×

我們使用cookies幫助改善LingQ。通過流覽本網站,表示你同意我們的 cookie 政策.


image

The Communist Manifesto, The Communism Manifesto 2

The Communism Manifesto 2

The Manifesto of the Communist Party

by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Section 2

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.

First, 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.

Second, 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 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 compared

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 nonexistence 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 nonexistence 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 for sheer idleness, for those of its members who work acquire

nothing and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection was

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 claptrap about the family and education, about

the hallowed correlation 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 was introduced 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 and 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

people 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

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 and 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 eighteenth 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 a 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 and land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy, progressive or gradated 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.

8. The bringing into cultivation of wastelands and the improvement of the soil generally,

in accordance with a common plan.

9. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

10. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries.

11. Gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable 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.

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.

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

The Communism Manifesto 2 Das Kommunistische Manifest 2 El Manifiesto del Comunismo 2 Le Manifeste du Communisme 2 Il manifesto del comunismo 2 共産主義宣言2 공산주의 선언 2 Manifest komunizmu 2 O Manifesto do Comunismo 2 Манифест коммунизма 2 Komünizm Manifestosu 2 Маніфест комунізму 2 共产主义宣言2 共產主義宣言2

The Manifesto of the Communist Party |Communist Party Declaration|||| El Manifiesto del Partido Comunista

by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Section 2

Proletarians and Communists Working-class people||

In what relation do the Communists stand to the Proletarians as a whole? ||connection|||||||||| ¿Qué relación guardan los comunistas con el conjunto de los proletarios?

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 |||distinct from|||||||||||

do not set up any sectarian principles of their own by which to shape and mould the ||||||Guiding beliefs|||||||form or influence||shape and influence| no establecen ningún principio sectario propio para dar forma y moldear el

proletarian movement. The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this |||||set apart||||||||

only.

First, in the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out ||||conflicts||||||||||

and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of ||||||||||whole working class||| y llevar al frente los intereses comunes de todo el proletariado, independientemente de

all nationality.

Second, in the various stages of development which the struggle of the working-class against |||different||||||||||| En segundo lugar, en las diversas etapas de desarrollo que la lucha de la clase obrera contra

the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests ||||||||||представляют|| |Bourgeoisie||||||||||| |middle class|||||||||||

of the movement as a whole. del movimiento en su conjunto.

The Communists, therefore, are on one hand practically the most advanced and resolute ||||||||||||решительный ||as a result||||||||||determined and unwavering

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 |Clear benefit||||||||||||

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, |формирование|||||||||||господство буржуазии ||||||||Toppling||||

conquest of political power by the proletariat. seizure||||||

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. |||||||||||||реформатором |||created|||||||||| que han sido inventados o descubiertos por este o aquel aspirante a reformador universal.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class |Only|Convey||||||Arising from|||| ||||||||que surgen|||| Se limitan a expresar, en términos generales, las relaciones reales que se derivan de una clase existente.

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. |отмена|||собственность|||||||отличительная черта||| |Elimination|||ownership rights|||||||unique characteristic|||

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change, consequent |||||||||||||следовательно

upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property. |||||отменила||||||| |||||eliminated||||in support of|||

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but |отличительная черта||||||||||| |defining|||||||end of||||

the abolition of bourgeois property.

But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the ||||private ownership rights|||||||||

system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the ||||присвоение|||||||антагонизмы классов||

exploitation of the many by the few. эксплуатация||||||

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence, abolition ||||||||||сводится к|||||| ||||||||||boiled down to||||||Ending of systems

of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally ||||упрекнули|||||упразднение||||личной собственности ||||accused of wanting||||||||| ||||reprochados|||||||||

acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be |||||||||труд||||предполагается быть|| |||||||||own hard work||||claimed to be|| adquirir la propiedad como fruto del propio trabajo del hombre, propiedad que supuestamente es

the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. |основа||||||| |fundamento|||||||

Hard won, self-acquired, self-earned property. Do you mean the property of the petty artisan |||приобретённый|||||||||||Мелкий ремесленник|ремесленник |||||||||||||||Skilled craftsperson's ||||||||||||||pequeño|

and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is ||||||||||предшествовала||||| ||||small-scale farmer||||||came before|||||

no need to abolish that. The development of industry has, to a great extent, already destroyed |||отменять|||||||||||| |||eliminate|||||||||||Previously| |||||||||||||en gran medida||

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, |||||||||рабочий|||||| |||work for hire|||||||||||| Pero, ¿crea el trabajo asalariado alguna propiedad para el trabajador? En absoluto. Crea capital,

i.e. that kind of property which exploits wage labour and which cannot increase except |||||||Utilizes||Wage work|||||unless

upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage labour for fresh exploitation. |||порождение||||||||| |||engendrando|||||||||

Property in its present form is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let |||||||||антагонизм капитала и труда|||||| |||||||||||wealth used productively||||

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. ||||||||||solely|||||||

Capital is a collective product and only by the united action of many members, nay, in ||||||||||||||нет, даже| ||||||||||||||"indeed even"| ||||||||||||||incluso|

the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in ||последнее средство|||||||||||||||

motion. Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power. When, therefore, capital |||As a result||||||||||| |||||||||||||portanto|

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 |||тем самым||||||||||

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 Tomemos ahora el trabajo asalariado. El precio medio del trabajo asalariado es el salario mínimo, es decir, que

quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite in bare existence |||||средства к существованию||||абсолютно необходимый||| minimum amount necessary|||||||||||minimal|

as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage labourer appropriates by means of his labour merely ||||||||присваивает||||||

suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We, by no means, intend to abolish this personal достаточно||продлить||||||||||намереваемся|||| Is enough||||||||||||||Eliminate|| basta||||||||||||||||

appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance |||||||присвоение продуктов труда||||||

and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour |воспроизводство человеческой жизни||||||||избыток|чем|||| |||||||||excess resources||||| |||||||||excedente|con qué||||

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. en la medida en que lo exija el interés de la clase dominante.

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 |||workforce||||||broaden||enhance the society||| |||||||||ampliar|||||

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 |||||overpowers|||||||

independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality, independiente y tiene individualidad, mientras que la persona viva es dependiente y no tiene individualidad,

and the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois abolition of individuality ||Elimination|||||||||||||

and freedom, and rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence,

and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. ||||without a doubt|| y la libertad burguesa es, sin duda, el objetivo.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free |||understood as||||||||||

selling and buying. But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears ||||||||desaparece|libre||||desaparece Pero si la venta y la compra desaparecen, la venta y la compra libres desaparecen.

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 compared ||||restricted or bound||||||||||| ||||atados|||||||||||

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 ||shocked|||||||||||||

society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population.

Its existence for the few is solely due to its nonexistence in the hands of those nine-tenths.

You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary |criticize||||||||||||||

condition for whose existence is the nonexistence of any property for the immense majority of ||of which||||||||||vast majority of||

society. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely |||||Criticize||||||||||Exactly

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 |||||||||able to be||||||

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 ||||||||disappears||||admit|

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 |||||||eliminado||||||||

deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society. All that it does privar||||||||||||||| no priva a ningún hombre del poder de apropiarse de los productos de la sociedad. Todo lo que hace

is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation. ||Take away|||||||||||||||

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease and ||||||||||||||come to an end|

universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought, long ago, |||catch up with|||||||should have|| ||||||||||debería haber|| la pereza universal nos alcanzará. Según esto, la sociedad burguesa debería, hace tiempo,

to have gone to the dogs for sheer idleness, for those of its members who work acquire |||||||purely due to|laziness|||||||| |||||||pura|inactividad||||||||

nothing and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection was

but another expression of the tautology that there can no longer be any wage labour when |||||self-evident truth||||||||||

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 modos|||||||||||||

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 |||||argue||||||||||| |||||discutas|||||||||||

of bourgeois property the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, ||||||||nociones||||

etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production |||||||natural result||||||| |||||||resultado secundario|||||||

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 ||||voluntad||||||||||

conditions of existence of your class. The selfish misconception that induces you to |||||||Self-centered|False belief||leads to||

transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from ||||||||||||emergentes|

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 |||||||||||||previous generation's||

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 estallido||||||||||||||

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. en la práctica ausencia de familia entre los proletarios y en la prostitución pública.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes and ||||disappear|||||||||| |||verbo auxiliar||||||||||| La familia burguesa desaparecerá como algo natural cuando desaparezca su complemento y

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 ||||||||||plead guilty|||| ¿explotación de niños por sus padres? De este crimen nos declaramos culpables. Pero usted...

say we destroy the most hallowed of relations when we replace home education by social, |||||sagradas||||||||| dicen que destruimos la más sagrada de las relaciones cuando sustituimos la educación en casa por la 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 claptrap about the family and education, about ||||||||empty rhetoric|||||| ||||||||palabrería burgues|||||| Las patrañas burguesas sobre la familia y la educación, sobre

the hallowed correlation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting the more by |sagrado|||||||||||||

the action of modern industry all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder |||||||family connections|||||ripped apart|torn apart ||||||||||||desgarrados|desgarradas la acción de la industria moderna rompe todos los lazos familiares entre los proletarios

and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour. ||||||||||||work or toil

But you communists was introduced community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in

chorus. The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the |||perceives|||||||||||| coro|||||||||||||||

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. ||||||||||||in the same way|be assigned to||| ||||||||||||igualmente también|||| otra conclusión que la de que la suerte de ser común a todos recaerá igualmente sobre las mujeres. Иной вывод, кроме того, что жребий быть общим для всех, выпадет и на долю женщин.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women |||||inkling|||||||||||||

as mere instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the |||||||||||absurd||

virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women, which, they pretend, righteous|righteous anger|||||||||||

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 since ancient times|||||||||||||

at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in ||available to use||||||||||greatest enjoyment|

seducing each other's wives. Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common, tempting||||||||||||||

and thus, at the most, what the communists might possibly be reproached with, is that |therefore||||||||||criticized for|||

they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed and openly ||||||||insincerely|hidden|| |||||||||ocultamente escondido|| que desean introducir, en sustitución de una hipócrita oculta y abiertamente

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. ||||criticized||||||| ||||reprochados||deseando|||||

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, clase de la nación, debe constituir ella misma la nación, es, hasta ahora, ella misma nacional,

though not in the bourgeois sense of the word. National differences and antagonisms between

people are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, |||||||because of||||||

to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and

the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause |||||to that||||||| |||||correspondientes a eso|||||||

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. ||||||||liberation|||

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, |||||accusations|||||||||

generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination. ||||point of view|||worthy of consideration||| ||||punto de vista|||merecedores|||

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions, in ||||||understand|||||||

one word man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material |||Awareness||||||||||

existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove than that intellectual production changes |||||||demonstrate|||||

its character and 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, ||||||transform dramatically|||||convey|||

within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution ||||||||||||||||breaking apart

of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence. ||||||ritmo|||||||||

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. ||||||||final stages||||||| ||||||||últimos estertores|||||||

When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society |||yielded to|||||||||

fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty struggled against|||||||||||||

and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the |||moral sense|||||||||||

domain of knowledge. Undoubtedly, it will be said, religious, moral, philosophical and |||Without question||||||||

juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development, but religion,

morality, philosophy, political science and law constantly survived this change. ||||||continuously|||

There are besides eternal truths, such as freedom, justice, etc., that are common to ||||||||fairness|||||

all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion ||||||eliminates||||||

and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis. It therefore acts in y||||||||||||||

contradiction to all past historical experience.

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted |||What charge|||||||||||been made up

in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs. ||||||||took on|||||

But, whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz. the |||||||||||||||namely, the| |||||||||||||||a saber|

exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness ||||||||||No surprise|||||

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 |||||||||unless||||

of class antagonisms. The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional ||||||||||break with||

property relations. No wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional |||||||entails||||Break with tradition||

ideas. But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism. We have seen above ||||||||||||||observed|

that the first step in a 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 |||||gradually||||||| |||arrebatar|||||||||

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 |||||||||unless through|||||Forceful advances ||||||||||||||invasiones despót

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 ||||not enough|||||||| ||aparecen||||insostenibles||||||

the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, ||Surpass||require||||||| ||superar||||influencias|||||

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 |||||||||Even so|| |||||||||sin embargo||

most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property and land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 1. Abolición de la propiedad y de la tierra y aplicación de todas las rentas de la tierra a fines públicos.

2. A heavy, progressive or gradated income tax. |||||ingreso|

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. |||||right to inherit

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 4. Конфискация имущества всех эмигрантов и повстанцев.

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. Expansion||||||||||

8. The bringing into cultivation of wastelands and the improvement of the soil generally, |||||unused land||||||| |||||tierras baldías|||||||

in accordance with a common plan.

9. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. |||||work or service||||||| |responsabilidad igual|||||||||||

10. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries.

11. Gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable 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.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production |||||||class differences|||||

has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public ||||||||large-scale|||||||

power will lose its political character. ||cease to have|||

Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing ||rightly||||only||||||||

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 |conditions|||||||||||||||

the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, ||||||removes forcibly|||||||| ||||||arrastra||||||||

then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence ||||||||habrá barrido||||||

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 ||||||||||||||will

have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development

of all.