conditions <strong>of</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops morerapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfitany longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions <strong>of</strong> existence uponsociety as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existenceto its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it hasto feed him, instead <strong>of</strong> being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, inother words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois class is theformation and augmentation <strong>of</strong> capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labourrests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance <strong>of</strong> industry, whoseinvoluntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation <strong>of</strong> the labourers, due tocompetition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development <strong>of</strong> ModernIndustry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisieproduces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are itsown grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory <strong>of</strong> the proletariat are equally inevitable.II. Proletarians and CommunistsIn what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists donot form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interestsseparate and apart from those <strong>of</strong> the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarianprinciples <strong>of</strong> their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In thenational struggles <strong>of</strong> the proletarians <strong>of</strong> the different countries, they point out and bring to thefront the common interests <strong>of</strong> the entire proletariat, independently <strong>of</strong> all nationality. 2. In thevarious stages <strong>of</strong> development which the struggle <strong>of</strong> the working class against the bourgeoisiehas to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests <strong>of</strong> the movement as awhole.The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolutesection <strong>of</strong> the working-class parties <strong>of</strong> every country, that section which pushes forward allothers; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass <strong>of</strong> the proletariat theadvantage <strong>of</strong> clearly understanding the line <strong>of</strong> march, the conditions, and the ultimate generalresults <strong>of</strong> the proletarian movement.The immediate aim <strong>of</strong> the Communists is the same as that <strong>of</strong> all other proletarian parties:formation <strong>of</strong> the proletariat into a class, overthrow <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois supremacy, conquest <strong>of</strong>political power by the proletariat.The theoretical conclusions <strong>of</strong> the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles thathave 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 <strong>of</strong> existing propertyrelations is not at all a distinctive feature <strong>of</strong> communism.All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequentupon the change in historical conditions.The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour <strong>of</strong> bourgeois property.The distinguishing feature <strong>of</strong> Communism is not the abolition <strong>of</strong> property generally, but theabolition <strong>of</strong> bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and mostcomplete expression <strong>of</strong> the system <strong>of</strong> producing and appropriating products, that is based onclass antagonisms, on the exploitation <strong>of</strong> the many by the few.In this sense, the theory <strong>of</strong> the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition<strong>of</strong> private property.We Communists have been reproached with the desire <strong>of</strong> abolishing the right <strong>of</strong> personallyacquiring property as the fruit <strong>of</strong> a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be thegroundwork <strong>of</strong> all personal freedom, activity and independence.Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property <strong>of</strong> petty artisan and <strong>of</strong>the small peasant, a form <strong>of</strong> property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to
abolish that; the development <strong>of</strong> industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is stilldestroying it daily.Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., thatkind <strong>of</strong> property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition<strong>of</strong> begetting a new supply <strong>of</strong> wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, isbased on the antagonism <strong>of</strong> capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides <strong>of</strong> thisantagonism.To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capitalis a collective product, and only by the united action <strong>of</strong> many members, nay, in the last resort,only by the united action <strong>of</strong> all members <strong>of</strong> society, can it be set in motion.Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property <strong>of</strong> all members <strong>of</strong>society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the socialcharacter <strong>of</strong> the property that is changed. It loses its class character.Let us now take wage-labour.The average price <strong>of</strong> wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum <strong>of</strong> the means <strong>of</strong>subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer.What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means <strong>of</strong> his labour, merely suffices toprolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personalappropriation <strong>of</strong> the products <strong>of</strong> labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance andreproduction <strong>of</strong> human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour <strong>of</strong>others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character <strong>of</strong> this appropriation, underwhich the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as theinterest <strong>of</strong> the ruling class requires it.In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communistsociety, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence <strong>of</strong> thelabourer.In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, thepresent 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 <strong>of</strong> this state <strong>of</strong> things is called by the bourgeois, abolition <strong>of</strong> individuality andfreedom! And rightly so. The abolition <strong>of</strong> bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, andbourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions <strong>of</strong> production, free trade, freeselling and buying.But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk aboutfree selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” <strong>of</strong> our bourgeois about freedom ingeneral, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with thefettered traders <strong>of</strong> the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communisticabolition <strong>of</strong> buying and selling, <strong>of</strong> the bourgeois conditions <strong>of</strong> production, and <strong>of</strong> thebourgeoisie 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 <strong>of</strong> the population; its existence for thefew is solely due to its non-existence in the hands <strong>of</strong> those nine-tenths. You reproach us,therefore, with intending to do away with a form <strong>of</strong> property, the necessary condition for whoseexistence is the non-existence <strong>of</strong> any property for the immense majority <strong>of</strong> society.In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that isjust what we intend.From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into asocial power capable <strong>of</strong> being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property canno longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say,individuality vanishes.
- Page 4: égime, which has been through its
- Page 7: sins of all state forms. That this
- Page 13 and 14: It has not occurred to any one of t
- Page 15 and 16: gradually accumulated small capital
- Page 17 and 18: from this nonsensical ‘prehistory
- Page 19 and 20: property: the nucleus, the first fo
- Page 21 and 22: which produces in all nations simul
- Page 23 and 24: [8. The Inconsistency of the Ideali
- Page 25 and 26: The ‘essence’ of the fish is it
- Page 27 and 28: hence of the relationships which ma
- Page 29 and 30: labour. In the first case, therefor
- Page 31 and 32: production and commerce soon calls
- Page 33 and 34: period begins with the Navigation L
- Page 35 and 36: more advanced countries, still have
- Page 37 and 38: over against the individuals, so th
- Page 39 and 40: eality is only a product of the pre
- Page 41 and 42: never became more than a city; its
- Page 43 and 44: Only at this stage does self-activi
- Page 45 and 46: Modern industry has established the
- Page 47 and 48: these crises, there breaks out an e
- Page 49: Further, as we have already seen, e
- Page 53 and 54: For the rest, nothing is more ridic
- Page 55 and 56: III. Socialist and Communist Litera
- Page 57 and 58: conscious of having overcome “Fre
- Page 59 and 60: The undeveloped state of the class
- Page 61 and 62: The Paris CommuneAddress to the Int
- Page 63 and 64: priests were sent back to the reces
- Page 65 and 66: pregnant. In the full consciousness
- Page 67 and 68: subjected Versailles and the rest o
- Page 69 and 70: The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bo
- Page 71 and 72: For the rest, every fair observer,
- Page 73 and 74: that here “bourgeois republic”
- Page 75 and 76: Eternalization of historic relation
- Page 77 and 78: and becomes a direct object and ser
- Page 79 and 80: each supplies the other with its ob
- Page 81 and 82: generally. The question evidently b
- Page 83 and 84: is thus the only reality, the movem
- Page 85 and 86: smudge over all historical differen
- Page 87 and 88: elations. Thus e.g. the relation of
- Page 89 and 90: a rise of wages, because every reac
- Page 91 and 92: equally spent upon all articles of
- Page 93 and 94: Apart from some years of failing ha
- Page 95 and 96: enable a currency to adapt itself t
- Page 97 and 98: Smith and his French predecessors h
- Page 99 and 100: conditions of production, with a gi
- Page 101 and 102:
in a commodity constitutes its valu
- Page 103 and 104:
y working which the working man wou
- Page 105 and 106:
just seen that the surplus value co
- Page 107 and 108:
increased value of his labour, like
- Page 109 and 110:
altogether, is sure to have his wag
- Page 111 and 112:
theory, which consists in putting a
- Page 113 and 114:
Preface to A Contribution to the Cr
- Page 115 and 116:
Capital, Volume I (1867)From the Pr
- Page 117 and 118:
A use value, or useful article, the
- Page 119 and 120:
imposed necessity, without which th
- Page 121 and 122:
embodiments of one identical social
- Page 123 and 124:
abstract. The twofold social charac
- Page 125 and 126:
ased on the production of commoditi
- Page 127 and 128:
Capital Vol. III. Chapter 2. The Ra
- Page 129 and 130:
specific relationship to surplus-va