Karl Marx and Frederick Engels<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Bourgeois and Proletarians<\/a> | Proletarians and Communists<\/a> While this True Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the <\/a> It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the 2. CONSERVATIVE OR BOURGEOIS SOCIALISM<\/b> <\/p>\n A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophy of Poverty<\/b> as an example of this form. <\/p>\n The socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this socialism sought to Bourgeois socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the 3. CRITICAL-UTOPIAN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM<\/b> <\/p>\n <\/a> We do not here refer to that literature which, in every great The first direct attempts of the proletariat to attain its own ends, made in times of <\/a> The socialist and communist systems, properly so called, The founders of these systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action; historically created In the formation of their plans, they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is But these socialist and communist publications contain also a critical element. They <\/a> The significance of critical-utopian socialism and communism They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the <\/a> [1]<\/a> NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: <\/a> [2]<\/a> NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: <\/a> [3]<\/a> NOTE by Engels to 1888 German edition: <\/a> [4]<\/a> Francois Noel Babeuf (1760-1797): <\/a> [5]<\/a> Comte de Saint-Simon, Claude Henri de <\/a> [6]<\/a> Charles Fourier (1772-1837): French <\/a> [7]<\/a> Richard Owen (1771-1858): Welsh <\/a> [8]<\/a> NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: <\/a> <\/p>\n Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class <\/a> The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this In Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their Proletarians of all countries, unite! <\/p>\n <\/a>*<\/a> NOTE by Engels to 1888 English edition: <\/a> <\/p>\n The Communist League, an international association of workers, which could of course be However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any KARL MARX <\/p>\n FREDERICK ENGELS <\/p>\n June 24, 1872 <\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n The first Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, translated by What a limited field the proletarian movement occupied at that time (December 1847) is How very different today. Precisely European immigration fitted North American for a And now Russia! During the Revolution of 1848-9, not only the European princes, but the The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the KARL MARX <\/p>\n FREDERICK ENGELS January 21, 1882 <\/a> <\/p>\n The preface to the present edition I must, alas, sign alone. Marx, the man to whom the The basic thought running through the Manifesto — that economic production, and the I have already stated this many times; but precisely now is it necessary that it also FREDERICK ENGELS <\/p>\n June 28, 1883 <\/a> <\/p>\n The Manifesto was published as the platform of the Communist League, a working men’s The defeat of the Parisian insurrection of June 1848 — the first great battle between When the European workers had recovered sufficient strength for another attack on the Marx, who drew up this programme to the satisfaction of all parties, entirely trusted The Manifesto itself came thus to the front again. Since 1850, the German text had been Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a _socialist_ manifesto. By The Manifesto being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state that the This proposition, which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin’s From our joint preface to the German edition of 1872, I quote the following: <\/p>\n However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer The present translation is by Mr Samuel Moore, the translator of the greater portion of FREDERICK ENGELS <\/p>\n January 30, 1888
\n| Socialist and Communist Literature<\/a> | Position
\nof the Communists in relation to the various existing opposition parties<\/a> |
\n1882 Russian edition<\/a> | Preface to 1883 German edition<\/a> |
\n1890 German edition<\/a> | Notes on the Manifesto and translations of it<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\nfighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary
\ninterest, the interest of German philistines. In Germany, the petty-bourgeois class, a
\nrelic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under the
\nvarious forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things. <\/p>\n
\nindustrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain
\ndestruction — on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the
\nrise of a revolutionary proletariat. True Socialism appeared to kill these two
\nbirds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic. <\/p>\n
\ndew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped
\ntheir sorry eternal truths, all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase
\nthe sale of their goods amongst such a public. And on its part German socialism
\nrecognized, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the
\npetty-bourgeois philistine. <\/p>\n
\nGerman petty philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model
\nman, it gave a hidden, higher, socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real
\ncharacter. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the brutally
\ndestructive tendency of communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial
\ncontempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called socialist and
\ncommunist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this
\nfoul and enervating literature. [3]<\/a> <\/p>\n
\nsecure the continued existence of bourgeois society. <\/p>\n
\ncondition of the working class, organizers of charity, members of societies for the
\nprevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every
\nimaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete
\nsystems. <\/p>\n
\nthe struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state
\nof society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a
\nbourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which
\nit is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois socialism develops this comfortable conception
\ninto various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such
\na system, and thereby to march straightaway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires
\nin reality that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but
\nshould cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie. <\/p>\n
\ndepreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that
\nno mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in
\neconomical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material
\nconditions of existence, this form of socialism, however, by no means understands
\nabolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only
\nby a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these
\nrelations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and
\nlabor, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work of
\nbourgeois government. <\/p>\n
\nfigure of speech. <\/p>\n
\nthe working class. Prison reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last
\nword and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism. <\/p>\n
\nworking class. <\/p>\n
\nmodern revolution, has always given voice to the demands of the proletariat, such as the
\nwritings of Babeuf [4]<\/a> and others. <\/p>\n
\nuniversal excitement, when feudal society was being overthrown, necessarily failed, owing
\nto the then undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as to the absence of the
\neconomic conditions for its emancipation, conditions that had yet to be produced, and
\ncould be produced by the impending bourgeois epoch alone. The revolutionary literature
\nthat accompanied these first movements of the proletariat had necessarily a reactionary
\ncharacter. It inculcated universal asceticism and social levelling in its crudest form. <\/p>\n
\nthose of Saint-Simon [5]<\/a>, Fourier [6]<\/a>, Owen
\ndescribed above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie (see Section 1.
\nBourgeois and Proletarians). <\/p>\n
\nof the decomposing elements in the prevailing form of society. But the proletariat, as yet
\nin its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a class without any historical initiative
\nor any independent political movement. <\/p>\n
\nindustry, the economic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the
\nmaterial conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a
\nnew social science, after new social laws, that are to create these conditions. <\/p>\n
\nconditions of emancipation to fantastic ones; and the gradual, spontaneous class
\norganization of the proletariat to an organization of society especially contrived by
\nthese inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and
\nthe practical carrying out of their social plans. <\/p>\n
\nof the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of
\nbeing the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them. <\/p>\n
\nSocialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They
\nwant to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored.
\nHence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without the distinction of class; nay,
\nby preference, to the ruling class. For how can people when once they understand their
\nsystem, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society? <\/p>\n
\nattain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of
\nexample, to pave the way for the new social gospel. <\/p>\n
\nstill in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position,
\ncorrespond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction
\nof society. <\/p>\n
\nattack every principle of existing society. Hence, they are full of the most valuable
\nmaterials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in
\nthem — such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family,
\nof the carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage
\nsystem, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the function of the state
\ninto a more superintendence of production — all these proposals point solely to the
\ndisappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and
\nwhich, in these publications, are recognized in their earliest indistinct and undefined
\nforms only. These proposals, therefore, are of a purely utopian character. <\/p>\n
\nbears an inverse relation to historical development. In proportion as the modern class
\nstruggle develops and takes definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the
\ncontest, these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all theoretical
\njustifications. Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many
\nrespects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary
\nsects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the
\nprogressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavor, and that
\nconsistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They
\nstill dream of experimental realization of their social utopias, of founding isolated phalansteres<\/b>,
\nof establishing Home Colonies, or setting up a Little Icaria
\ncastles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the
\nbourgeois. By degrees, they sink into the category of the reactionary conservative
\nsocialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by
\ntheir fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social
\nscience. <\/p>\n
\nclass; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new
\ngospel. <\/p>\n
\nChartists and the Reformistes. <\/p>\n
\nFOOTNOTES<\/h3>\n
\n
\nNot the English Restoration (1660-1689), but the French Restoration (1814-1830). <\/p>\n
\nThis applies chiefly to Germany, where the landed aristocracy and squirearchy have large
\nportions of their estates cultivated for their own account by stewards, and are, moreover,
\nextensive beetroot-sugar manufacturers and distillers of potato spirits. The wealthier
\nbritish aristocracy are, as yet, rather above that; but they, too, know how to make up for
\ndeclining rents by lending their names to floaters or more or less shady joint-stock
\ncompanies. <\/p>\n
\nThe revolutionary storm of 1848 swept away this whole shabby tendency and cured its
\nprotagonists of the desire to dabble in socialism. The chief representative and classical
\ntype of this tendency is Mr Karl Gruen. <\/p>\n
\nFrench political agitator; plotted unsuccessfully to destroy the Directory in
\nrevolutionary France and established a communistic system. <\/p>\n
\nRouvroy (1760-1825): French social philosopher; generally regarded as founder of French
\nsocialism. He thought society should be reorganized along industrial lines and that
\nscientists should be the new spiritual leaders. His most important work is
\n_Nouveau_Christianisme_ (1825). <\/p>\n
\nsocial reformer; propounded a system of self-sufficient cooperatives known as Fourierism,
\nespecially in his work _Le_Nouveau_Monde_industriel_ (1829-30) <\/p>\n
\nindustrialist and social reformer. He formed a model industrial community at New Lanark,
\nScotland, and pioneered cooperative societies. His books include _New_View_Of_Society_
\n(1813). <\/p>\n
\nHome Colonies were what Owen called his communist model societies.
\n_Phalansteres_ were socialist colonies on the plan of Charles Fourier; Icaria was the name
\ngiven by Caber to his utopia and, later on, to his American communist colony. <\/p>\n
\nIV — POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO<\/h3>\n
THE VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES<\/h3>\n
\n
\nparties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America. <\/p>\n
\nfor the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement
\nof the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In
\nFrance, the Communists ally with the Social Democrats*<\/a> against the
\nconservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical
\nposition in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the Great
\nRevolution. <\/p>\n
\nparty consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French
\nsense, partly of radical bourgeois. <\/p>\n
\ncondition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Krakow
\nin 1846. <\/p>\n
\nagainst the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty-bourgeoisie. <\/p>\n
\nclearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and
\nproletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons
\nagainst the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must
\nnecessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the
\nreactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately
\nbegin. <\/p>\n
\neve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced
\nconditions of European civilization and with a much more developed proletariat than that
\nof England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the
\nbourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following
\nproletarian revolution. <\/p>\n
\nexisting social and political order of things. <\/p>\n
\nproperty question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. <\/p>\n
\nall countries. <\/p>\n
\nends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let
\nthe ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to
\nlose but their chains. They have a world to win. <\/p>\n
\nFOOTNOTES<\/h3>\n
\n
\nThe party then represented in Parliament by Ledru-Rollin, in literature by Louis Blanc
\n(1811-82), in the daily press by the Reforme<\/b>. The name of Social-Democracy
\nsignifies, with these its inventors, a section of the Democratic or Republican Party more
\nor less tinged with socialism. <\/p>\n
\nPREFACE TO 1872 GERMAN EDITION<\/h3>\n
\n
\nonly a secret one, under conditions obtaining at the time, commissioned us, the
\nundersigned, at the Congress held in London in November 1847, to write for publication a
\ndetailed theoretical and practical programme for the Party. Such was the origin of the
\nfollowing Manifesto, the manuscript of which travelled to London to be printed a few weeks
\nbefore the February Revolution. First published in German, it has been republished in that
\nlanguage in at least twelve different editions in Germany, England, and America. It was
\npublished in English for the first time in 1850 in the _Red Republican_, London,
\ntranslated by Miss Helen Macfarlane, and in 1871 in at least three different translations
\nin America. The french version first appeared in Paris shortly before the June
\ninsurrection of 1848, and recently in _Le Socialiste_ of New York. A new translation is in
\nthe course of preparation. A Polish version appeared in London shortly after it was first
\npublished in Germany. A Russian translation was published in Geneva in the ‘sixties. Into
\nDanish, too, it was translated shortly after its appearance. <\/p>\n
\nthe general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as
\never. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the
\nprinciples will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on
\nthe historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special
\nstress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That
\npassage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic
\nstrides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended
\norganization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in
\nthe February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat
\nfor the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some
\ndetails been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that
\nthe working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it
\nfor its own purposes. (See
\nWar in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’s
\nAssocation<\/i><\/a>, 1871, where this point is further developed.) Further, it is
\nself-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the
\npresent time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of
\nthe Communists to the various opposition parties (Section IV), although, in principle
\nstill correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been
\nentirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater
\nportion of the political parties there enumerated. <\/p>\n
\nright to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an introduction bridging the
\ngap from 1847 to the present day; but this reprint was too unexpected to leave us time for
\nthat. <\/p>\n
\nLondon <\/p>\n
\nPREFACE TO 1882 RUSSIAN EDITION<\/h3>\n
\n
\nBakunin, was published early in the ‘sixties by the printing office of the Kolokol. Then
\nthe West could see in it (the Russian edition of the Manifesto) only a literary curiosity.
\nSuch a view would be impossible today. <\/p>\n
\nmost clearly shown by the last section: the position of the Communists in relation to the
\nvarious opposition parties in various countries. Precisely Russia and the United States
\nare missing here. It was the time when Russia constituted the last great reserve of all
\nEuropean reaction, when the United States absorbed the surplus proletarian forces of
\nEurope through immigration. Both countries provided Europe with raw materials and were at
\nthe same time markets for the sale of its industrial products. Bother were, therefore, in
\none way of another, pillars of the existing European system. <\/p>\n
\ngigantic agricultural production, whose competition is shaking the very foundations of
\nEuropean landed property — large and small. At the same time, it enabled the United
\nStates to exploit its tremendous industrial resources with an energy and on a scale that
\nmust shortly break the industrial monopoly of Western Europe, and especially of England,
\nexisting up to now. Both circumstances react in a revolutionary manner upon America
\nitself. Step by step, the small and middle land ownership of the farmers, the basis of the
\nwhole political constitution, is succumbing to the competition of giant farms; at the same
\ntime, a mass industrial proletariat and a fabulous concentration of capital funds are
\ndeveloping for the first time in the industrial regions. <\/p>\n
\nEuropean bourgeois as well, found their only salvation from the proletariat just beginning
\nto awaken in Russian intervention. The Tsar was proclaimed the chief of European reaction.
\nToday, he is a prisoner of war of the revolution in Gatchina, and Russia forms the
\nvanguard of revolutionary action in Europe. <\/p>\n
\nimpending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face
\nwith the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to
\ndevelop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can
\nthe Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeaval common ownership
\nof land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the
\ncontrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes
\nthe historical evolution of the West? <\/p>\n
\nsignal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the
\npresent Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist
\ndevelopment. <\/p>\n
\nLondon <\/p>\n
\nPREFACE TO 1883 GERMAN EDITION <\/h3>\n
\n
\nwhole working class class of Europe and America owes more than to any one else — rests at
\nHighgate Cemetary and over his grave the first first grass is already growing. Since his
\ndeath [March 13, 1883], there can be even less thought of revising or supplementing the
\nManifesto. But I consider it all the more necessary again to state the following
\nexpressly: <\/p>\n
\nstructure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom, constitute
\nthe foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently
\n(ever since the dissolution of the primaeval communal ownership of land) all history has
\nbeen a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between
\ndominated and dominating classes at various stages of social evolution; that this
\nstruggle, however, has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class (the
\nproletariat) can no longer emancipate itself from the class which exploits and oppresses
\nit (the bourgeoisie), without at the same time forever freeing the whole of society from
\nexploitation, oppression, class struggles — this basic thought belongs soley and
\nexclusively to Marx. <\/p>\n\n[ENGELS FOOTNOTE TO PARAGRAPH: This proposition, I wrote in the preface to
\n the English translation, which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what
\n Darwin’s theory has done for biology, we both of us, had been gradually approaching for
\n some years before 1845. How far I had independently progressed towards it is best shown by
\n my _Conditions of the Working Class in England_. But when I again met Marx at Brussels, in
\n spring 1845, he had it already worked out and put it before me in terms almost as clear as
\n those in which I have stated it here.] <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nstand in front of the Manifesto itself. <\/p>\n
\nLondon <\/p>\n
\nPREFACE TO 1888 ENGLISH EDITION<\/h3>\n
\n
\nassociation, first exclusively German, later on international, and under the political
\nconditions of the Continent before 1848, unavoidably a secret society. At a Congress of
\nthe League, held in November 1847, Marx and Engels were commissioned to prepare a complete
\ntheoretical and practical party programme. Drawn up in German, in January 1848, the
\nmanuscript was sent to the printer in London a few weeks before the French Revolution of
\nFebruary 24. A French translation was brought out in Paris shortly before the insurrection
\nof June 1848. The first English translation, by Miss Helen Macfarlane, appeared in George
\nJulian Harney’s _Red Republican_, London, 1850. A Danish and a Polish edition had also
\nbeen published. <\/p>\n
\nproletariat and bourgeoisie — drove again into the background, for a time, the social and
\npolitical aspirations of the European working class. Thenceforth, the struggle for
\nsupremacy was, again, as it had been before the Revolution of February, solely between
\ndifferent sections of the propertied class; the working class was reduced to a fight for
\npolitical elbow-room, and to the position of extreme wing of the middle-class Radicals.
\nWherever independent proletarian movements continued to show signs of life, they were
\nruthlessly hunted down. Thus the Prussian police hunted out the Central Board of the
\nCommunist League, then located in Cologne. The members were arrested and, after eighteen
\nmonths’ imprisonment, they were tried in October 1852. This selebrated Cologne
\nCommunist Trial lasted from October 4 till November 12; seven of the prisoners were
\nsentenced to terms of imprisonment in a fortress, varying from three to six years.
\nImmediately after the sentence, the League was formlly dissolved by the remaining members.
\nAs to the Manifesto, it seemed henceforth doomed to oblivion. <\/p>\n
\nruling classes, the International Working Men’s Association sprang up. But this
\nassociation, formed with the express aim of welding into one body the whole militant
\nproletariat of Europe and America, could not at once proclaim the principles laid down in
\nthe Manifesto. The International was bound to have a programme broad enough to be
\nacceptable to the English trade unions, to the followers of Proudhon in France, Belgium,
\nItaly, and Spain, and to the Lassalleans in Germany. <\/p>\n[ENGEL’S FOOTNOTE: Lassalle personally, to us, always acknowledged himself to be a
\ndisciple of Marx, and, as such, stood on the ground of the Manifesto. But in his first
\npublic agitation, 1862-1864, he did not go beyond demanding co-operative worhsops
\nsupported by state credit.] <\/p>\n
\nto the intellectual development of the working class, which was sure to result from
\ncombined action and mutual discussion. The very events and vicissitudes in the struggle
\nagainst capital, the defeats even more than the victories, could not help bringing home to
\nmen’s minds the insufficiency of their various favorite nostrums, and preparing the way
\nfor a more complete insight into the true conditions for working-class emancipation. And
\nMarx was right. The International, on its breaking in 1874, left the workers quite
\ndifferent men from what it found them in 1864. Proudhonism in France, Lassalleanism in
\nGermany, were dying out, and even the conservative English trade unions, though most of
\nthem had long since severed their connection with the International, were gradually
\nadvancing towards that point at which, last year at Swansea, their president could say in
\ntheir name: Continental socialism has lost its terror for us. In fact, the
\nprinciples of the Manifesto had made considerable headway among the working men of all
\ncountries. <\/p>\n
\nreprinted several times in Switzerland, England, and America. In 1872, it was translated
\ninto English in New York, where the translation was published in _Woorhull and Claflin’s
\nWeekly_. From this English version, a French one was made in _Le Socialiste_ of New York.
\nSince then, at least two more English translations, moer or less mutilated, have been
\nbrought out in America, and one of them has been reprinted in England. The first Russian
\ntranslation, made by Bakunin, was published at Herzen’s Kolokol office in Geneva, about
\n1863; a second one, by the heroic Vera Zasulich, also in Geneva, in 1882. A new Danish
\nedition is to be found in _Socialdemokratisk Bibliothek_, Copenhagen, 1885; a fresh French
\ntranslation in _Le Socialiste_, Paris, 1886. From this latter, a Spanish version was
\nprepared and published in Madrid, 1886. The German reprints are not to be counted; there
\nhave been twelve altogether at the least. An Armenian translation, which was to be
\npublished in Constantinople some months ago, did not see the light, I am told, because the
\npublisher was afraid of bringing out a book with the name of Marx on it, while the
\ntranslator declined to call it his own production. Of further translations into other
\nlanguages I have heard but had not seen. Thus the history of the Manifesto reflects the
\nhistory of the modern working-class movement; at present, it is doubtless the most wide
\nspread, the most international production of all socialist literature, the common platform
\nacknowledged by millions of working men from Siberia to California. <\/p>\n
\nSocialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian
\nsystems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the
\nposition of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious
\nsocial quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to
\ncapital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the
\nworking-class movement, and looking rather to the educated classes for
\nsupport. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency
\nof mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change,
\ncalled itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism;
\nstill, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to
\nproduce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in
\n1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism
\nwas, on the Continent at least, respectable; communism was the very opposite.
\nAnd as our notion, from the very beginning, was that the emancipation of the workers
\nmust be the act of the working class itself, there could be no doubt as to which of
\nthe two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it. <\/p>\n
\nfundamental proposition which forms the nucleus belongs to Marx. That proposition is: That
\nin every historical epoch, th prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the
\nsocial organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which it is built
\nup, and from that which alone can be explained the political and intellectual history of
\nthat epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of
\nprimitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class
\nstruggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; That
\nthe history of these class struggles forms a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a
\nstage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class — the proletariat —
\ncannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class — the
\nbourgeoisie — without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at
\nlarge from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction, and class struggles. <\/p>\n
\ntheory has done for biology, we both of us, had been gradually approaching for some years
\nbefore 1845. How far I had independently progressed towards it is best shown by my
\n_Conditions of the Working Class in England_. But when I again met Marx at Brussels, in
\nspring 1845, he had it already worked out and put it before me in terms almost as clear as
\nthose in which I have stated it here. <\/p>\n\n
\n years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct
\n today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of
\n the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times,
\n on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special
\n stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That
\n passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic
\n strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended
\n organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in
\n the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat
\n for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some
\n details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that
\n the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it
\n for its own purposes. (See _The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council
\n of the International Working Men’s Assocation_ 1871, where this point is further
\n developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of socialist literature is
\n deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also that
\n the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section
\n IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the
\n political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from
\n off the Earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated. <\/p>\n
\n any right to alter. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nMarx’s _Capital_. We have revised it in common, and I have added a few notes explanatory
\nof historical allusions. <\/p>\n
\nLondon <\/p>\n