I ^ ItittlGRcdfibranrNo. 3.
Principles of CommunismBy FREDERICK ENGELSI Engels' Original Draft of the
Communist Manifesto]
Translated byMAX BEDACHT
PRICE 10 CENTS
PUBLISHED FOR
THE WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICABY
Tin Dnili/ H orA** / rHbU#hhi</ ('ft.CHICAGO, ILL.
TheDaily
Worker
EditorsJ. Louis Engdah l and Wm. F. Dunne
Is the only English Communist daily newspaper inthe world.
Every day it gives an honest picture of every stepof importance in the progress of Labor the worldover,—as no other newspaper does or would dare to.
Besides news so essential to the thinking worker,articles on every phase of working class problems andgreat labor cartoons are a daily feature.
Worker Correspondence, increasing in size, is everbecoming a more interesting section.
Appearing often a special T. U. E. L. page givesa picture of the militant trade union activities in thiscountry.
The Saturday issue includes a magazine section—a pleasure to the worker who gives thought to hisproblems.
OUTSIDE OF CHICAGO
$6.00 A Year $3ToTSix Months $2.00 Three Months
IN CHICAGO$8.00 a Year $4.50 Six Months $2.50 Three Months
No. 3.
Principles of CommunismBy FREDERICK ENGELS
J Engels' Original Draft of theCommunist Manifesto]
Translated byMAX BEDACHT
PRICE 10 CENTS
PUBLISHED FOR
THE WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICABY
The IJuili/ H'orA-fr r-ubtlxhin-y Co.CHICAGO, ILL.
The
DailyWorker
EditorsJ. Louis Engdahl and Wm. F. Dunne
Is the only Knglish Communist daily newspaper inthe world.
Every day it gives an honest picture of every stepof importance in the progress of Labor the worldover,—as no other newspaper does or would dare to.
Besides news so essential to the thinking worker,articles on every phase of working class problems andgreat labor cartoons are a~ daily feature.
Worker Correspondenct:, increasing1 in sixe, is everbecoming a more interesting section.
Appearing often a special T. U. E. L. page givesa picture of the militant trade union activities in thiscountry.
The Saturday issue includes a magazine section—a pleasure to the worker who gives thought to hisproblems.
OUTSIDE OF CHICAGO16.00 A Year~$Oo"Six Months $2.00 Three Months
IN CHICAGO$8.00 a Year $4.50 Six Months $2.50 Three Months
INTRODUCTION
The years immediately preceding the revolutionaryperiod of 1848 were years of indescribable political mis-ery in Germany. Its several dozens of miniature mon-archs were just that many bulwarks of reaction, so muchso, that even thinking of a political change was regardedas a major crime and prosecuted as such/ It is true thereexisted a budding capitalist class which dreamt of aunified nation and that possessed aspirations toward ac-quiring the political rule over this nation. But the be-havior of the German bourgeoisie towards its hereditaryparasitical princelings has ever been characterized bycowardice, and this cowardice enhanced by fear of theindependent revolutionary ambitions of the newly de-veloping proletariat, resulted in the bourgeoisie neverpermitting its dreams to become inspirations to action.And even when in an unguarded moment they weredrawn into the turmoil of the revolutionary struggles inthe days of March, 1848, the bourgeois quickly becamefrightened by their own courage and repaid in decadesof slavish servility for the moments of insubordination.
In this stifling atmosphere of pre-revolutionary Ger-many it was impossible for men with spirit and intelli-gence to live. For the privilege of thinking, speaking orwriting, the best men of the nation paid the price ofexile in this period. One need only mention the namesof Karl Marx and Heinrich Heine as examples.
During this epoch when the old semi-feudal order inGermany was pregnant with the new, capitalist order,revolutionary thinking was not confined solely to theproletarian elements. The revolutionary circles of Ger-man refugees in the large cities of Europe, in Brussels,Paris, London, were therefore by no means heterogene-ous groups. Alongside of the proletarian elements, the
revolutionary bourgeois intellectuals were quite numer-ous. Among the proletarian elements it was the mostintelligent and most advanced itinerary journeymen(Handwerksburschen), that dominated. This class, notyet fully proletarianized, had developed its own ideologywhich found its clearest expression in the theories of oneof their number, Wilhelm Weitling, a journeyman tailor.
Thus these groups of emigrant revolutionists developedthe queerest ideas and programs for their circles. TheSocialist ideas of the ingenious journeyman tailor, Weit-ling, the teachings and preachings of the revolutionarybourgeois intellectuals in their midst, the influence ofthe labor movement in the countries in which they lived,like that of the Chartist movement in England and ofthe Proudhonists or the Blanquists in Prance—all thesetogether,resulted in a theoretical mess extremely condu-cive to fruitless squabbles that were barren of all prac-tical results and revolutionary activity.
Such were the conditions that prevailed in the circlesof revolutionary proletarian emigrants from Germany inBrussels, in Paris and in London in 1847. Repeated at-tempts were made to unite these groups organizationally,these efforts culminating finally in the organization ofthe "League of Communists" in 1846. In converting theseclubs of philosophizing, debating and quarrelling emi-grants into active revolutionary organizations with pro-letarian predominance, Marx and Engels were tirelesslyactive. Marx later wrote about these activities as fol-lows:
"We published simultaneously a number of partlyprinted and partly lithographed pamphlets, in whichwe subjected the mixture of French-English Social-ism, Communism and German philosophy which atthat time represented the secret principles of theLeague to a merciless criticism; in place of this wetried to spread a scientific understanding of the eco-nomic structure of bourgeois society as the onlyfirm theoretical basis, and finally we explained in a
popular manner that the question is not the estab-lishment of some Utopian system, but the consciousparticipation in the historic process of change ofsociety that takes place before our very eyes."This positive criticism found a ready echo in the
League. In January, 1847, its central bureau, in London,dispatched some representatives to Brussels to inviteMarx and Engels to join the League. With the develop-ment of a more lucid understanding by the members andthe clarification of the purpose of the League itself, theneed for a unifying program became daily more obvious.Marx's indefatigable efforts in Brussels soon succeededin transforming the Brussels organization into a prole-tarian revolutionary club. Engels, meanwhile, had goneto Paris, where old revolutionary illusions and new illu-sionary theories had created a most disastrous ideolog-ical chaos in the heads of the members of the League.Engels did his best to disentangle the prevailing con-fusion.
In an attempt to give the League of Communists aclear program, the London committee prepared a draftentitled, "Confession of Faith," and sent it to the affili-ated clubs for discussion. This draft also reached Paris,where Moses Hess, a "philosophical" Socialist, madewhat he thought were improvements and prevailed uponthe Paris Club to accept this document. But in a latermeeting the decision was reversed. Engels writes aboutthe Incident in a letter to Marx, dated November, 10,1847:
"I have played an infernal trick on Mosi (MosesHess). He had forced through a ludicrously im-proved 'Confession of Faith.' Last Friday I took itup in our circle and criticized question after ques-tion. Before I had gone through half of them ourpeople declared themselves satisfied. Without op-position I then had a motion passed instructing me todraft a new one."Meantime a congress had been called of the League
of the Communists to meet in London on November 30,1847. The purposes of the gathering were to work outa constitution for the League and to adopt a program.In preparation for this, Marx who came to London forthis congress from Brussels, and Engels, who representedthe group of Paris, had written separate drafts of sucha program. Engels evidently had used as a basis forthis draft the one that he had prepared in compliancewith the instructions given by the Paris League. OnNovember 24, 1847, Engels wrote to Marx:
"You had better consider this 'Confession of Faith'somewhat. I think we had better drop that' cate-chism form and call the thing'Communist Manifesto';for inasmuch as it must deal more or less with his-tory, the previously accepted style does not fit at all.
• I'll bring with me the one that I made here. . . Ibegin: What is Communism? And then right afterthe proletariat, origin, difference from former work-ers, development of antagonisms between proletariatand bourgeoisie, crises, conclusions. In between anumber of minor points and finally the policies of theCommunists. This one from here has not yet beensubmitted for adoption; but I think nothing is con-tained in it against our views."This last sentence seems to indicate that Engels' draft
made for the London conference is the same one preparedby him for the Parisian League, while the first part ofthe letter suggests that there was an understanding be-tween the two friends to make individual drafts for theLondon gathering and that the form of a catechismshould be followed by both.
The "Principles of Communism" herewith publishedfor the first time in English evidently represents thedraft of Engels. The manuscript written in German wasfound among Engels' posthumous papers.
We know now the final and classical form which theprogram of the Communists took when it was publishedultimately as the "Communist Manifesto." However,
the world fame that this document has achieved does notin the least lessen the value of the Engels' draft.
The Communist Manifesto is a carefully prepareddocument. Each one of its sentences stands out like awork of art hewn in granite. Although a document pre-pared for the political struggles of the hour of its pub-lication and though dealing with problems characteristicof a period long past, the manifesto is not only an his-toric document, but also a timely source of inspirationfor the struggles of today.
The draft of Engels is a manuscript written on thespur of the moment and was never put into' final formfor publication. Yet we find in it a clear outline of theideas and gems of historical analysis in which the mani-festo excells. The Engels' draft is proof that the Com-munist Manifesto is truly the result of the combinedefforts of the great intellectual heroes of scientific Com-munism: Marx and Engels.
The draft, as contained in the discovered manuscript,is not complete. Question No. 9 is unanswered. Ques-tions twenty-two and twenty-three are answered with aremark referring to an earlier manuscript, and as nosuch manuscript could be found, these questions remainunanswered. For the sake of completeness we will sup-ply, in an appendix, answers to these questions based up-on the writings of Frederich Engels or from the Com-munist Manifesto.
For the convenience of the readers, and to make pos-sible a clear understanding, a number of explanatorynotes have been prepared and printed in the appendix.Clarifying interjections in the text, set in parenthesis,are supplied by the translator.
Chicago, April, 1925. Max Bedacht.
PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISMENGELS' FIRST DRAFT
OF THECOMMUNIST MANIFESTO
Translation, Introduction and AppendixBy MAX BEDACHT
1. Question: What is Communism?A n s w e r : Communism is the science of the condi-
tions for the emancipation of the proletariat,2. Question,: What is the proletariat?A n s w e r : The proletariat is that class in society
which derives its means of livelihood solely and exclu-sively from the sale of its labor (1.), and not from profitdue to investment of capital; it is that class of peoplewhose fate, whose life and death, whose very existencedepends upon the presence of a demand for labor; it isdependent therefore, on the vicissitudes of prosperousor bad business periods, and on the fluctuations causedby unrestrained competition. In one word: the prole-tariat, or the class of the proletarians, is the workingclass of the nineteenth century (and today).
3. Question: Has there then not always been a pro-letariat?
A n s w e r : No. Poor and working classes have al-ways been existent and the working classes were mostalways poor. But such poor, and such workers as liveunder the conditions just outlined—proletarians, have notalways existed, just as competition was not always freeand unrestricted.
4. Question: How did the proletariat originate?A n s w e r : The proletariat had its origin in the in-
dustrial revolution which occurred in the latter half ofthe past (18th) century in England, and which has sincebeen repeated in all civilized countries of the world.
6
This industrial revolution was caused by the inventionof the steam engine, the different spinning machines, themechanical loom and a host of other mechanical con-trivances. These machines, which because of their ex-pensiveness could be installed only by the big capitalists,changed the hitherto prevailing mode of production. Theyreplaced the workers, because the machines could pro-duce products at a lower cost and with greater efficiencythan the workers could produce them with their imper-fect spinning wheels and weaving looms. The machinesdelivered the control of industry into the hands of thebig capitalists and turned the little possessions of theworkers, their tools, looms, etc., into just that' muchworthless junk. Thus the capitalists soon got possessionof everything, while nothing was left for the worker. Bythis process the factory system was introduced in theproduction of clothing. After the first step was oncetaken in the introduction of machinery and the estab-lishment of the factory system, the new methods of pro-duction were soon adopted in all other branches of in-dustry, in calico printing, book production, in ceramicworks, and in the making of metal products. Labor wasmore and more divided, so that the worker who formerlymade and finished the complete product, now only workedon a part of it. This division of labor made possible anincrease in speed and a consequent reduction in cost. Itreduced the activity of the individual worker to a verysimple, and incessantly repeated mechanical manipula-tion which could be done by a machine, not only just aswell, but even better. In this way all these branches ofindustry gradually fell under the domination of steam-power, of machinery and the factory system, as hadspinning and weaving before. At the same time theycame completely under the control of the big capitalists,and in these industries also, the workers lost the lastremnant of independence. Besides manufacture (2.), thecrafts, too, gradually fell more and more under the dom-ination of the factory system, for here as well, the big
capitalists crowded out the little independent craftsmanby the establishment of big shops where costs could bereduced and labor divided. Thus we finally reach a pointwhere in the civilized countries almost all branches ofproduction are carried on in factories, and where the in-dividual craftsman with hand production is replaced byproduction in big industrial establishments. By thisprocess the middle classes, and especially the small es-tablishments, are more and more forced into ruin; theformer position of the workers is completely changed andtwo new classes are created which gradually swallow allother classes.
1. The class of big capitalists, which in all civilizedcountries is at this moment in almost exclusive posses-sion of the means of subsistance, of all raw materialsand all tools (machines, factories). This is the class ofthe bourgeois, or the bourgeoisie.
2. The class of the completely propertyless, which de-pends for its necessary means of livelihood on the chanceof selling its labor (labor power) to the bourgeois. Thisclass is called the class of proletarians or the proletariat.
5. Question: Under what conditions does the sale oflabor of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie take place?
A n s w e r : Labor (labor power) is a commodity Ifkeevery other commodity; its price is determined, there-fore, by the very same laws as is the price of all othercommodities. Price under the domination of big indus-try or free competition—which is one and the same thingas we will see later—is on the average always equal tothe cost of production. The price of labor (labor power)therefore, is likewise equal to the cost of production oflabor (labor power); the cost of the production of laborpower is thus equal to just that amount of means ofsubsistance that is needed to enable the worker to toiland that prevents the class of workers from dying out.Therefore the worker receives for his labor not morethan is needed for this purpose. The price of labor, orwages, therefore, is the lowest, the minimum needed to
8
live (3). Since business is sometimes better and some-times worse, the worker gets a little more or a littleless for his labor just as the factory owner gets a littlemore or less for his wares. But just as the factory own-er gets on the average not any more nor any less thanhis cost of production whether business is good or bad, sothe worker receives on the average not more nor lessthan this minimum. This economic law will be appliedwith continually increasing rigor as big industry takeshold of all lines of production.
6. Question: What kind of a working class existedbefore the industrial revolution?
A n s w e r : Always dependent upon the differentstages of development of society, the laboring classeshave lived under different conditions and under differentrelations to the propertied and ruling classes.
In ancient times the workers were the slaves of theirowners, as they still are in some backward countries andeven in the southern part of the United States up to thisday (1847). In the middle ages the workers were theserfs of the landed aristocracy, as is still the case inHungary, Poland and Russia (1847). Besides, during themiddle ages and up to the industrial revolution therewere the journeymen in the cities working for pettybourgeois artisans. Gradually with the devolpoment ofmanufacture (hand production on a larger scale) therecame the hand workers, employed by the bigger capi-talists.
7. Question: In what does the proletarian differ fromthe slave?
A n s w e r : The slave is sold once and for all—theproletarian must sell himself hourly and daily. Theslave is the property of his master and no matter howmiserable his existence may be, it is securely guaranteedby the interests of this master.
The individual proletarian, the property of the wholebourgeois class, so to speak, whose labor is bought onlywhen needed, has no such secure existence. This exist-
ence is secure only for the working class as a whole.The slave stands outside of competition, the proletarianstands within it and feels all its fluctuations. The slaveis a chattel and not a member of society while the pro-letarian—as a person—is recognized as a member ofsociety. The slave may therefore have a better exist-ence than the proletarian, yet the proletarian is part ofa higher stage of social development and stands higherthan the slave. The slave frees himself by abolishing, ofall private property only chattel slavery, thus makinghimself a proletarian—the proletarian can free himselfonly by abolishing private property as a whole.
8. Question: In what does the proletarian differ fromthe serf?
A n s w e r : The serf is given ownership and use of ameans of production, a quantity of land in return forpart of the proceeds or in exchange for labor. The pro-letarian works with instruments of production belongingto someone else and works for the account of this some-one else—in return for part of the proceeds. The serfgives—the proletarian receives. The serf has a secureexistence; the proletarian has not. The serf stands out-side of all competition; the proletarian stands within it.The serf frees himself either by running away into thecities where he becomes an artisan, or by changing tithein products and labor into rent in money thus becominga tenant, or by driving the feudal lord from his estate,Inaking himself the proprietor; in short by entering, inone way or another, into the propertied class and intocompetition. The proletarian frees himself by abolishingcompetition, private property and all class differences.
9. Question: In what does the proletarian differ fromthe craftsman? (The manuscript does not contain anyanswer) (4.).
10. Question: In what does the proletarian differfrom the worker in manufacture? (see note).
A n s w e r : The worker, in the period of manufacture,from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, was almost
10
everywhere in possession of his instruments of produc-tion, his loom, spinning wheels for his family, a littlepiece of land that he cultivated in his spare hours. Theproletarian does not possess any of these things. Theworker in the period of manufacture lived for the mostpart in the country and in a more or less patriarchialrelation with his landlord or employer. The proletarianlives, as a rule, in the large cities and his relations tohis employer are mere money relations. The worker inthe period of manufacture, pulled out of his patriarchialconditions by big industry, was deprived of the propertyhe still possessed and by that process was made a pro-letarian.
11. Question: What were the immediate results ofthe industrial revolution and of the division of societyinto bourgeois and proletarians?
A n s w e r : First: The continued diminishing of theprices of industrial products caused by machine produc-tion resulted in a complete destruction of the old indus-try based upon hand production. All half barbarian coun-tries which have heretofore more or less withstood his-torical evolution, and whose industry was up to now de-pendent on hand labor, were thus forcibly taken out oftheir isolation. They bought the cheaper products of theEnglishmen and condemned their own hand workers toruin. In this way countries which have not progressed forthirty centuries, like India, are thoroughly revolutionized;even China is now approaching a revolution because ofthis process. It goes so far that a machine invented to-day in England within one year robs millions of workersin China of their bread. In this manner big industry hasbrought all nations of the earth into close connection,has thrown all little local markets together into oneworld market, has spread civilization and progress every-where and has created a condition wherein everything,that happens in civilized countries must have its effectsin other countries, so that when now (1848) the workersof England or France free themselves it will cause revo-
11
lutions in other countries which must end sooner orlater with the emancipation of the workers there.
Second: Ererywhere where big industry has replacedhand labor, it has increased the riches and power of thebourgeoisie to the highest degree and has made it thedominating class in the land. The result of this hasbeen that wherever this process has taken place thebourgeoisie has gotten the political power into its handsand has crowded out the hitherto ruling classes, thenobility and the guild masters and their representative,the absolute monarchy. The bourgeoisie destroyed thepower of the aristocracy, the nobles,, by abolishing thelaws of primogeniture, by permitting division and saleof the landed estates and by abolishing all privileges ofthe nobles. It destroyed the power of the guild burghersby dissolving the guilds and abolishing craft monopolies.In place of both, it established free competition, that isto say, it established that condition of society whereineveryone has the right to take up any branch of produc-tion and wherein nothing can prevent him in this exceptthe lack of necessary capital. The establishment of freecompetition therefore is a public declaration that fromnow on the members of society are merely unequal asfar as their! capital is unequal, that capital is the decis-ive power and that the bourgeoisie has become the firstclass in society. Free competition is necessary for thebeginning of big industry because it is the only condi-tion under which big industry can develop. The bour-geoisie, after it thus had destroyed the social power ofnobility and the guild burghers, proceeded to the destruc-tion of their political power. As it had elevated itselfto the first class in society it proclaimed itself politicallyalso as the first class. It did this by the establishmentof a representative form of government which is basedon civil equality 'before the law, and the recognition bylaw of free competition. This type of government wasintroduced into Europe in the form of the constitutionalmonarchy. In these constitutional monarchies only those
12
have the franchise who possess a certain amount of cap-ital, only the bourgeois.(5). These bourgeois elect thedeputies—and these bourgeois deputies establish a bour-geois government by virtue of their right of refusal togrant taxes (6).
Third: Everywhere it develops the proletariat in thesame degree as it develops the bourgeoisie. To the samedegree as the bourgeoisie grows richer the proletariatbecomes more numerous. Inasmuch as the proletariatcan be employed only by capital, and inasmuch as capi-tal can increase only when it employs workers, the in-crease of the proletariat keeps pace with the increase ofcapital. At the same time it draws bourgeoisie and pro-letariat into big cities where industry can be carried onmost advantageously. Thru this amassing of many pro-letarians at one point the latter are brought to a con-sciousness of their power. The more new machines areinvented which replace hand work, the more industrydevelops and presses wages down to the minimum thusmaking the position of the proletariat more and moreunbearable. In this way it prepares, on the one hand,by the growing dissatisfaction, on the other by the grow-ing power of the proletariat, a revolutionization of socie-ty by the proletariat.
12. Question: What were the fu r the r results of theindus t r ia l r evo lu t ion?
A n s w e r : Industry created in the steam engine themeans by which it could increase industrial productionwithin a short space of time infinitely. Free competitionnecessarily growing out of big industry soon took on aviolent character as a result of the ease of production.Many capitalists took up the same industry and in ashort time more was produced than was needed. Theresult was that the products could not be sold and a so-called commercial crisis appeared. Factories were shutdown, factory owners were driven to bankruptcy and theworkers lost their bread. Extensive misery prevailedeverywhere. After a while the surplus products were
13
sold, the factories operated again, wages went up gradu-ally and business was better than ever. But not for long.There were again too many products and a new crisiswas at hand taking the same course as the previous one.Since the beginning of this century the industries thuscontinually moved back and forth between epochs ofcrises and epochs of prosperity. Such a crisis appearsregularly every five to seven years accompanied everytime by great misery for the workers and by generalrevolutionary excitement endangering society itself.
13. Question: What follows from these regularly ap-pearing commercial crises?
A n s w e r : First: Although in its first stage itcreated free competition, big industry has now outgrownthis. Competition and control of industrial productionby individuals has become a fetter which it must andshall break; big industry as long as it is continued on thepresent basis can maintain itself only by periodical dis-orders repeating themselves from every five to sevenyears, endangering the whole civilization and not onlythrowing the proletarians into misery, but also ruininga great number of bourgeois. Therefore, big industryhas either to give up its existence—which is an absoluteimpossibility—or it needs an entirely new organizationof society in which production is no longer controlled anddirected by competing factory owners, but is carried onby society itself on the basis of a definite plan and inaccordance with public needs.
Second: Big industry by the chances it created for anindefinite extension of production makes possible a con-dition in society in which so much of all necessities oflife can be produced that every member of society willbe put iiito a position where he can develop and applyall his abilities and talents freely, so that just thosequalities of big industry which in present society causeall the misery and commercial crises will be the onesthat in a new social order will destroy this misery andthese disasterous oscillations (changes from prosperity
14
to crisis). It is clear therefore:1. That from now on all these evils can be accounted
for only by a social order no longer adapted to condi-tions, and
2. That the forces are at hand to eliminate all theseevils through a new social order. (7.)
14. Question: Of what kind wil l be this new order?A n s w e r : It will first of all take the direction and
control of industry and of all branches of production outof the hands of competing individuals and manage themby society itself, that is, for society as a whole, accordingto a common plan and by participation of all the mem-bers cf society. Thus it will discontinue competition andreplace it by co-operation. Inasmuch as the direction ofindustries by individuals necessarity provides privateproperty and inasmuch as competition is nothing morethan the form that the direction of industry takes underprivate ownership therefore private ownership of indus-tries and competition are inseparable. Private propertytherefore must also be abolished and in its place must beput common use of all means of production and distribu-tion of all products according to mutual agreement, so-called common ownership. Abolition of private property,in fact, is the shortest and most precise circumscriptionof the social change necessitated by the development ofindustry. It is therefore truthfully the chief demand ofthe Communists.
15. Question: So abol i t ion of private property wasnot possible before now?
A n s w e r : No. Every change in the social order,every fundamental change in the forms of property wasthe necessary result of the creation of new productiveforces which could no longer be controlled by the oldforms of property. Thus private property itself orgin-ated. Private property (in the present form) has notalways existed. When toward the end of the middle agesa new mode of production was created in manufacture, amode which did not permit of itself to be adapted to the
15
existing forms of feudal property and guild monopolies, ,then this new form of production which had outgrown oldforms of property, created for itself a new form: (mod-ern) private property. For manufacture and for the firststage of development of big industry no other form ofproperty was possible than private property and no otherform of society than one based on private property. Aslong as production is not plentiful enough to supply notonly all needs, but also to amass a surplus for the in-crease of social capital and for the further developmentof the productive forces, so long must there exist on theone hand a class controlling these productive forces andon the other a poor and exploited class.
The character of these classes depends upon the stageof development of production. The middle a'ges depend-ent on agriculture, presented to us the baron. and theserf; the cities of the later middle ages showed us theguild master with the journeyman and the day laborer;.the seventeenth century had the manufacturer and thehand worker; the nineteenth century has the big factoryowner and the proletarian. It is clear that previous tothis time the productive forces had not been developedto the point that enough for all could be produced andthat private property had become a fetter for the produc-tive forces. But now, when firstly capitalist and produc-tive forces are created as never before and when meansare at hand to increase these productive forces withina short time indefinitely, and when, secondly, these pro-ductive forces are gathered into the hands of a few bour-geois while the big mass of the people are ever moredriven into the class of the proletariat, while their posi-tion grows more miserable and unbearable, as wealth ofthe bourgeois constantly increases, and when, thirdly,these gigantic and easily increasing productive forceshave outgrown private property and the bourgeoisie insuch a degree that every moment they cause the mostviolent disturbances in the social order through this de-velopment of big industry the abolition of private prop-
16
erty has become not only possible but absolutely neces-sary.
16. Question. Will the abolition of private propertybe possible by peaceful means?
A n s w e r : It is desirable that the abolition, of priv-ate property be brought peacefully, and the Communistssurely are the last ones who would object to this method.The Communists know too well that all conspiracies arenot only useless but even harmful. They know too well-that revolutions are not made intentionally and willfully,but that they are everywhere and at all times the neces-sary results of circumstances which are entirely inde-pendent of the will and direction of individual partiesand whole classes. But at the same time the Commun-ists see that the development of the proletariat in almostall civilized countries is violently suppressed and thatthus the opponents of the Communists are working withall power toward making a (violent) revolution neces-sary. When the suppressed proletariat is finally driveninto a (violent) revolution then the Communists shalldefend the cause of the proletariat with their deeds aswell as with words (8).
17. Question: Wilr the abolition of private propertybe possible with one stroke?
A n s w e r : No. Just as little is this possible as it isto multiply sufficiently the existing productive forces atone stroke as would be necessary for the establishmentof the co-operative commonwealth. The proletarian rev-olution will therefore only gradually transform presentsociety and will abolish private property only after ithas created the necessary amount of means of produc-tion.
18. Question. Along what lines will this revolutiondevelop?
A n s w e r : It will first of all establish a democraticconstitution and thus either directly or indirectly estab-lish the political rule of the proletariat. Directly, mainlywhere the proletariat even at this moment makes up a
17
majority of the people; indirectly, in Prance and in Ger-many where the majority of the people are composed notonly of proletarians, but also of small peasants and pettybourgeois. These peasants and petty bourgeois are stillin a transitory period toward the proletariat and are de-pendent in their political interests more and more onthe workers and therefore will have to submit to the de-mands of that class. This probably will necessitate asecond struggle which, however, can end only with thevictory of the proletariat.
The democracy would be utterly useless for the prole-tariat if it could not be used immediately as a means forthe application of .measures which attack private prop-erty and secure the existence of the proletariat. Themost important of these measures which at this time al-ready result from the existing conditions are the follow-ing:
1. Limitation of private property by progressive taxes,heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance for rela-tives not lineal descendents—feuch as brothers, nephews,etc.—forced loans, etc.
2. Gradual expropriation of land owners, factory own-ers, railroad owners, ship owners, party through competi-tion with state industry and partly by direct compensa-tion in form of assignates (paper money).
3. Confiscation of the estates, of all emigrants andrebels who are against the majority of the people.
4. Organization of labor or employment of the prole-tariat on national estates, factories, and workshops bywhich method, competition between the workers is abol-ished and factory owners, as long as there are any, haveto pay the same high wages as the state.
5. Compulsion for work applicable to all members ofsociety until the time of the abolition of private property.Formation of industrial armies especially for agriculture.
6. Centralization of the credit system and moneymovements in the hands of the state through a nationalbank with state capital, and suppression of all private
18
banks and bankers.7. Increase of all national factories, workshops, rail-
roads, ships; reclamation of all lands not yet under cul-tivation and improvement of all cultivated lands in thesame ratio in which the capital, and the workers at thedisposal of the nation, increase.
8. Raising of all children in national institutes and atnational expense beginning at the time the child hasoutgrown the first care of the mother.
9. Erection of large palaces on the national estatesas common shelter for communes of citizens working inthe industry and agriculture and which combine the ad-vantages of urban and rural life without at the same timesuffering from onesidedness and disadvantages of both.
10. Destruction of all unhealthy and badly builthouses and sections of the cities.
11. Equal rights of inheritance for legitimate and il-legitimate children.
12. Concentration of all means of transportation inthe hands of the state.
All these measures cannot, of course, be carried out atonce. But the accomplishment of one will always createthe basis for the accomplishment of the next. After thefirst radical attack against private property is made theproletariat will be forced to go further and further, andto concentrate in the hands of the state, all capital, allagriculture, all industry, all transport and all exchange.In driving toward the accomplishment of concentration,all these measures will be feasible and develop their cen-tralizing consequences, in exactly the same ratio as theproductive forces of the country are increased by thework of the proletariat. Finally when all capital, all pro-duction and all exchange is concentrated in the hands ofthe nation, then private property is abolished, money issuperfluous, production is increased, and man is changedso much that even the last remnants of the old form of
19. Question: W i l l this revolution be accomplished inone country a lone?
19
society can disappear (9).A n s w e r : No. Big industry, by creating a world
market has all the peoples of the earth, especially thecivilized ones, brought into such close connection witheach other that each nation is dependent upon what hap-pens in the other. Furthermore, it has advanced socialdevelopment in all civilized countries to a degree that inall these countries a bourgeoisie and a proletariat are themost important classes of society and the struggle be-tween them has become the all-dominating struggle ofthe day. The Communist revolution therefore will notbe a national one only, but will be carried on simultane-ously in all civilized countries, at least as far as England,America, Germany and France are concerned. In eachof these countries it will develop either faster or slower,depending upon whether one country or the other hasbetter developed industires, bigger wealth or a greatermass of productive forces. Thus it will be slowest andmost difficult in Germany and quickest and easiest inEngland. A Communist revolution in one country willcause considerable reaction in the other countries of theworld and will decisively change and hasten the develop-ment there. It will be a universal revolution and, there-fore, will claim universal territory.
20. Question. What will be the results of the finalabolishment of private property?
A n s w e r : By taking the use of all productive forces,of all means of transportation and of all exchange anddistribution of the products out of the hands of privatecapital by society itself, and by managing them accord-ing to a plan based on the needs of society as a whole,the abolishment of private property will first of all elim-inate all the bad results which at present are connectedwith the running of big industry. The crises disappear.Extensive production, which in the present order of so-ciety, causes over-production and terrible misery, willthen be insufficient and will have to be extended. Instead of causing misery, production over the immediate
20
needs of society will then assure the satisfying of allneeds and at the same time will provide the means tocreate and to satisfy new desires. It will be the condi-tion and also the cause of new progress and it will ac-complish this progress without occasioning a disturbanceas is the case now in the present society. Big industry,freed of the fetters of private property will then developto a degree which will make modern industry look justas small as manufacture looks in comparison with pres-ent day industry. The development of industry will sup-ply society with a sufficient mass of products to satisfythe needs of all. So will agriculture, which is now hin-dered by the pressure of private property and division insmall allotments, exploit all the improvements and scien-tific achievements and will take a new upward swing en-abling it to supply society with a sufficient quantity ofproducts. In this way society will get enough productsand will be able to organize the distribution of them insuch a manner that the needs of all its members can besatisfied. Division of society into classes antagonisticto each other becomes superfluous. But not only will itbecome superfluous but also incompatible with the newsocial order. The existence of classes grew out of thedivision of labor, but the division of labor in the formhitherto practical will be completely eliminated. Because |to increase industrial and agricultural production in the jform outlined the mechanical and chemical expedients |are not sufficient. The abilities of the humans who have [to apply these expedients must be developed accordingly. jJust as the peasants and the manufacturing workers ofthe past century had to change their whole mode of liv- jing, had to become entirely different men when they were ipulled into big indutry, so will the common administra- \n of production by society as a whole and the resulting j
new development of production need and produce dif-ferent men. The common administration of productioncannot be carried on by men as they live today whereevery one is subordinated to one branch of production, is
21
chained to it, is exploited by it; everyone has only oneof his abilities developed at the expense of all others,knows only one simple manipulation in the production ofa part of a part of his particular branch of production.Even industry of today has less and less use for men ofthis sort. Industry carried on by society in common andsystematically, needs men whose abilities are developedin all directions and who are able to view the whole sys-tem of production. The hitherto existing division of la-bor, which makes one into a farmer, another one into ashoemaker, a third one into a factory hand, and a fourthinto a stock speculator which has been undermined evennow by the machine process, will disappear completely.Education will lead the young people quickly through thewhole system of production and will put them into a pos-ition to permit them to enter successively one branch ofproduction after the other always in accordance witheither the needs of society or with their individual pref-erence. It will therefore take from them their one-sidedcharacter which is forced upon them by the present divis-ion of labor. In this way a Communistically organizedsociety will give its members a chance to apply theirversatile abilities and talents. By this process the dif-ferent classes must necessarity disappear. The Com-munistically organized society on the one hand is incom-patible with the existence of classes, and on the other,itself creates the means by which class differences willbe eliminated.
It follows from this, that the contrast between city andcountry will likewise disappear. Very material reasonswill necessitate the operation of agriculture and industryby the same individuals instead of by two differentclasses. The scattering of the agricultural population inthe rural districts aside from the crowding of the indus-trial population in the big cities is a condition character-istic of the low stage of development of agriculture andindustry and is a handicap to all further development, ahandicap felt even at this moment.
22
The general assocition of all members of society forcommon and systematic exploitation of the productiveforces; the extension of production to a degree that allneeds are satisfied; the discontinuance of a condition inwhich the needs of one are satisfied at the expense ofthe other; the complete destruction of classes and classantagonisms; the many sided development of the abili-ties and talents of all members of society by the elimin-ation of the hitherto dominating division of labor, by in-dustrial education, by constant change of activity, byparticipation of all in the enjoyment of the good andnecessary things of life produced by common effort;amalgamation of city and country; those are the mainresults of the abolition of private property-
21. Question. What inf luence w i l l Communis t societyhave on the f a m i l y ?
A n s w e r : It will make the relation of the two sexesto each other a purely private affair which will interestonly those concerned and in which society as a wholehas no reason to interfere. It can do that because iteliminates private property and educates children in com-mon and thus destroys the two bases of the hithertoprevailing marriage, namely, the dependency of womanon man and of the children on the parents by reason ofprivate property. In this there also lies the answer tothe cries of the highly moral petty bourgeois againstthe "Communist community of women." Common prop-erty of women is a condition characteristic of bourgeoissociety and which today finds its clear expression inprostitution. Prostitution -is based entirely on privateproperty and will fall with it. A Communist organiza-tion therefore instead of introducing the community ofwomen, in reality eliminates that condition.
22. Question: What relations wi l l the Communistorganization have to the presently existing nat ionali t ies?(10).
A n s w e r : (The manuscript does not give any an-swer.)
23
23. Question: What will be its relation to existingreligions? (11.*)
(The manuscript does not contain any answer.)24. Question: In what do the Communists differ from
the socialists?A n s w e r : The Socialists are divided into three
classes. The first class consists of adherents of thefeudal and patriarchial society which was beaten downand is being daily destroyed by its own creation—bour-geois society. This class draws from the evils of presentday society the conclusions that the feudal and patri-archial society must be re-established because the latterdid not suffer from these evils. All their proposals fol-low either in straight or crooked lines to this goal. Thisclass of reactionary socialists, in spite of its allegedsympathy and its hot tears for the misery of the prole-tariat will always be energetically attacked by the Com-munists, because
1. It aims at something absolutely impossible.2. It tries to re-establish the rule of the nobility, of
the guild masters, and the manufacturers with all theirretinue of kings, officers, soldiers and priests, a societywhich, though free from the evils of present day society,was weighed down at least by as many other evils with-out the prospect of emancipation of the oppressed work-ers through a Communist organization.
3. It shows its real intentions every time, when theproletariat becomes revolutionary and Communist, andwhen these socialists immediately unite with the bour-geoisie against the proletariat.
The second class consists of adherents of present so-siety in whom the evils necessarily resulting from it,have created a fear for the continuation of this socialform. They therefore try to retain this present form ofsociety, and at the same time eliminate the evils con-nected with it. With this end in view, some proposelarge charity measures, others, gigantic reform systems,which, under the pretense of reorganizing society, try to
24
retain the basis of present day society and thus thissociety itself. These bourgeois socialists also shall befought continuously by the Communists because theywork for the enemies of the Communists and defend thevery society which the Communists want to overthrow.
The third class, finally, consists of democratic -social-ists who want to realize part of the measures mentionedin question eighteen by the same means that the Com-munists want to realize them, but they do want theseachievements as transitory measures for the establish-ment of Communism, but only as measures to alleviatethe misery and to eliminate the evils of present daysociety. These democratic socialists are either prole-tarians which are not yet sufficiently educated to theconditions of their emancipation or they are representa-tives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class, which, up to theachievement of democracy and those measures resultingfrom it, have in many ways the same interests as theproletarians. The Communists shall, therefore, in mo-ments of action, create an understanding with thesedemocratic socialists and shall, in general, follow a com-mon policy with them adapted to the needs of the mo-ment providing these socialists do not enter the servicesof the bourgeoisie and attack the Communists. That thiscommon action will not exclude discussion of the differ-ences with them is clear.
25. Question: What is the relation of the Commun-ists to the other political parties of our time? (1847) (12).
A n s w e r : This relation is different in the differentcountries. In England, France and Belgium where thebourgeoisie rules, the Communists still have, for thetime being, some common interests with the variousdemocratic parties, interests which are greater the morethe democrats approach, in the socialist measures pro-posed by them, the aims of the Communists, and theclearer and the more decisive they represent the inter-ests of the proletariat, and the more they base theiraction upon the proletariat. In England for instance, the
25
Chartists composed mostly of workers, are indefinitelynearer to the Communists than the democratic pettybourgeois or so-called radicals.
In America where a democratic constitution is estab-lished, the Communists will have to side with that partywhich wants to use this constitution against, the bour-geoisie and in the interests of the proletariat, that is,with the Agrarian National Reformers.
Though themselves, still in a very mixed party, theradicals in Switzerland are the only ones with whom theCommunists can have any dealings, and of these radicalsit is the ones in the Cantons of Vaud and Geneva whoare furthest advanced.
Germany is still faced with the decisive struggle be-tween the bourgeoisie and the absolute monarchy. Sincethe Communists cannot carry on a decisive struggle be-tween themselves and the ^bourgeoisie as long as thebourgeoisie itself is not the ruling class, it is in the in-terests of the Communists to see to its that the bour-geoisie attains power as quickly as possible so that itmay be overthrown again as quickly as possible. TheCommunists, therefore, must always take the side of theliberal bourgeoisie against the government, but it musttake every care not to fall victims to the self-deceptionsof the bourgeoisie or to the deceptive assurances aboutthe wonderful results of the victory of the bourgeoisie forthe proletariat. The only advantages which the victoryof the bourgeoisie will give to the Communists are:first, various concessions which will make it easier forthe Communists to take up the defense, the discussion,and the spreading of their principles which will facili-tate the unification of the proletariat into a closely knit-militant organized class, and secondly, in the. certaintythat from the day when the absolute government falls,the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariatis the order of the day. From this day on, the policiesof the parties of the Communists will be the same as inthose countries where the bourgeoisie already rules.
26
APPENDIX
The "Principles of Communism" is an historic docu-ment. It was born out of the historic situation preced-ing the revolutionary upheavals of 1848 in Europe. Itdeals in its immediate program with problems of itsday, but while we understand this document only whenwe consider it together with the time in which it waswritten, it also helps us to understand that time.
The lasting value of the document is the keennesswith which it sketches the future of social development.Engels' draft shares this quality with the CommunistManifesto. It is true that the eyes of the authors seethis development take place with a rapidity that didnot compare with the slow process of reality. But therevolutionary leader, who, with his keen intellect couldconstruct theoretically the social development of com-ing- generations in correct forms, cannot be reproachedbecause he could not see that the process he could de-scribe in minutes would take decades in history.
Engels' manuscript is even more optimistic in this re-spect that is the Manifesto.
The Engels' draft, like the Manifesto in its final form/builds on existing movements and tendencies. But nomatter what concessions it is willing to make to thesemovements and tendencies it insists on raising the ban-ner of an independent proletarian revolt. Though therevolution of its day appears as a bourgeois nationalistrevolution, as for instance in Germany, and although iturges alliance of the proletariat with this revolutionaryelement, yet it primarily raises the slogan of revolution-ary struggle against the bourgeoisie. It looks upon theimpending nationalist and bourgeois upheavals only asnecessary prerequisites for the proletarian revolution.It proposes to help the bourgeoisie into power becauseonly then can the second and last act of the revolution
27
take place, the dethronement of the bourgeoisie and theestablishment of a proletarian power.
The notes here appended will assist the reader in ob-taining a clearer understanding of the document and ofits value for the proletarian struggles of today.
(1) Engels is applying here, the word labor in its oldusage in place of labor power. In later years Engels andMarx always put labor power in places where labor was usedin this sense before.
"In order to be able to extract value from the consump-tion of a commodity, our friend, Moneybags, must be solucky as to find, within the sph'ere of circulation, in themarket, a commodity, whose use-value possesses the pecul-iar property of being a source of value, whose actual con-sumption, therefore, is itself an embodiment of labor, and,consequently, a creation of value. The possessor of moneydoes find on the market such a special commodity in capacityfor labor or labor power." Marx: Capital, Vol. I, p. 186.
(2) Manufacture is used here in a now obsolete sensemeaning production by hand (Latin: manus—hand and facio—make.) Manufacture was the first form of industrializationof production in the pre-machine age, the organization ofproduction by hand on a large scale as against individualproduction under the guild system. Manufacture was theforerunner of modern machine industry. Wherever used inthis document the word has this meaning.
' (3) The indispensable minimum of subsistence mentionedhere is not the absolute minimum on which a worker cankeep alive. The minimum cited here as the determiningfactor of the value of labor power includes also such thingsas would be considered luxuries in a backward country butare self-understood necessities in a highly developed coun-try. Thus the value of the commodity, labor power, variesin the different countries.
Marx says about this in "Capital" Vol. 1, Chapter VI:"If the owner of labor-power works today, tomorrow he
must again be able to repeat the same process in the sameconditions as regards health and strength. His means ofsubsistence must therefore be sufficient to maintain him inhis normal state as a laboring individual. His naturalwants, such as food, clothing, fuel, and housing, vary ac-cording to the climate and other physical conditions of hiscountry. On the other hand, the number and extent of hisso-called necessary wants, as also the modes of 'satisfyingthem, are themselves the product of historical development,and depend therefore to a great extent on the conditi9nsunder which, and consequently on the habits, and degree' ofcomfort in which, the class of free laborers has been formed.In contra-distinction therefore to the case of other commod-ities, there enters into the determination of the value of la-bor-power, a historical and moral element."
28
(4) Answer to question 9.The journeyman of the guildmaster was, as a rule, the
apprentice of yesterday and the master of tomorrow, whilethe modern proletarian is, as a rule, a wage worker for life.The journeyman of the artisan lived as a part of the familyof the latter and was part of the same social strata, whilethe proletarian is divided from his employer by a socialchasm which removes him, in education, in mode of living1,etc. a whole world from the capitalist. The journeyman ofthe artisan worked with tools that were his property, or, atleast, easily became his property; the proletarian manipu-lates a machine, not his own &nd beyond his power to buy—firstly, because he lacks the necessary means, and, secondly,the machine is practically useless except as a part of awhole system of machines that make up the factory and per-mit the production of a commodity only by their common orsuccessive use. The journeyman of the independent artisanwas an artisan himself; the quality of his product dependenton his skill; the modern proletarian is a machine hand; thequality of his product depends mostly on the machine whilehe is responsible for the quantity. The journeyman and hismaster, the guild burgher, were protected against competi-tion by monopolistic guild charters; the proletarian of todayis a plaything of competition. The journeyman and hisguildmaster were reactionary and resisted economic progressbecause it destroyed their idyllic monopolist existence; theproletarian of today welcomes and assists economic progressbecause his final emancipation is dependent on the furtherestpossible development of all the productive forces of society.
(5) Bourgeois democracy made its bow to society witha very limited suffrage. Voting was a privilege of the prop-ertied classes. A change has taken place slowly. SinceEngels wrote this manuscript, bourgeois democracy has un-dergone a gradual change in outward form. With education,the press and pulpit under its absolute control, capitalismcould entrust the masses with the right to vote. Occasionalinterference in the calculations of the ruling groups by un-controllable moods of the voters is met with little correc-tives such as graft and corruption. A system of checks andbalances is a protection against any undesirable suddenpolitical changes. And against any danger of a serious po-litical revolt there always remains, for a corrective, thepolice and military power of the state. Thus it is not onlythe limitation of the suffrage to the bourgeoisie which assuresunrestricted and unqualified political control to that class.
However, at the time when Engels wrote this documentthe question of extension of suffrage was a revolutionarydemand of large masses in France and England. It was forthis reason that the author of the "Principles" emphasizedthe importance of limited suffrage for bourgeois control ofthe state.
(6) The right of parliaments to grant taxes is the foun-dation of tremendous power, even in a pseudo constitutionalmonarchy, such as Germany was before the world war. Thedependency of the government on parliament for its only
29
steadily yielding source of income, taxes and tariffs, etc.,forces even the semi-feudal monarchy into the role of aservant to the bourgeoisie. The monarch claiming to ruleby the grace of God sinks into the position of a lackey ofcapitalism, reigning by the 'grace of the bourgeoisie.
Capitalism, however, at the same time, changes the eco-nomic basis of the old nobility and thus turns it into a sub-division of the modern capitalist class representing mostlyagrarian capital.
(7) Engels wrote this manuscript on the eve of arevolutionary upheaval, the shadow of which was visible tohis keen eyes even then. His enthusiastic welcome for thecoming event was caused in the main by his conviction thata new revolution, in France for instance, could make itsappearance only as a proletarian revolution. Even in back-ward Germany the national revolution then due, could, inhis. eyes, only complete its task of creating a democraticnational state. With this accomplished, the bourgeois revo-lution would have dug its own grave into which it would bepushed unceremoniously by its energetic successor, the pro-letarian revolution. Marx shared these expectations.
This optimistic hope was not well founded. Engels him-self wrote about this view a half century later:
"History proved us and all those that thot like we didto have been incorrect. It has made clear that the stageof economic development on the continent was by far, notripe at that time for the elimination of capitalist production.It has proven this by the economic revolution which since1848, has taken hold of the whole continent and has onlysince then granted real citizenship to big industry in Prance,Austria, Hungary, Poland and lately also Russia, and whichhas made Germany absolutely an industrial country of thefirst order—all on a capitalist basis which in 1848 surely wasstill able to expand very much. It is just this industrialrevolution that has brought clarity into the relation of theclasses; which has eliminated a great number of intermed-iary groups that have come over from the manufacturingperiod and, in Eastern Europe, even from the artisans; whichhas created a real bourgeoisie and a real proletariat and haspushed these classes into the foreground of the stage ofsocial development. It is by this process that the strugglesbetween these two great classes, which in 1848 existed, out-side of England, only in Paris, and at best in a few bigindustrial centers, has been spread all over Europe and hastaken on an intensity which was unthinkable in 1848. Then,the many sectarian 'gospels' with their panaceas—today,the generally accepted, transparently clear, and its last aimclearly defining theory of Marx. Then, the masses dividedinto, and differing by, localities and nationalities, thrownback and forth between enthusiasm and despair—today, agreat international army of Communists,—marching onwardirresistibly growing daily in numbers, in organization, indiscipline, in understanding and in its conviction of victory."
(8) Engels never entertained any illusions about the
30
possibilities of a peaceful revolution. In the foreword to"Civil Wars in Prance," Engels says: "The working classcannot confine itself to taking possession of a ready madegovernmental state machinery and setting it going for itsown ends." Or as Marx puts it: "The proletarian revolutionhas not to transmit the military and bureaucratic machineryfrom one hand to another as has been done1 up to the present,but must break it."
If in spite of that, Engels does not deny categoricallyall chances of a peaceful revolution it is because he did notwant to frighten unnecessarily his newly won adherents ofthe Paris club. Although they had dethroned their leaders,who were moved by illusions rather than by knowledge,they had not yet dethroned their own illusions. Engelstherefore presents armed conflicts as an historic probabilitydeclaring the Communists to meet the emergency when itarises. Thus he did justice to his convictions and yet didnot frighten his new friends beyond the boundary lines ofhis influence.
In the Manifesto the two friends did no longer make suchconcessions. There they say:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views andaims. They openly declare that their ends can be attainedonly by the forcible overthrow of all existing social condi-tions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic rev-olution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but theirchains. They have a world to win.
"Working men of all countries, unite!"(9) Comparing the draft of Engels with the final form'
of the Manifesto, it will be noted that the Manifesto pro-poses more radical measures than the draft. The draft sug-gests limitation of inheritance, the Manifesto demands abo-lition: the draft proposes expropriation of land gradually andfor compensation, the Manifesto demands immediate andcomplete expropriation without compensation. Public or-ganization of work and erection of palaces of labor has beendropped entirely by the Manifesto. >
Engels was influenced in some of his immediate demandsby existing tendencies in France, by Louis Blanc and others.
For Engels, the demand for a democratic constitutiondid not express the form of proletarian rule- but a conditionpermitting the organization of the proletariat for politicalstruggle for the setting up of a proletarian dictatorship.Criticizing the name Social-Democrats in 1894, Engels said:"Social-Democrat . . . is inexact as a name for a partywhose economic program is not simply a general socialistone, but definitely Communist—for a party whose finalpolitical aim is the suppression of the state and, therefore,also democracy."
(10) The Communist Manifesto answers this question asfollows:
"National differences, and antagonisms between peoples,are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the develop-ment of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the
31
world-market, to uniformity in the mode of production andin the conditions of life corresponding1 thereto,
"The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them tovanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilizedcountries at least, is one of the first conditions for theemancipation of the proletariat.
"In proportion .as the exploitation of one individual byanother is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation byanother will also be put an end to. In proportion as therantagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, thehostility of one nation to another will come to an end."
(11) About religion and Communism we read in theCommunist Manifesto:
"Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man'sideas, views, and conceptions, in one word, man's conscious-ness, changes with every change in the conditions of hismaterial existence, in his social relations and in his sociallife?
"What else does the history of ideas prove, than that in-tellectual production changes in character in proportion asmaterial production is changed? The ruling ideas of eachage have ever been the ideas of its ruling class. . . .
"When the ancient world was in its last throes, the an-cient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Chris-tian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas,feudal society fought its death-battle with the then revolu-tionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and free-dom of conscience, merely gave expression to the sway of'free competition within the domain of knowledge. . . .
"The Communist revolution is the most radical rupturewith traditional property relations; no wonder that this de-velopment involves the most radical rupture with traditionalideas."
(12) At the time when the "Principles" were written,there existed practically no proletarian parties anywhere.The political action of the incomparably small groups ofCommunists had to connect up with the activities of existingprogressive political groups. Altho all these groups were moreor less dominated by bourgeois ideology, even the most pro-letarian—the Chartist movement in England, yet thesegroups were revolutionary. Engels made it clear, however,that the Communists carry on independent politics from thesemovements and accompany them only so long as their roadsmay lay together.
THE END
32
4 Numbers Readyin
THE LITTLE RED LIBRARYNo. 1 No. 2
Trade Unions Class Strugglein America vs.
By ClassWm. 2. Foster, r* . \ » -CollaborationP. cannon,E. R. Browder By Earl R. Browder
No. 3. No. 4
Principles of Worker Cor-Communism respondents
Frederick Engels'Original Draft of the Wh*J,^ *? v.,^her*Communist Manifesto When . Why
Translation of HowMax Bedacht By Wm. F. Dunne
IN PREPARATIONAnd in addition to other numbers soon to be announcedShop Committees and Factory Councils
J. W. JohnstoneThe Negro in Industry in America ,.Wm. P. DunneA Short History of the Workers Party
Alexander BittelmanConcentration of Capital in America, Earl R. BrowderThe World Rule of Wall Street Manuel GomezMartyrs of the Communist Movement....,.,,
(Biographical Sketches & Photos)And Stories by Russian Authors
The Mother F. BeresovskyTwo Generations George NikiforovThe Law Breakers Lydia SeifulinaThe Red Landing^ Arjny, Bimitri Furmanov
All Numbers 10 Cents Each(Twelve Copies for One Dollar)
Orders Accepted to be Filled on Publication
The Sourceof
All Communist LiteratureThe Dai ly Worker Pub l i sh ing C < > . , in addition u»
the publ ica t ion of The DAILY WORKER, the onlyEnglish daily Communist newspaper in the world,publishes alyo the Workers Monthly—a Communistmagazine. It lias now taken over the Litoratur*-Department of t i le Workers ((Communist) Party.
It has <lra.\vn up an extensive piMgram of ne\publications.—including the Little Hod Library—andtranwlaLions and roprints of the classics and current\vorks of the revolutionary movement.
The Daily Worker Publishing Co. is also agent forall foreign Communist and other labor publications.
A ful l descript ive catalouru«- s\l be sent to you onrequest from "the source of all Communist literaturein this country"—
THE DAILY WORKER PUBLISHING CO.1113 W. Washington Blvd. Chicago, III.
^290
Numbers Readyin
THE LITTLE RED LIBRARY4 4
No. 1
Trade Unionsin America
Wm. 2. Foster,Jas. P. Cannon,E. R. Browder
No. 2
Class Strugglevs.
ClassCollaborationBy Earl R. Browder
No. 3.
Principles ofCommunism
Frederick Engels'Original Draft of theCommunist Manifesto
Translation ofMax Bedacht
No. 4Worker Cor-respondents
WhatWhen
WhereWhy
How
By Wm. F. Dunne
IN PREPARATIONAnd in addition to other numbers soon to be announcedShop Committees and Factory Councils
.....J. W. JohnstoneThe Negro in Industry in America Wm. P. DunneA Short History of the Workers Party
.....Alexander BittelmanConcentration of Capital in America, Earl R. BrowderThe World Rule of Wall Street Manuel GomezMartyrs of the Communist Movement....*..
' (Biographical Sketches & Photos)And Stories by Russian Authors
The Mother F. BeresovekyTwo Generations George NikiforovThe Law Breakers Lydia SeifulinaThe Red Landing1 Arjny, Dimitri Furmanov
All Numbers 10 Cents Each(Twelve Copies for One Dollar)
Orders Accepted to be Filled on Publication
The Sourceof
All Communist Literature
flKKK. the onlyslj' Communist nowspapor in the world,
pu i Workers Month! luniatIt atur*-
it H 1^
publi' includingnd reprints of tl
1 'lilt i^'' *1ON
iy Worker Publiahin;t and
in this country'
mmunist) Party.
I jibs andand curj
i . is «il: nt forlabor publications.
ill :i tnu ratur*1
THE DAILY WORKER PUBLISHING CO.1113 W. Washington Blvd. Chicago, III.
