliest t owns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were deve loped.

T he d iscovery of America, the ro unding of t he Cape, o pe ned up fresh

ground fo r the rising bo urgeo isie. T he East Indian a nd C hinese ma rkets the ' co lonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of

excha nge a nd in commod ities genera ll y, gave to commerce, to naviga tion, to

industry, an impulse never before know n, a nd thereby, to the revolutionary

element in the totte ring feuda l societ y, a rap id' development. T he fe uda l system of industry, under which industrial production was mon-

o polized by closed g uilds, now no lo nger sufficed for t he growing wan ts of the new markets. T he manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were

pushed on one side by the ma nufacturing middle class; division of labour

between the different corporate gu ilds va nished in the face of d ivision of labour in each single workshop.

Mea nti me the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even

man u fact ure no lo nger suffi ced . Thereupon, steam and machinery revolution-

ized ind ustrial production. The p lace of manufacture was taken by t he g iant, Modern Industry, the place of the industri al middle class, by industrial

milliona ires, the leaders of whole industria l a rm ies, the modern bourgeois. Modern industry has established t he world-market, for which the discovery

of America p aved the way. T his market ha s given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to com mu nication by land. T his development has, in

its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as in dustry, commerce, navigation, ra ilways extended, in the same proportion the bour- geoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class hande d d own from the Midd le Ages.

We see, therefore, how t he 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 b y a cor-

respo nding politica l advance of that class . An oppressed class under t he sway of t he fe uda l nobility, a n armed a nd self-governing association in the medieval com mune; he re independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), t here

taxable ' third estate' of the monarchy (as in France ), afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, ser ving e ither the semi-feudal or the absolute mona rchy

as a counter poise against the nobili ty, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great monarch ies in genera l, t he bourgeoisie has at last, since the establish ment of

Modern Industry and of the wo rld-market, conquered for itself, in the modern re presentative State, excl us ive p olitica l sway. The executive of the modern Sta te is but a comm ittee fo r managing t he common affairs of the whole

bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historica lly, has p layed a most revol utionary part. The bourgeoisie, w herever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all

fe udal, patri a rcha l, idyllic relations. It has pit ilessly torn asunder the motley

feudal ties that bound man to his 'natura l superiors', and has left remaining no o ther nexus be tween ma n and man tha n naked self-interest, than callous 'cash

payment' . It has drowned t he most heaven ly ecstasies of re ligious fervour, of chiva lrous e nth usiasm, o f ph ilistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of

KARL MA R X : SELECTED WR I T I NGS

egoti stica l ca lcula tio n. It has resolved p ersona l worth into exch a nge va lue , a nd in pl ace o f the numbe rless indefeasible cha rtered fre edoms, ha s set up tha t

single, uncon sciona ble freedo m- Free Tra de. In o n e word , fo r explo ita ti o n,

veiled by religio us a nd po litical illusio n s, it has s ubs tituted na ked, s hameless, direct, brutal expl o itati o n .

Th e bo urgeoisie h as stripped o f its ha lo every o ccupa tion hitherto ho no ured

a nd loo ked up t o w ith reverent a we . It has con verted the physic ia n, the lawyer, the pr iest, the poet , the m a n o f sc ie nce into its p a id wage-la bo urers.

The b o urgeoisie has to rn away from the family its sentim enta l veil, a nd has

reduced the fa mily rela tio n to a me re money relatio n.

The bourgeoisie h as di sclosed h ow it ca me to pass t ha t the bruta l d is play o f

vigour in the Middle Ages, w hich R eactio nis ts so much a d m ire, found its fittin g

complement in the most slothful indolence. It h as been the firs t to show w ha t

m a n 's ac tivity can br ing a bout. It has accompli sh ed wonde rs fa r s urpassing

Egyptia n pyr a mids, Roma n a queduc ts, a nd Gothic cathedrals; it h as conducted

expeditions tha t put in the sh a de a ll form er Exoduses o f na tio ns a nd crusa des .

The bo urgeoisie ca nnot exist w itho ut con sta ntly revolutio nizing the instru- me nts of productio n, a nd there by the re la ti o ns o f produ ction , a nd w ith them

the w ho le rela tio ns of societ y. Con serva tio n of the o ld m o des o f p roductio n in

una ltered fo rm, was , o n the contra r y, the first conditi o n of existen ce for a ll

ea rlier indus tr ia l classes . Constant r evolutio niz ing of production, uninter-

rupted dis tur ba n ce o f a ll socia l conditions, e verlasting uncer ta inty a nd agita -

tio n disting ui sh t he bourgeois e poch fr o m a ll ea rlier ones. All fi xed, fas t -frozen

r elations, w ith their train of a ncient a nd venerable pre judices a nd opinio ns, a re

s wept a way, a ll new-for med o nes becom e a ntiqu a ted before they ca n ossify , All

t ha t is solid melts into a ir, a ll tha t is holy is profaned , and m a n is a t last

compe lled to face w ith sober sen ses, his real conditio ns of li fe , and his rela tions w ith his kind.

T he need of a con sta ntly expanding m a rket fo r its produc ts chases the bour-

geoisie over the w h ole surface of the g lo be. It m u st nestle everywhere, settle

ever ywhere, esta blish connectio ns everywhe re.

The bourgeoisie has th ro ug h its exploitatio n of the world-m a rket given a

cosm o polita n c ha racter t o produc tio n and con s umption in every count r y. To

the grea t chagrin o f Reactionist s, it has drawn from under the fee t of industry

the na tio na l gro und o n w hich it stood . All old -esta blished na ti o na l indus tries

ha ve b een d estroyed o r are d a ily b eing dest royed . T hey a re dislod ged by new

indu stries, w hose introduc tio n becomes a li fe-a nd-d eath ques tio n fo r a ll civil-

ized na tio ns, by indus tries tha t no lo nge r work up in digeno us raw m a t eria l, but

raw materia l d rawn from the remotest zones; ind us tries w hose product s a re

con s umed, no t o nly a t h o me , but in ever y qua rter of t he g lo be. In place o f the

o ld w a nts, satisfied by the productio ns of the country, we find new wants,

requiring for thei r satisfaction the produ ct s of distant land s a nd climes. In place

1 848AN D A FT ER I 24 9

of the old local a nd na tiona l seclusio n a nd self-s ufficiency, we have intercourse

in every direc tio n , universa l interdependence o f natio ns. And as in m ateri a l, so

a lso in intellectua l produc tion. The intellectu a l creati o ns of individu a l nations

becom e commo n p ro pe rty. Na tio nal one-sidedness a nd na rrow-mindedness

become more a nd m o re imposs ible, a nd fr om the numerous n atio na l a nd loca l

literatures, the re a rises a w orld lite rat ure. The bourgeo isie, by the rapid improvement o f a ll instruments o f productio n ,

by the immensely fac ilita ted m ean s o f co mmu nicati o n, draws a ll, even the most

ba rbaria n, na tions into civilizatio n. The chea p prices of its comm odities a re the

heavy a rtillery w ith w hich it ba tter s d own a ll C hinese w a lls, w ith w hich it

fo rces the barbaria n s' in tensely obstina te hatred o f fore igne rs to ca pitula t e. It co mpels a ll n a tio n s, o n pa in o f extincti o n, to a dopt t he bo urgeo is m o de o f

producti o n; it compe ls them t o introduce w h a t it ca lls civiliza tio n into the ir

mids t, i. e ., to becom e bourgeois them selves. In o ne wo rd , it creates a world

a fte r its own image . T he bourgeoisie has s ubj ected the country t o the rule of the town s. It has

creat ed en ormo u s c ities, ha s grea tly increased the urba n p o pula tio n as com -

pa red w ith the rura l, a nd has thus rescued a considerable pa rt o f the p o pula tio n

fr o m the idiocy o f rura l life. Just as it ha s m a de the co untry dependent on the

towns so it has made b a rba rian a nd semi-ba rba ri a n co untr ies dependent on , the c ivilized o nes, na ti o ns of peasants o n natio ns of bo urgeois, the East o n the

West . The bo urgeoisie keeps more and m o re d oing away w ith the scattered st a te

of the popula tio n, o f the mea ns of produc tion , a nd of property. It has

agglomera ted p o pula tion, ce ntralized mean s of p roduc tio n , a nd has co ncen-

trat ed p roperty in a few ha nds. The necessa ry con sequen ce o f th is was politica l

centra lizatio n . Indepe ndent o r but loosely co nnected provinces, w ith separate

interests, laws, governmen ts, a nd system s o f taxati o n, becam e lumped together

into one n ation, w ith one government, o n e cod e of laws, o n e na tiona l

class-in te rest , one fr o ntier, a nd o ne c ustoms-tariff. The bo urgeoisie , during its rule of sca rcely one hundred yea rs, h as crea ted

m o re m assive a nd mo re c o lossal produc tive fo rces tha n have a ll p receding

genera tions t ogether. Subjection o f Nature's forces to m a n , m achinery, a pplica-

tio n of ch emistry to indu stry a nd agriculture, steam -na vigation, railways, elec-

t ric telegraphs, clearing of who le contine nts for cultiva tio n, can a liza tio n o f

rivers, w ho le popula ti ons conjured o ut o f the ground-wha t ea rlier century

ha d even a presentime nt tha t such p roduc tive for ces slumbered in the la p o f

socia l la bour ? We see the n tha t the mea ns of production a nd o f exch a nge , on whose fo un-

d atio n the bo urgeo isie built itself up , were generate d in feud a l society. At a

certa in st age in the d evelo pment o f these m ea n s o f p roductio n a nd of exchange,

the conditions und er w hich fe uda l socie ty p roduced a nd excha nged , the fe ud a l

250 I KAR L MARX: SELECTED WR ITI NGS

organi zatio n of agriculture a nd manufacturing industry, in one word, the feu- dal relations of property become no longer compatible w ith the already

developed productive forces; they become so many fetters. They had to be burst

asunder; they wei:e burst asunder. Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a socia l a nd polit-

ica l constitution adapted to it, and by the econo mical and political sway of the

bourgeo is class.

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society w it h its relations of production, of excha nge a nd of property, a society

tha t has conjured up such giga ntic means of production and of exchange, is li ke the sorce rer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the net her w o rld

which he h as ca lled up by his spells. The history of industry and commerce for

many a d ecade past is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, aga inst the property relations that are the conditions for the ex istence of the bourgeoi sie a n d of its rule. It is

enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on

trial, eac h time more threa tening ly, the existe nce of the entire bourgeois soci- ety. In these c rises a great part not o nly of the existing products, but a lso of the p reviou sly created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these c rises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all ea rlier epochs, wou ld have seemed an absurdity-the epidemic of over-prod uction. Society suddenly finds itself put

back into a stat e of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal

war of devastation, has cut off the supply of ever y means of subsistence; indus- try and commerce seem to be destroyed; a nd w hy? Beca use there is too much civilization, too muc h means of subsistence, too much industr y, too much

commerce. T he productive forces a t th e disp osa l of soc iety no longer tend to further t he develo pment of the co nd itions o f bourgeois property; on the con- trary, they h ave become too powerful for t hese condit ions, by which they are

fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the w h o le of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeo is property. The conditions of bo urgeois society a re too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? O n

the one ha nd by e nforced d estruc tion of a mass of productive forces; o n the other, by the conquest of new markets, a nd by the more thorough exp loit-

ation of the o ld o nes . That is to say, by paving t he way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminish ing the mea ns whereby crises are prevented.

The weapons w ith w hic h the bourgeo isie fe lled feud a lism t o the gro und a re now t urned agai nst the bourgeo isie itself.

But not o nl y has t he bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bri ng death to

itself; it h as a lso ca lled into existence the me n w ho are to w ield t hose weapons-the modern work ing class-the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same pro-

portion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed-a class of

laboure rs, w ho live only so long as they find work, and w ho find work o n ly so long as their labour increases capita l. These labourers, who must sell them -

selves p iecemea l, are a commod ity, like every other article of commerce, and a re conseq ue ntl y exposed to a ll the vicissitudes of competition, to all the

fl uctuations of the ma rket. Owing to the extensive use of machi nery and to division of labour, the work

of t he proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workma n. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is

only t he most simple, most monoton ous, and most easily acqu ired knack, t hat

is req uired of h im . H ence, the cost of production of a workman is rest ricted ,

a lmost e ntirely, to the means of subsistence t hat he requires for his mainten- a nce, a nd for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and t herefore also of labo ur, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, there-

fore, as t he repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proport ion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the sa me p ropo rtion the burden of to il also inc reases, w hether by prolongation of

the working ho urs, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by

increased speed of the mach ine ry, etc. Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patria rchal master

into the g reat factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses o f labourers, crowded into the factory, are organ ized li ke so ldiers. As pr ivates of the industrial army they are p laced under the comma nd of a perfect hiera rchy of officers and ser-

geants. Not o nly are they slaves of the bourgeois cl ass , and of the bourgeois

State; they are dai ly and hourly enslaved by t he machine, by the overl ooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism procla ims gai n to be its end a nd aim, the more petty, the

more hateful, a nd the more embittering it is. The less the skill and exertion of strength impl ied in manual labo ur, in other

words, the mo re modern industry becomes developed , the more is t he la bour of me n superseded by t hat of w o men. Differences of age and sex have no longer

any distinctive social validity for the working cl ass. All are instruments of

labour, more o r less expensive to use, accordi ng to their age and sex. No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, a t

an end, a nd he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the o ther

portions of t he bourgeoisie, the landlord, t he shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc. The lower strata of the middl e class-the small tradespeople, shopkee pers,

and retired tradesme n generally, t he ha ndicraftsmen a nd peasants-all these

si nk grad ually into t he proleta riat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the sca le o n which Modern Industry is carried on, a nd is swamped in the competition w ith the large capitalists, partly because their

25 2 I KARL MARX: SELECTED WR ITI NGS

specia lized skill is rendered worth less by new methods of production. Thus the

prol eta riat is recru ited from all classes of the po pulation. The proleta riat goes through various stages of d evelopment. With its birth

beg ins its struggle wi th t he bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual la bourers, the n by the workpeople of a factory, then by the opera-

tives of one trade, in on e loca lity, aga inst the individual bourgeois who directly

exploi ts the m . They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois cond itions of production, but agai nst the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, t hey smash to p ieces

machi nery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the va nished status of the workman of the Midd le Ages .

At this stage the la bo u rers still form an incoh ere nt mass scatte red over the

whole country, and broken up by their mutua l competition. If anywhere they unite to form mo re compact bod ies, this is not yet the conseq uence o f t heir

own active u nion , but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to atta in its own po litical ends, is compelled to set t he w hole proleta riat in

motion, a nd is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians d o not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the rem nants of absolute monarchy, the la ndowners, the non-industrial bour- geois, the petty bourgeoisie. Thus the whole historica l movement is concen-

tra ted in the ha nd s of the bo urgeoisie; every vic tory so obta ined is a vic tory for the bo urgeoisie.

But w ith the development of industry the proletariat not o nly increases in n umber; it becomes concentrated in greater masses , its strength grows, and it

feels that stre ngth more. The va ri o us interests a nd conditions of life within the ranks of t he pro letariat a re more and more equali zed, in propo rtion as machinery obliterates a ll distinctio ns of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces

wages to the same low level. T he growing competit io n a mong the bourgeoi s, and the resulting commercia l c rises, m ake the wages of the workers ever more fluc tuating. The unceasi ng imp rovem ent of machine ry, ever mo re rapidly

developing, makes t heir livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions

between individ ual wor k men and individua l bourgeois take more a nd more the ch aracter of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combina tio ns {Trades' Unio ns) aga inst the bo urgeois; they cl u b together

in order to keep u p the rate o f wages; they fo und permanent associa tions in

order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts . Here and there the contest brea ks out into riots.

Now and t hen the workers are victorio us, but on ly for a time. The rea l fruit

o f their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expa nding union

of the workers. This union is helped o n by the improved means of com mun ica- tion that are created by modern industry a nd tha t place the workers of d ifferent loca lities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed

to centralize the numerous local struggles, a ll of the same character, into one

national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a politica l struggle . And that union, t o attain w hic h t he burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, t ha nks to

railways, achieve in a few years. This organ ization of the pro letar ia ns into a class, a nd consequently in to a

political party, is co nti nually being u pset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever r ises up agai n, stronger, firmer, mightier. It

compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking

advantage of the divisions among t he bourgeoisie itself. Thus the ten-hours' bill

in England was ca rried. Altogethe r, co ll isions between the classes of the old society further in many

ways the course of development of the p ro letariat. T he bou rgeoisie finds itself

involved in a constant battle. At fir st w ith the aristocracy; later on, with those

portions of the bourgeoisie itself whose interests have become antagon istic to the prog ress of industry; at a ll times, with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries.

In all t hese battles it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its help, a nd thus to drag it into the politica l arena. Th e bou rgeoisie itself,

t he refore, supplies t he proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting

the bourgeoisie. Further, as we have a lready see n, entire sections of the rul ing classes are, by

the advance of industry, prec ipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threat-

ened in t heir co nditio ns o f ex istence . These also su pply the proletariat with

fresh elements of enlightenment and progress. Fina lly, in ti mes w hen t he class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process

of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within t he whole range of

o ld soc iety, assu mes such a viole nt, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class c uts itself adrift, and joi ns the revo lutionary class, the class that

holds the fut ure in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility w ent over to t he bourgeo isie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie

goes over to t he proletariat, and in particu lar, a portion of the bourgeois ideol- ogists, who have ra ised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically

t he historica l movement as a whole. Of all the classes tha t sta nd face to face with the bourgeoisie toda y, the

proletariat alone is a really revo lutionary class. T he other classes decay and fi nally disappear in the face o f Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special

and essential produc t. The lower midd le class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan,

t he peasant, a ll these fight aga inst the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the m iddle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. N ay mo re, t hey a re reactionary, for they t ry to roll back the

254 I KARL MARX: SELECTED WR ITI NGS

wheel of history. If by chance t hey a re revolu tionary, they are so o nl y in view of t heir im pending transfer in to the p roletariat; they thus defend no t thei r present, but t heir future interests, they desert their own standpo int to place themselves at t hat of the pro letariat.

The 'da ngerous class', the socia l scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here a nd t he re, be swept into t he

movement by a proletar ia n revolution; its cond itio ns of li fe, however, prepare it far more for the pa rt of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

In the conditions of the prole taria t, t h ose of o ld society a t large a re already

virtually ~amped. The proletarian is w itho ut property; his rela tio n to his w ife and children ha s no longer a n ything in common with the b ourgeois family relations; mode rn industrial la bour, modern sub jection to ca pita l, the same in

Eng land as in Fra nce, in America as in German y, has stripped him of every

trace of national character. Law, morality, re ligion are to him so many bo ur- geois prejudices, behind w hich lurk in ambush just as ma ny bo urgeo is in terests.

All t he preceding classes that got the upper hand, soug ht to fortify their already acqui red status by subjecting society at large to their cond itions of appropria tio n. The prole ta ri a ns cannot become ma sters of the productive

forces of society, except by abolish ing their own previous mode of appropri- a tion, a nd thereby a lso every o ther prev ious mode of appropriatio n. T hey have

nothi ng of their own to sec ure and to fort ify; their mission is to destroy a ll previo us securities for, and insurances of, individual property. ,

All previo us hi storical m ovements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. T he pro leta ria n m ovement is the self-consc ious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the

immense ma jority. T he proleta ria t, the lowest stratum of o ur present society,

cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the w ho le superincumbent strata of officia l societ y being spru ng into the ai r.

Thoug h not in su bsta nce, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat w ith t he

bourgeoisie is a t first a n a tio n al struggle. The proleta riat of each cou ntry must, of course, fi rst of a ll settle ma tters w ith its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting t he m ost genera l phases of t he development of the prolet ariat, we traced the more or less veiled civi l war, raging w ithin existi ng soc iety, up to

t he point where tha t war breaks ou t into open revolution, and w he re the vio- lent overth row of the bo urgeoisie lays the fo undatio n for the sway of the proletariat .

Hithe rto, every fo rm of societ y has been based, as we have already seen, o n

the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in o rd er to oppress a class, certain cond itions must be assured to it under which it can at least , , continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period o f serfdom, raised h imself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of

I

fe udal absolut ism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. T he modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising w ith the progress of industry, sinks deeper

and d eeper below the cond iti ons of existence of his own class. H e becomes a pauper, a nd pauperism develops more rapidly than population a nd wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit a ny longer to be the

ru ling class in soc iety, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as

a n overr iding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure a n ex iste nce to its slave within his slavery, because it ca nnot 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 exist ence is no lo nger

co mpa tible with society. The essential condit ion for the existence, and for the sway of t he bourgeois

class, is the for mation a nd a ugmentatio n of capital; the condition for capital is

wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, w h ose involuntary promoter is t he bou r-

geoisie, replaces t he isolatio n of t he la bourers, due to competit ion, by their

revo lut io nary combination, due to association. The d evelopment of Modern Industry, therefore, c uts from unde r its feet the very foundation o n w hic h the bourgeoisie produces a nd appropriates product s. W ha t t he bourgeoisie, there- fore, produces, above all , is its own grave-diggers. Its fa ll and the victory of t he

proletariat are eq ua lly inev itable.

II Proletarians and Communists

In w hat relatio n do the Commu nists stand to the proletaria ns as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-

class parties. T hey have no interests sepa ra te a nd apart fro m those of the proletariat as a

w ho le. They do not set up any sectarian principles of thei r ow n, by w hich to sha pe

and mould the proletarian move ment. T he Communists are distinguished from the other working-class pa rties by

this only: r. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different coun-

tries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the va rious stages of devel- opment w hic h the struggle of the working class aga inst the bourgeoisie has

to pass th rough, they a lways a nd everywhe re represent the interests of the

movement as a w hole. The Com mu nists, therefore, are o n the o ne hand, prac tica lly, the most

25 6 I KA RL M ARX: SE L EC T ED WR I T I NGS

a d vanced a nd resolute sectio n o f the working-cl ass parties of every country,

tha t sectio n w hic h pushes forwa r d a ll others; o n the other ha nd, theo retically,

they have over the great m ass of the prole taria t the a d va ntage of clearly under-

s tanding the line of march, the co nditio n s, and th e ultima te general results o f

the p ro leta ria n moveme nt.

The immedia te a im of the Communist s is the same as tha t o f all the othe r

prolet aria n p arties: form a tio n o f the p rolet a ria t into a class, o verthrow of the

bo u rgeois su premacy, conq uest of po lit ica l p ower by the proleta ria t.

The theore tical conclusions of the Communists a re in no w a y based o n ideas

or princ iples tha t h ave been invente d, or discovered , by this o r tha t would-b e

unive rsal reforme r.

They merely express, in gen era l te rms, actua l rela tio ns springing fro m an

ex isting class struggle, from a his to rica l movem ent going o n under o ur very

eyes. The a bo lition of existing p ro perty rela tions is n ot a t all a distinctive

fea ture of Communism.

All prope rty rela tio ns in the past ha ve continua ll y been subject to h istorical

change con sequent upon the cha nge in historica l conditio ns.

The Frenc h R evolutio n , for exa mple, a bolished feuda l property in favou r of

bourgeois property.

The dis ting uis hing fe ature of Communis m is not the a bo lition o f p roperty

generally, but the a bolition o f bo urgeois p ro p erty. But modern bourgeois

priva te property is the fina l a nd m ost com p lete express ion o f t he system of

produc ing a nd a ppropria ting product s, tha t is based o n class a ntagonis ms, o n

the explo ita ti o n of many by t he few.

In thi s sense, the theory of the C ommunists ma y be s ummed up in the single

sente nce: A bo lit io n of priva te pro per ty.

We Communis ts have been reproached w ith the d esire o f a bo lish ing the r ig ht

o f persona lly acquiring p roperty as the frui t o f a ma n 's own labour, wh ich

p ro p erty is a lleged to be the gro undwork of a ll persona l freedo m, activity, and

in depe nden ce .

H a rd-w o n, self-acquired , self-ea rned property! D o you mean t he p roperty

of the petty a rtisan a nd of the sm a ll p easant, a for m o f prop erty that pre-

ced ed the bourgeo is form ? There is no need to a bo lish tha t ; the d evelopm ent

o f indu st ry has to a g reat extent a lread y dest royed it, a nd is still destroying

it daily.

O r do you mean m o dern bourgeo is p r ivate p roperty?

But d oes wage-la bo ur crea te a ny p ro perty fo r the labourer ? No t a bit. It

crea tes capita l, i. e ., t ha t kind of property which expl oits wage-la b o ur, a nd

w hich ca nn o t inc rea se except upon conditio n o f begetting a n ew supply of

wage-la bo ur for ffF s h exploita tio n . Property, in its p resent form, is based o n

the a ntagonis m of capita l a nd wage-la bour. Let u s exa mine bo th sides of this

a ntagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social, status in

production . Capita l is a collective prod uct, and only by the united action of

m a ny m embe rs, nay, in the last resort, o nly by t he u n ited action of a ll members

of so c iety, ca n it be set in mo tion . Ca pita l is, therefore , not a perso nal, it is a social power. W hen, the refore, capital is conve rted into common property, into the prop-

erty of a ll membe rs of society, pe rsona l property is not thereby transformed

into social property. It is on ly the social character of the property that is

c ha nged . It loses its class-ch aracter. Let us n ow ta ke wage-labour. T he a verage price o f w age-la bou r is t he minimum wage, i.e., t hat q uantum of

the means o f s ubsis te nce which is a bso lutely requisite to keep the labourer in

ba re existence as a labourer. W hat, therefore, the wage-la bourer appropriates

by mea ns o f his labour mere ly su ffices to pro long and reproduce a bare exist-

ence . We by no mea ns intend to abo lish th is personal appropriation of the

products of labour, a n a ppropriation tha t is made for the maintenance and

re produc tion of huma n li fe, a nd tha t leaves no s u rplus w herewit h to command

t he la bour o f othe rs. All t hat w e want to do away with is t he miserable char- acter of this appropri at ion , under wh ic h the labourer lives merely to increase

ca pi tal, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling cla ss

req uires it. In bou rgeois soc iety, liv ing labo ur is b ut a means to increa·se accumulated

la bour. In Communist society, accu mu lated labou r is but a means to widen, to

enrich, to p ro m ote the ex is te nce of the la b ourer. In b o urgeo is socie ty, therefore, t he past dominates t he present; in Com mu n-

is t society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is

independe nt and has individua lity, while the living perso n is dependent and has

no individ ua lity. And the abol ition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois abolition o f

individua li ty a nd free do m! And r ig htly so. The a bolition of bourgeois indi-

viduality, bou rgeois indep endence, an d b o urgeois freedom is un doubtedly

a ime d a t. By freedom is meant , un der t he present bourgeois condit ions of production,

free t rad e, free sell ing and b uying. But if selling and buyi ng disappears, free selling and buying disappears also .

T his ta lk about free sell ing and b uying, a nd all the other 'brave words' of our

bo urgeoisie about freed o m in gene ra l, have a mean ing, if any, only in contrast

with rest r icted selling a nd buying, w it h the fettered traders of t he Middle Ages,

bu t have no mea ning when o pposed to the Communistic a bolition of buying

a nd selli ng, of the bourgeois cond itio ns o f production, and of t he bourgeoisie

itself. You a re horri fi ed at o ur intending to do away with private proper ty. But in

258 I KA RL MARX: SE L EC TED W RITIN GS

yo ur existing societ y, priva te property is a lrea dy done away with for nine-

tenths o f the popu la tion; its existence for the few is solely due to its n o n-

exis te nce in the ha n ds of those nine-te nths. Yo u reproach us, therefore, with

intending to do away w ith a form o f property, the n ecessar y cond itio n for

w hose existence is the non-exis tence of any property for the immense ma jority of societ y.

In o ne word, you rep roach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so ; that is just what we intend .

From the mome nt wh en la bour can n o longer be conve rte d into ca pital ,

money, or re nt, into a so cia l power capable of be ing mo n opolized , i.e., from

the moment when individua l property ca n no lo nger be tra nsfor med into bo ur-

geois property, in to capital, fro m tha t m o m ent, you say, indi vidua lity vanishes.

You must, t herefore, co nfess that by 'individual ' you mean no other person

t han the bourgeois, tha n the middle-class owner of property. T his person must, indeed, be swept o ut of the way, a nd ma de imp oss ible .

Communism d eprives no man of the p ower to appropriate the p rod ucts of socie ty; a ll that it does is to d eprive him of the powe r to subjugat e the labour of others by mea ns of s uch appropriation.

It ha s been o bj ected tha t upo n the abo lition of private property a ll work w ill cease, and universa l la ziness w ill overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois soc iet y ought long ago to have gone t o the dogs

through s heer idleness; for those of its m embers who work acqu ire no thing,

a nd those who acquire a nything do not work. The who le of this objection is but

a n other expressio n of the tautology: tha t there c an no longer be a ny wage- la bou r when there is no lo nger any capita l.

All o bj ectio ns urged again st the Com m unis tic mode of p roducing and

a ppropria ting m ateria l products have, in the same way, been urged aga ins t the

Communistic modes of produc ing a nd appropria ting intellectu al products. Jus t

as, to t he bo urgeo is, the disappea ra nce of class property is the d isapp eara nce of

prod uctio n itself, so the disappearance of class c ulture is to him identica l with the disappeara nce of a ll c ultu re.

T ha t culture, the loss of w hich he laments, is, fo r the enor m o us ma jority, a m ere training to act as a machine.

But d o n 't wrangle w ith us so long as yo u apply, to o u;'intended a bo litio n of

bourgeois property, the s ta nda ra of your bo urgeoi s notio ns o f freedo m, c ul-

ture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the o utgrowth o f the conditi o ns o f yo ur

bo urgeois productio n a nd bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but

the will of your class m ad e into a law for a ll , a will w hose essentia l c haracter

a nd directio n a re d etermine d by the economica l conditions of existence of your class.

The selfish m isconception tha t induces you to transform into eterna l laws of

na ture a nd of reason the socia l form s springing from yo ur present mod e of

production a nd form of property-h istorica l re lations t hat r ise and disappea r

in t he progress o f production- this misconception you sh a re w ith ever y ru ling

cl ass tha t has preceded you . Wha t yo u see clea rly in the case of ancient prop-

erty, w ha t you admit in the case o f feuda l property, you a re of co urse forbidde n

to a dmit in the case of your own bourgeois for m o f property .

Aboli tion of the fam il y! Even the m ost radical fl are up at th is in fa m o us

p ro posa l of t he C ommunists.

O n w hat foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? O n

capita l, o n p riva te ga in . In its co mplete ly develo ped for m this fami ly exists o nly

among the bourgeoi sie. But this state of things find s its complement in the

practica l absence of the fam il y a m ong th e proletaria n s, and in public

prostitution. T he bo urgeois fam ily w ill va nis h as a m a tter of course w hen its com p lem ent

vanishes, a nd both w ill va nis h w ith the van ishing of capita l.

Do yo u ch a rge us with wanting to s top the expl o ita tio n o f children by the ir

parents? To this crime we plead gui lty.

But, you will say, we destroy the most ha llowed o f relatio ns, w hen we

rep lace home education by soc ial.

And your ed ucation! Is n o t that a lso socia l, and dete rmined by the socia l

conditi o ns under wh ic h you educate, by the inter vention, direc t or indirect, of

society, by m ea ns o f sch ools, etc.? The Com muni sts have not in vented

the inte rvention o f societ y in educa tio n; they do but seek to a lter the character

of that intervention, a nd to rescue ed uca tion from the influence of t he ruling

class.

The bourgeois clap-trap a bout the fa mily and educatio n, a bo ut th e h a llowed

co-relation o f parent a nd c hild, becomes a ll the m ore d isgus ting, the more, by

the actio n of Mode rn Ind ustry, a ll fam ily t ies a mong t he proleta ria ns a re to rn

asunde r, and their chi ldre n tran sformed into simple articles of commerce and

instruments of la bo ur.

But you C ommunis ts wou ld introduce community of women, screa m s t he

w ho le bourgeois ie in ch o ru s.

The bourgeo is sees in his w ife a m ere ins trument o f productio n. H e hears

tha t the instruments of prod ucti o n a re to be explo ited in commo n , a nd , natu r-

a lly, can come to n o other conclusion tha n that the lo t of being commo n to a ll

w ill li kewise fa ll to the wom en.

H e has no t even a suspicion tha t the real p oi nt a imed at is to do away w ith

the st atus of women as mere instrume nts o fprodu ction .

For t he rest, noth ing is more ridicu lo us t ha n t he virtuous indig natio n of o ur

bourgeo is a t the community o f women w hich, they pretend, is to be open ly and

o ffic ia lly esta blished by the Commun ists. T he Com munists h ave no need to

introduce community of wom en; it ha s exis te d a lmost from time immemoria l.

O ur bourgeo is, not content with having the w ives and d a ughte rs o f the ir

260 I KARL M A R X : SELECTED W RITIN GS

proleta ria ns at th eir disposal, n ot to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pl easure in seducing each other's wives.

Bourgeois marriage is in rea lity a syste m of w ives in common and thus, a t the most, w h at the Com munists m ight possibl y be reproached w it h, is tha t they desire to introduce, in substitutio n for a hyp ocrit ically concea led, a n openl y

lega lized, community of women . Fo r the rest, it is self-evident that the a bolition

o f the present system of prod uc tion mu st bring wi th it the abolitio n of the community o f women springing from t hat system, i.e., of prostitution both

public and priva te . The Communi st s are furthe r reproac hed w ith desiring to abolish co untries

a nd natio na lity.

T he work ing m en have no cou ntry. We ca nno t take from them w hat they have not got. Since the proletaria t must first of a ll acquire political s uprem acy, must rise t o be the leadi ng class o f the n a ti on , must constitute itself the na tion , it is, so far, itself natio nal, thoug h not in the bourgeois sense of the word .

Nationa l differences a nd a ntagonisms between p eoples a re d a ily m ore a nd more va nishing, o w ing to the deve lopm ent of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world -market, to uni fo rmity in the mo d e o f production a nd

in the cond itio ns of life corresponding the reto. The supremacy of the prole ta riat w ill ca use them to va nish still fas ter. United

actio n , of the leading c ivilized cou ntries a t least, is one of the first cond iti ons for

the emanc ipation of the proletariat. In proportion as the exploita tion of o ne individua l by a nother is put an e nd

to, the exploita tion of o ne n a tion by anothe r w ill a lso be put an end t o . In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the na ti on vanishes the , . hostili ty o f one na tio n to a nother w ill come to a n end .

T he c harges aga inst Com mu nism m ade from a re ligious, a philoso p h ica l, a nd, gen era lly, from an ideo logica l standpoi nt a re not deserving of seriou s

examinatio n . Does it require deep intuition to com prehe nd that man's ideas, views, a nd

conceptions, in o ne word, m a n 's con sciou sness, cha nges w it h ever y c ha nge in the conditions of his materia l existence, in his socia l re la tion, and in his socia l

li fe? W hat else does the h istory of ideas prove, tha n that intellectual production

c ha nges its cha racter in proportion as material prod uctio n is changed? T he ruling ideas of each age h ave ever been the ideas o f its ruling class.

W hen people spea k of ideas that r evolut io nize soc iety, they do but express the fact, tha t w ithin the o ld societ y, the ele ments of a new one have bee n

created, a nd that the disso lution o f the o ld ideas keeps even pace w ith the dissolution o f the old condition s of existence.

When the a ncient world was in its last th roes, the a ncient religions were overcom e by Christianity. W he n C h ristia n ideas succumbed in the e ig hteenth

century to ratio na list ideas, feud a l socie ty fought its death ba ttle with the the n

revolutionary bo urgeo isie. The ideas of religious li berty a nd freedom of con- science mere ly gave expressio n to the sway of free competition within the

domain of knowled ge . 'Undoubted ly,' it w ill be sa id , ' relig ious, moral , philosophical, a nd juridica l

ideas h ave been mod ified in the course o f historica l development. But religio n,

morality, phil osophy, p o litical scie nce, and law consta ntl y survived this change.'

'The re a re, besides, eterna l truths, s uc h as Freedom, Justice, etc. , tha t are

common to a ll st a tes of socie ty. But Commu nism abolis hes et erna l truths, it

a boli shes a ll religion a nd a ll m orality, instead of con stituting them on a new

basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to a ll past historica l ex perience.' Wha t does this accusation reduce itself t o? The history o f a ll past society has

consisted in the developm ent of class a ntagon isms, ant agonism s th at assumed

different for ms at different epochs. But w hatever for m they may h ave taken, on e fact is comm on to a ll past ages,

viz., the explo ita tio n o f o ne part o f society by the other. No wonder, then, that

the social consciousness of past ages, d espite a ll the multiplicity and variety it

displa ys, moves w ithin certa in commo n forms, o r genera l ideas, w hich canno t com p letely va nis h except w ith the to tal disappearance of class a ntagonisms.

The Commun ist revoluti o n is the most rad ica l rupture wi th traditional

prope rty rela tio n s; no wonder that its deve lopment involves the most rad ical

rupture w ith traditiona l ideas . But let u s have d one w ith the bourgeois ob jections to Co mmunism. We have seen a bove, that the first st ep in the revo lution by the work ing class

is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling cl ass, to w in the ba ttle o f

de mocracy. The proleta riat w ill use its po litical s upre macy to wrest, by d egrees, a ll ca p-

ital from the b ourgeo isie, to centra lize a ll instruments o f p roduction in the

ha nds of the St ate, i.e., of t he proleta riat orga nized as t he ruling cl ass; and to

increase the tota l o f productive forces as rap idly as possib le. Of cou rse, in the beginn ing this ca nnot be effected except by means o f des-

potic inroad s on the rights of proper ty, a nd on the condi tions of b ourgeo is produc tion ; by mea ns of measures, t he refore, w hich appea r economica lly

ins uffic ie nt a nd unte nable, but w hich, in the course of the movement, ou tstrip

t hemselves, necessita te fu rt he r inroa d s upon the o ld socia l order, a nd are un avo idable as a means o f e ntirely revolutioniz ing the mode of prod uction .

These measures w ill o f course be different in differe nt countries. Neverthe less, in the m ost a dvanced cou ntries, the fo llowing w ill be pretty

ge nera lly a pplica ble.

I. Aboliti o n o f property in la nd a nd applicatio n o f a ll rents of la nd to public

purposes.

262 I KARL MARX: SELECTE D W RITIN GS

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3 . Abo lit ion of a ll rig ht of inherita nce.

4. Confisca tion of the property of a ll emigrants a nd re bels.

5. Centralizatio n of credit in the ha nd s of the State, by means of a na tio na l ba nk w ith State capita l a nd an excl usive monopo ly.

6. Centra lization o f the means of communication a nd transport in the ha n ds of the State .

7. Extensio n of factories and instruments o f prod uc tion owned by the State; the bringing into cultiva tio n o f waste la nd s, and t he improvem ent o f the

soil genera lly in accordance with a co mmo n p la n.

8 . Eq ua l lia bility o f a ll to la b o ur. Estab lish ment of industria l a rmies, esp ecia ll y for agriculture.

9. Combina tion of agric ulture w ith manu factu ring industries; gradu a l abolition of the distinction bet ween tow n and country, by a more equable

distribution o f the popul ation over the country.

ro. Free ed ucation for a ll children in public sch ools. Abol itio n o f chil dren 's factory labour in its present fo rm. Com bination of educa tion w ith industria l productio n, e tc., etc.

When, in the course of d evelopment, class distincti ons have disappeared, a nd a ll production has been concentrated in t he ha nds o f associated indi vidua ls, the

public p ower w ill lose its po litica l c haracter. Po litica l power, properly so ca lle d, is merely the organized power of one class fo r oppress ing another. If th e p ro le- taria t during its contest with the bourgeo isie is compelled , by the force of

c irc umsta n ces, to orga nize itself as a cl ass , if, by mea ns of a revo lution, it m a kes

itse lf the ruli ng class, and, as such , sweeps away by force the o ld conditio ns of produc tio n , then it w ill , a long w ith these cond itions, have swept away t he conditions fo r the existence of class antagonisms a nd of classes genera lly, a nd w ill thereby h ave abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In p lace of the o ld bourgeois society, w ith its classes an d class a ntagon isms, we sha ll ha ve a n associa ti on, in w hich the free development of each is the condition fo r the free d evelopment of a ll.

III Socialist and Communist Literature

r. Reactionary Socialism

(a) Feudal Socia lism. O w ing to their historica l positio n, it became the voca -

tion of the a ristocracies o f France and Eng la nd to write pamphlets aga inst modern bo urgeois society. In the French revolu tion of J uly 1830, and in the

English reform agitatio n , these a rist ocracies aga in succumbed to the ha tefu l upstart. Thencefo rth , a serio us po litical contest was a ltogether o ut o f the

q uestion. A li tera ry battle a lo ne remained poss ible. But even in the doma in of

literature the o ld cries o f the restoration period ha d beco me imposs ible. In o rder to a ro use sy mpa thy, the aristocracy were obliged to lose sight,

a pparently, o f their ow n interests, and to formu la te their indic tment agai nst the

bourgeoisie in the interest o f the exploited w orking class a lo ne. T hus the

aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their n ew master, a nd

w hispering in his ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe. In thi s way arose Feud a l Soc ia lism: ha lf lamenta tion, hal f lampoon; ha lf ech o

of the past, ha lf menace of t he futur e; at times, by its bitter, w itty, a nd incisive

criticism, striking the bo urgeo isie to the very heart's core; but a lways ludicrous

in its effect, t h rough tota l incapacity t o comprehend the march of modern

history. The a rist ocracy, in o rder to rally t he peo ple to them, waved the proleta rian

a lms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it jo ined them, saw o n the ir hindqua rters the o ld fe uda l coats of arms, and d eserted with loud a nd

irreverent la ughte r. One section of the French Legitimists and 'Young Eng la nd' exhibited this

sp ectacle. In pointing o ut t h at their mode of exploitation was diffe rent to that of the

bourgeoisie, t he fe uda lists forget tha t they exploited unde r c irc umsta nces a nd c onditions tha t were q uite different, and tha t are now a ntiqu ated. In show ing that, under their rule, the modern proleta riat never existed, t hey forget that

the modern bourgeoisie is the n ecessary offspring o f their own fo rm of

soc iety. For the rest, so little do they concea l the reacti onar y c haracter o f their criti-

c ism tha t t heir chief accusation aga inst the bourgeoisie a mo unts to this, that

under the bourgeois regime a class is being developed, whic h is d estined to c ut

up root a nd branch t he o ld o rder o f society. What they upbraid the bourgeoisie w ith is not so m uc h th at it crea tes a

proleta riat, as that it c rea tes a revolutiona ry prolet ar ia t. In p o litica l practice, therefore, they join in a ll coercive measures aga inst the

work ing class; a nd in ordina ry life, despite their h ig hfa lutin phrases, they stoop t o pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, a nd to b a rter

truth, love, a nd h o nou r for traffic in wool, suga r-beet, a nd potato spirits. As the parson ha s ever go ne h a nd in hand with t he la nd lord , so has C le rical

Socia lism w ith Feud a l Socialism. Nothing is easier than to give C hristian ascetic ism a Socia list tinge. H as not

C h ristia nity declaimed aga inst private property, aga inst marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in the p lace of these ch a rity a nd poverty,

ce libacy a nd mortifica tio n of t he flesh, mo n astic li fe a nd Mother C hurch?

2 6 4 I KAR L M ARX: SE L E C T ED WR I T I NGS

C hristia n Socia lism is but the holy wa ter w ith w hic h the priest consecrates t he hea r t- bu rn ings of the a ristocrat.

(b) Petty- Bo urgeo is S ocialism. The feudal aristoc racy was not the o nly class tha t was ruine d by the bo urgeoisie, n ot the o nl y class w h ose condit io ns o f existence pined a nd p erishe d in the a tmosphere o f modern bourgeois society.

The medieva l burgesses a nd the sma ll peasant p ro prieto rs were the p recursors

o f the m o dern bo urgeoisie. In those countries whic h a re but little deve loped, industria ll y a nd commercia lly, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bo urgeo isie.

In co unt ri es w here modern civiliza tion has become full y d eveloped , a new

class o f p etty bo urgeois has been fo rmed, fluc tua ting between prole taria t a nd

b o urgeo isie a nd ever re newing itself as a s upplem enta r y p a rt of bourgeois soci- ety. The individua l members o f this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletaria t by t he actio n o f competition , a nd, as m odern industry

develops, they even see the m om ent a pproac hing w hen they w ill com p lete ly

disa ppear as a n independent sectio n of m odern soc ie ty, to be replaced, in manu - fa ctures, agriculture, :md comme rce, by ove rloo kers, bailiffs, a nd sh o pmen.

In countri es like France, w here the peasants constitute fa r m o re than ha lf of the popula ti on, it was na tural tha t w riters w ho sided w it h the pro letariat

against the bo urgeoisie sh o uld use, in their critic ism of the bourgeois regime, the sta ndard of t he pea sa nt a nd petty bo urgeois, a nd fro m the sta ndpoint of

these intermedi a te classes sho uld ta ke u p the cudge ls fo r the w orking class. Thus arose petty-bourgeoi s So cia li sm. Sismondi w as the head of this school', no t o nly in France but a lso in Engla nd.

This sch ool o f Socia lism dissected w ith grea t acuteness t he contrad ic tions in

the condit io ns of modern p roduc tio n. It laid ba re the hypocritical apologies o f econom ists. It p roved , incont rovertibly, th e d isa st rous effects of machi nery and divisio n o f la bo ur; the co ncentrati o n o f capita l and la n d in a few ha nds; over- productio n a nd crises; it po inted o ut the inevita ble ruin of t he petty bo urgeo is and peasant, the misery of the pro leta riat, the ana rc hy in p roduction, t he c rying ine qua lities in the di stribution o f wealth , the industria l w a r o f extermin a tio n

between nations, the dissolut ion o f o ld mora l bonds, o f the o ld fami ly rela tio ns, of the old na ti ona lities .

In its positive a ims, however, t his form of Socia lism aspires either to restori ng the o ld m ea ns of prod uction and of exchange, and with the m t he old property

relation s, a nd th e o ld societ y, o r to cra mping the m ode rn m eans o f producti o n

and o f excha nge, within the fra mework o f the old prope rty re la tio ns tha t have been, a nd we re bo und to be, explo ded by those mean s. In either case, it is both reactio n ary a nd Utopia n .

Its last word s a re: corporate guilds fo r manufacture, patri a rcha l rela tio ns in agricultu re . ·

Ult imate ly, w hen stu bborn historica l facts had dispersed all intoxicating

effects of se lf-decep tio n, th is for m of Social ism ended in a miserable fit of the

blues .

(c) German, or 'T me', Socialism. T he Socialist and Communist literatu re of

Fra nce, a li te rat ure that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in

power, a nd t hat was the express ion o f the struggle against this power, was int roduced into Ge rma ny at a time when the bourgeoisie, in that country, had

just begun its contest w it h feuda l abso lut ism . German p hilosophers, would -be philosophers, and beaux esprits, eagerly

seized on this lite rature, on ly forge tt ing t hat when t hese writings immigrated fr om France into Ge r ma ny, Frenc h social con ditions h ad not immigrated along

w ith them . In contact w ith German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical signi fi cance, and assumed a purely literary aspect.

T h us, to t he German philosophers of t he eighteenth century, the demands of

the first Frenc h Revolut io n were noth ing m ore than the demands of 'Practica l Reason ' in genera l, a nd the uttera nce of the will of the revolu tionary French bou rgeoisie signified in their eyes the laws of p u re Will, o f Will as it was bound

to be, of true hu man Will genera lly . T he wor k of the Ge rm a n literati consisted solely in bringing the new French

ideas into harmony with their ancient ph ilosophical conscience, or rather, in

a nnexi ng the French ideas w ithout d eserting their own philosophic point of

view. This a n nexa tion took pl ace in the sa me way in wh ich a fo reign language is

a ppropri ated , namely, by trans lation. It is we ll k nown how the mon ks wrote silly lives of Cath olic Saints over the

manuscripts o n whic h the classica l works of ancient heathen dom had been w rit ten. T he German literati reversed t his process with the profane French

literature. They wrote their p hilosoph ica l nonsense beneath t he French ori- gina l. For insta nce, beneath t he French cr iticism of t he econom ic functions of mo ney, t hey w rote 'A liena tio n of Hum anit y', and beneath t he French criti-

c ism o f the bourgeois St a te they wrote ' D ethronement of the Category of the

General', a nd so fo rth. The introd uctio n of these phi losophica l phrases at the back of the French

historical critic isms they d ubbed 'Ph ilosophy of Actions', 'True Socialism',

'German Science of Socialism', ' Ph ilosophical Foundation of Socialism', and

so o n. T he French Socialist and Communist literature was th us com pletely emascu-

la ted. And , since it ceased in the ha nds of t he German to express the struggle of

one class w it h t he other, he fe lt conscio us of having overcome 'French one- sidedness' and of rep resenti ng, not t rue requirements, but the requirements of Truth; not the interest s of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of

- 266 I KARL MARX: SELECTED WR I T I NGS

Man in genera l, w ho belongs to no class, has no rea lity, who ex ist s o nl y in the

misty realm of philosophical fantasy. This Ger man Socialism, w hic h took its sch oo lboy task so serio usly and sol-

emnly, a nd exto lled its poor stock-in-trade in such mountebank fas hion,

meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic innocence. The fight of the Germ a n , a nd , especially, o f the Prussian bourgeoisie, against

feuda l aristocracy and abso lute 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 aga inst libera lis m, aga inst rep resenta tive government,

aga inst bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legis-

latio n, bourgeois liberty a nd equa lity, and of preaching to the masses th at they

had nothing t o gain, a nd everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement.

Germ an Soc ialism forgot , in the nick of time, that the French criticism, w hose

si lly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois soc iety, with

its corresponding economic cond itio n s of existence , and the political constitu-

t ion adapted thereto, the very things whose atta inment was the o bject of the

pending struggle in Germany. To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors,

country squires, and o fficia ls, it served as a welcome scarecrow aga ins t the

threatening bourgeoisie. It was a sweet finish after the bitter pills of floggings and bullets with w hic h

these same govern ments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class

r isings. Whi le this 'True' Socialism thus served the governments as a weapon for

fighting the Germ a n bourgeoisie, it at the same time, directly represented a

reactionary interest, the interest of the Germa n Philistines. In Germany the

petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly

cropping up agai n under various for m s, is the real socia l basis of the existing

state o f things. To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germa ny.

The industria l a nd politica l s uprem acy of the bourgeoisie threa tens it w ith

certa in destruction; o n the one h and, from the concentration of capital; on the

other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. 'True' Socialism appeared t o

kill these two birds with o ne stone. It spread like a n epidemic . The robe of speculative cobwebs , embroidered with fl owers of rhetor ic ,

steeped in the dew of sick ly sentiment, this transcendental robe in w hic h the

Germ an Socia lists wrapped their sorry 'eternal tru ths', a ll skin and bone,

served wonderfu lly to increase the sale of their goods a mong s uch a public.

And o n its part, German Socialism rec more a nd more, its own

ca lii.ng as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine.

,,_ ----

It proclaimed the Germa n nation to be the mode l na ti on, a nd the Germa n

petty Philistine to be the typica l man. To every villainous mea nness of this

model man it gave a hidden, hig her, Socia listi c interpretation, the exact con-

trary of its rea l character. It went to the extre me length of directly oppos ing the

' bruta ll y destructive' tendency of Communis m, a nd of procla iming its supreme

and impartial contempt of a ll class struggles. W ith very few exceptio ns, a ll the

so-called Socia list a nd Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in

Germany belong to the doma in of this foul and enervating literatu re.

2. Conservative, or Bourgeois, Socialism

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of red ressing socia l grieva nces, in order to

secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belo ng economists, p hil anth ropists, h umanitaria ns,

improvers of the condition of the worki ng class, organizers of charity, members

of societies for the prevention of cruelty to a nimals, temperance fanatics, ho le-

and-corner reformers of ever y imaginable kind. This form of Socia lism has,

moreover, been worked o ut into comp lete systems .

We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la misere as an example of this form . The Socialistic bourgeo is want a ll the adva ntages of modern socia l condi-

tions w itho ut the struggles a nd dangers necessa rily res ul ting from them . They

desire t he existing state of society minus its revolutionary a nd disintegrating

e lements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie

natura ll y conceives the world in which it is s upreme to be the best; and bour-

geois Socia lism develops this co mforta ble conceptio n into vario us more or less

complete systems. In requiring the pro letariat to carry out such a system, and

t hereby to m arch straightaway into the socia l New Jerusalem, it but requires in

rea lity that the proletariat s ho uld remain within the bounds of existing society,

but shou ld cast away a ll its hatefu l ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second and more practica l, but less systematic, form of this Socia lism

sought to d epreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes o f the working

class, by s howing tha t no mere politica l reform, but only a change in the

m aterial conditions of existence, in economica l relations, could be of any

advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence,

this fo rm of Socia lism, h owever, by no means understands abolition of the

bourgeois relations of production, a n a bo lition that can be effected only by a

revolution, but ad ministrative reforms, based on the continued existence of

these relations; reforms, therefore, tha t in no respect affect the relations

be tween capital a nd labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the

a dminis t rative work, of bourgeois governm ent.

Bourgeois Socia lism attains adequ ate expression w hen, a nd on ly w hen, it

becomes a mere figure of speech.

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

268 I KARL MARX : SELEC T ED WR ITI NGS

benefit o f the work ing class . Pr ison Reform: for t he benefit o f the work ing

class . This is the last word a nd the o nl y seriously meant wo rd of bourgeois

Socialism. It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois-for the benefi t of

the working class .

3. Critical-Utopian So cialism and Communism

We do not here refer to that literature which, in every g reat modern revolution, has always given voice to the demands of the proleta riat, suc h as the writings of

Babeuf and others . The first direc t attempts of the prol etariat to atta in its own ends, mad e in

times of uni versa l excitement, w h en fe udal soc iety w as being overthrown, t hese

attempts necessarily failed, owing to the the n undevelo ped state of the prole- tariat as well as to the absence of t he economic condit io ns for its e mancipa tion, , conditions that had yet to be produced , and cou ld be produced by the im pend- ing bourgeo is epoch alone. The revo lutio nary literature th a t accompanied these

first movements of the prole tari a t had necessaril y a reactionary character. It inculcated unive rsa l ascetism and socia l levelling in its c rudest form.

The Socia list a nd Communist systems properl y so called , those of Sa int- Si mo n, Fo urie r, Owen, a nd othe rs, spring into existe nce in the ea rly

un developed period, d escribed above, o f the struggle between proletariat a nd

bourgeoisie (see Section I. Bourgeoisie and Proleta riat). The founde rs of these syst ems see, indeed, the class a ntago nisms , as well as

the action of the decomposing elements, in the preva iling form of societ y. But the proleta riat, as yet in its infancy, offers to the m t he spectacle of a class

without any histo rica l initia tive or a ny independent p o litical movement. Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the devel-

opment o f industry, the economic situatio n, as they find it, does n ot as yet offer to them the m a teri al condi tio ns for the emancipation of the proletariat. They

the refore sea rch after a new soc ia l science, after new socia l laws, that a re to

c reate these conditions. Historica l actio n is to yield to their persona l inve ntive actio n, historica lly

created conditions of emancipation to fa ntastic o nes, a nd the g radua l, spon -

ta neous class-orga nizatio n of the pro letariat to a n o rga nization of society specially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in t heir eyes, into the propaganda and the practica l carryi ng out o f thei r socia l p la ns.

In the for ma tion of the ir plans they are conscious of caring c hie fl y fo r the

inter est s of the work ing class, as being the most suffering class . Only fro m the point of view o f being the most suffering class does the p ro letariat exist fo r

them. The undeveloped state of th e class struggle, as well as their ow n surround-

ings, ca uses Socialists of this kind t o consider themselves fa r superior to a ll

class antagonisms . They want to improve the condition of every member of

society, even that of the m ost favoured. H ence, t hey ha bitually appeal to soci- ety at la rge, witho ut distinctio n of class; nay, by preference, to t he ruling class.

For how can people, whe n o nce they understand thei r system , fai l to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?

Hence, they reject a ll politica l, and especially all revolut ionary, action; they

w ish to atta in their ends by peaceful means, and endeavour, by small experi- ments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new socia l Gospel.

Suc h fa ntastic pictures of futur e societ y, pain ted at a time when the prole-

tariat is sti ll in a ver y undeveloped state a nd has but a fantast ic conception o f its own pos ition, correspond w ith the fi rst instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruc tion of soc iety.

But t hese Socia list and Commun ist publications contain also a critical elem-

e nt. They a ttack every principle of existing society. Hence they are full of the

most valuable materials fo r the enlighte nment of the working class. The prac- tical measures proposed in them-such as the abolition of the d istinction between tow n a nd country, of the fa mily, of the carrying on of industries for

the account o f private individua ls, a nd of the wage system , the proclamation of socia l ha rmony, the conversion o f the functions of the State into a mere super-

inte ndence of prod uction, all these proposals point solely to the disappearance of class antagon isms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which in these publications, a re recognized in thei r ea rliest, indistinct, and undefined forms only. T hese proposa ls, therefore, are o f a purely Utopia n

character. The sig ni ficance of C ritica l-Utopian Socialism and Communism bears an

inverse relation to historical development. In proportion as the modern cl ass struggle develops and takes defi nite shape, this fantast ic standing apart from

the contest, these fantas tic attacks on it , lose all practical va lue and all theor- etica l justificatio n. Therefore, a lt ho ugh the o riginators of these systems were, in ma ny respects, revo lutiona ry, their discip les have, in every case, formed mere

reactionary sects . T hey hold fas t by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the p rog ressive historica l development of the proletariat. They, t herefore, endeavour, and that consistently, t o deaden the class struggle and to

reconc ile the class antagon isms. They still dream of experimental realization of thei r socia l Utopias, of fo undi ng isolated 'phalansteres', of establishing 'Home Colonies', of setting up a 'Little Ica ri a'- duodecimo ed itions of the New Jerusa lem-a nd to rea lize a ll these castles in the air they are compelled t o

appea l to t he fee lings ·a nd purses of t he bourgeois. By degrees they sink into the

category of t he reactionary conservative Socialists depicted above, differ- ing from t hese only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical a nd superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

2 70 I KARL M ARX: SELECT ED WR I TI NGS

Th ey, therefore, v io lently oppose a ll po litica l action on the part o f the work- ing class; such action, according to them, can on ly resu lt from blind un bel ief in

the new Gospel. The Owenites in Engla nd a nd the Fouri erists in France, respective ly, o ppose

the C hartists a nd t he R eformistes.

IV Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

Sectio n II h as made clear t he rela tions of the Communists to the ex isting

working-class parties, such as the C ha rtists in Eng la nd a nd the Agrarian Reformers in America.

The Communists fi ght for the a tta inment of the immedia te aims fo r t he enforcement of t he momentary interests of the working class; but in the move- ment o f the present, they a lso represent a nd take care of the fu t ure of that move ment. In France the Communists a lly the mselves wit h the Socia l-

Democrats, aga inst the con se rvative and radical bourgeoisie, reserv ing, how - ever, the right to take u p a c ritical p ositio n in regard to phrases and illusions

traditionally handed d own from the g reat Revo lution. In Switzerla nd they support the Ra dica ls, w itho ut losing sight o f the fac t that

this party consists of a ntagonistic e le ments, partly of Democratic Sociali sts, in

t he French sense, partly of ra dica l bo urgeois.

In Poland they suppo rt the party tha t insists on an agrarian revolu tion as the p rime conditio n for n a tiona l emancipatio n, t ha t pa rty w hich fo mented the insurrecti on o f C racow in 184 6.

In Germa ny they fi ght with t he bourgeoisie w he never it act s in a revolution - ary way, aga inst the a bsolute mona rchy, the feudal squirea rc hy, a nd the petty bo urgeoisie.

But they never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the work ing class the

clearest possible recognition o f the hostile antagonism b etween bourgeoi sie and proletariat, in order tha t the Ge rma n workers may stra igh taway use, as so many weapons aga inst the bo urgeo isie, t he socia l a nd politica l condit ions t hat

the bo urgeo isie must necessarily introduce a lo ng with its supremacy, a nd in order that, a fter the fa ll of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fig ht aga inst

the bourgeoisie itself may im med iately begin. The Communists turn their attention chiefl y to Germa ny, beca use t hat coun-

try is o n the eve of a bourgeois revo lu tion t ha t is bound to be carried o ut under more advanced conditions of European c ivilization , a nd w ith a m uc h mo re

developed prole tariat, than t hat of England was in the seventeenth, and of

Fra nce in the eighteenth century, and because t he bourgeois revolu tion in Germa ny wi ll be b ut the prelude to an immediately following proletarian

revolutio n. In short, the Com m unists eve rywhe re support every revolutionary move-

men t aga inst the existing social a nd po lit ica l o rder of t hings. In a ll these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in

each, the property question, no matter w hat its degree of developmen t at the

time. Fina lly, they labour everywhe re fo r the union a nd agreement of the

de mocratic p arties of a ll countries. The Communists disdain to concea l their views and aims. They openly

decla re tha t their ends can be atta ined only by the forcible overthrow of all

existi ng socia l conditions. Let the ruling classes tremb le at a Communistic revo lu tion . The proleta ria ns have nothing to lose but their chains. They ha ve a

world to win . WORK IN G MEN O F ALL COUNTRI ES , UNITE!

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ORIGINAL

MEW, Vol. 4, pp. 461 ff.

PRESENT TRANSLATION

MESW, Vol. 1, pp. 461 ff. Reproduced by kind permission of Lawrence & Wishart Ltd.

OTHER TRANSLATIONS

The first translation was by Helen Macfarlane, published in 1850 in Harney's Red

Republican. The well -known translation, t hat by Samuel Moore reprn duced here, dates

from 1888. There is a further translation by Eden and Cedar Paul published in 1930 .

Also, K. Marx, The 1848 Revolutions, New Yor k, 1973 . K. Marx, Later Political Writings,

ed. T. Carver, Cambridge, 1996 .

COMMENTARIES

F. Benker, ed., The Communist Manifesto, New York, 1988.

M . Cowling, ed., The Communist Manifesto: New Interpretations, Edinburgh, 1998.

H. Draper, The Adventures of the Communist Manifesto, Berkeley, Calif., 1994.

D. Fernbach, Introduction to K. Marx, The 1848 Revolutions, New York and London, 1973.

J . Foster, 'The Communist Manifesto and t he Environment', Socialist Register, 1998.

-

272 I KARL MARX : SELECTED WRIT I NGS

E. Hobsbawm, Introduction to The Communist Manifesto, London, 1998.

R. Hunt, The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels, Pittsbu rgh and London, 1975, Vo l. 1, pp.

176 ff.

H. Laski, Introduct ion to The Communist Manifesto, Socialist Landmark, London, 1948.

D. Ryazanov, The Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels, New York and London, 1930.

D. Strui k, The Birth of the Communist Manifesto, New York, 1971.

Studies in Marxism, Special Issue devoted to The Communist Manifesto, Vol. 4, 1 997.

A. J .P. Taylor, Introduction to The Communist Manifesto, Harmondsworth, 1 967.

Y. Wagner and M. Strauss, 'The Programme of the Communist Manifesto and its Theoretica l

I mp lications', Political Studies, Dec. 1969.