Bourgeois and Proletarians

The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.

The history of all societies that have existed so far is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

Free people and slaves, patricians and plebeians, lords and serfs, guild masters and journeymen constantly opposed one another. In short, oppressors and oppressed fought without interruption, sometimes in secret, sometimes openly. Each struggle ended either in a revolutionary rebuilding of society as a whole or in both opposing classes collapsing together.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

In earlier periods of history, society was almost everywhere divided into a complex system of groups and social ranks. In ancient Rome, there were patricians, knights, plebeians, and slaves. In the Middle Ages, there were feudal lords, vassals, guild masters, journeymen, apprentices, and serfs. Almost all these classes were further divided into lower ranks.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.¹

Modern bourgeois society has grown from the ruins of feudal society, but has not eliminated class conflicts. Instead, it has replaced the old classes, conditions of oppression, and forms of struggle with new ones. Our era, the era of the bourgeoisie, has one distinctive feature, however: it has simplified class conflicts. Society as a whole is increasingly splitting into two great hostile camps. These two great classes face each other directly: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.¹

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The serfs of the Middle Ages gave rise to the citizens of the earliest towns with official charters. From these townspeople, the bourgeoisie began to develop.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The discovery of America and the voyage around the Cape opened new opportunities for the rising bourgeoisie. Markets in the East Indies and China, the colonization of America, and trade with the colonies helped drive unprecedented growth. So did the expansion of the means of exchange and the general increase in goods. Commerce, shipping, and industry grew as never before. This growth, in turn, rapidly strengthened the revolutionary forces within the crumbling feudal society.

The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

Under the feudal system of industry, closed guilds controlled all industrial production. This system could no longer meet the growing demands of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The manufacturing middle class pushed the guild masters aside. The division of labor between separate guilds gave way to a division of labor within each workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Meanwhile, markets kept expanding, and demand kept rising. Even manufacturing could no longer keep up. Then steam power and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The giant of Modern Industry replaced manufacturing. Industrial millionaires replaced the industrial middle class. These millionaires led entire industrial armies and formed the modern bourgeoisie.

Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its time, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

Modern industry has created the world market, which the discovery of America paved the way for. This market has driven enormous growth in trade, shipping, and land transportation. In turn, this growth has fueled the expansion of industry. As industry, trade, shipping, and railways expanded, the bourgeoisie grew in the same proportion. It increased its capital and pushed every class inherited from the Middle Ages into the background.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

So we see that the modern bourgeoisie itself emerged from a long process of development. This development involved a series of revolutions in how goods were produced and exchanged.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune; here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France), afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

Each step in the bourgeoisie’s development brought a corresponding advance in the class’s political power. At first, the bourgeoisie was an oppressed class under the rule of the feudal nobility. In the medieval commune, the bourgeoisie formed an armed, self-governing association. In some places, the bourgeoisie formed independent urban republics (as in Italy and Germany). Elsewhere, the bourgeoisie formed the monarchy’s taxpaying “third estate” (as in France). Later, during the manufacturing period before Modern Industry, the bourgeoisie served either semi-feudal or absolute monarchies, balancing the nobility’s power. In fact, the bourgeoisie was the cornerstone of the great monarchies in general. Finally, with the establishment of Modern Industry and the world market, the bourgeoisie won exclusive political control in the modern representative State. The executive branch of the modern State is nothing but a committee managing the common affairs of the entire bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie has played a highly revolutionary role in history.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors,” and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment.” It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

Wherever the bourgeoisie has gained power, it has ended all feudal, patriarchal, and idyllic relationships. It has ruthlessly torn apart the varied feudal ties that bound people to their “natural superiors.” It has left no bond between people except naked self-interest and heartless “cash payment.” It has drowned the heavenly ecstasies of religious devotion, chivalrous enthusiasm, and narrow-minded sentimentality in the icy waters of selfish calculation. It has reduced personal worth to market value. It has replaced countless legally guaranteed freedoms, once considered untouchable, with one unscrupulous freedom: Free Trade. In short, it has replaced exploitation hidden behind religious and political illusions with naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has stripped away the halo of every profession once honored and held in awe. The bourgeoisie has turned doctors, lawyers, priests, poets, and scientists into its paid wage workers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped the family of its sentimental veil and reduced family relationships to nothing more than money relationships.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie has revealed how the brutal displays of strength in the Middle Ages found their fitting counterpart in utter laziness. Those displays of strength are so admired by Reactionists. The bourgeoisie was the first to show what human effort can achieve. It has created wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals. It has carried out expeditions that overshadow all earlier Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly transforming the tools and machinery of production. In doing so, it transforms relationships within production and, with them, all relationships in society. By contrast, all earlier industrial classes depended on keeping the old methods of production unchanged. Constant upheaval in production, endless disruption of all social conditions, and lasting uncertainty and unrest set the bourgeois era apart. No earlier era was like it. All fixed, rigid relationships are swept away, along with all the old, revered prejudices and opinions that accompany them. All newly formed relationships become outdated before they can harden into fixed patterns. All that is solid melts into air. All that is holy is stripped of its sacred status. People are finally forced to look clearly and soberly at their actual living conditions and their relationships with one another.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The need for ever-expanding markets for its products drives the bourgeoisie across the entire globe. It must find a foothold everywhere, settle everywhere, and build connections everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

By exploiting the world market, the bourgeoisie has given production and consumption in every country an international character. To the great dismay of reactionaries, the bourgeoisie has stripped industry of its national foundations. All long-established national industries have been destroyed or are being destroyed every day. New industries are replacing them. Adopting these new industries becomes a matter of life and death for all civilized nations. These industries no longer process local raw materials, but raw materials brought from the most distant regions. Their products are consumed not only at home, but in every corner of the globe. Old needs, once met by goods produced within the country, give way to new needs. Meeting these new needs requires products from distant lands and climates. The old local and national isolation and self-sufficiency give way to connections in every direction and universal dependence among nations. The same is true of intellectual production as of material production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become the shared property of all. National bias and narrow-mindedness become increasingly impossible. From the many national and local literatures, a world literature emerges.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie rapidly improves all tools of production and makes communication vastly easier. Through these changes, the bourgeoisie draws all nations, even the most barbarian, into civilization. The low prices of its goods are the heavy artillery with which the bourgeoisie batters down all Chinese walls. With these prices, the bourgeoisie forces the barbarians’ fiercely stubborn hatred of foreigners to surrender. The bourgeoisie forces all nations to adopt its system of production or face extinction. It forces them to introduce what it calls civilization into their societies, that is, to become bourgeois themselves. In short, the bourgeoisie creates a world in its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie has brought the countryside under the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities and greatly increased the urban population compared with the rural population. In doing so, the bourgeoisie has rescued a considerable part of the population from the isolation of rural life. Just as the bourgeoisie has made the countryside dependent on the towns, it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on civilized ones. It has made nations of peasants dependent on nations of the bourgeoisie, and the East dependent on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff. The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground—what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

The bourgeoisie increasingly brings together the scattered population, means of production, and property. It has brought production together and concentrated property in a few hands. Political centralization was the necessary result. Previously, provinces were independent or only loosely connected, with separate interests, laws, governments, and tax systems. These provinces were merged into one nation, with one government, one legal code, and one national class interest. The nation had one border and one customs tariff. In barely a hundred years of rule, the bourgeoisie has created greater productive forces than all previous generations combined. These achievements include harnessing nature’s forces for human use, machinery, and applying chemistry to industry and agriculture. They also include steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing entire continents for farming, and turning rivers into navigable waterways. Whole populations have been conjured out of the ground. What earlier century had even suspected that such productive forces lay dormant in society’s collective labor?

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

We can see, then, that the means of production and exchange developed within feudal society. The bourgeoisie built itself on this foundation. At a certain stage, these means outgrew the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged goods. The feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing could no longer accommodate the productive forces that had developed. In short, feudal property relations had become chains holding those forces back. Those chains had to be broken, and they were broken.

Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeois class.

Free competition took their place, bringing a social and political system suited to free competition. Along with it came the economic and political dominance of the bourgeois class.

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity—the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand inforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

A similar movement is happening before our eyes. Modern bourgeois society has its own systems of production, exchange, and property. This society has called into being enormous means of production and exchange. Now it resembles a sorcerer who can no longer control the powers of the underworld summoned by his spells. For decades, the history of industry and trade has been nothing but a revolt by modern productive forces. These forces rebel against modern conditions of production and the property relations that sustain the bourgeoisie and its rule. We need only mention the recurring commercial crises. Each crisis threatens the survival of the whole of bourgeois society more seriously than the last. During these crises, much of what has been produced is destroyed, along with much of the productive capacity previously created. An epidemic breaks out that would have seemed absurd in every earlier age: the epidemic of overproduction. Society suddenly finds itself thrown back into a temporary state of barbarism. It seems as if a famine or a devastating worldwide war has cut off every means of survival. Industry and trade seem destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilization, too much to live on, too much industry, too much trade. Society’s productive forces no longer help develop the conditions of bourgeois property. Instead, these forces have become too powerful for those conditions, which now hold them back. As soon as the productive forces break free, they throw all of bourgeois society into disorder. In doing so, they threaten the survival of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to contain the wealth they create. And how does the bourgeoisie overcome these crises? On one hand, by forcibly destroying vast amounts of productive capacity. On the other, by conquering new markets and exploiting existing markets more thoroughly. In other words, by preparing the way for wider and more destructive crises, while reducing the means of preventing them.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

The bourgeoisie used these weapons to bring down feudalism. Now those same weapons are turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons—the modern working class—the proletarians.

But the bourgeoisie has not only forged the weapons that will destroy it. It has also created the people who will wield those weapons: the modern working class, the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed—a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

As the bourgeoisie, that is, capital, grows, the proletariat, the modern working class, grows in the same proportion. These workers live only as long as they find work. And they find work only as long as their labor increases capital. These workers must sell themselves a piece at a time. They are commodities, like every other item bought and sold. As a result, they face all the uncertainties of competition and all the ups and downs of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of the machinery, etc.

Because of widespread machinery and the division of labor, the work of proletarians has lost all individual character. As a result, the work has lost all appeal for the worker. The worker becomes an attachment to the machine, needing only the simplest, most monotonous, and most easily learned skill. So the cost of producing a worker consists almost entirely of the basic necessities needed to survive and have children. But the price of a commodity, and therefore of labor too, equals its cost of production. So the more repulsive the work becomes, the lower the wage falls. What is more, as machinery and the division of labor increase, the burden of work increases in the same proportion. Working hours grow longer, more work is demanded in the same time, machines run faster, and so on.

Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

Modern industry has turned the small workshop of the paternal master into the huge factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of workers, crowded into factories, are organized like soldiers. As privates in the industrial army, the workers serve under a complete chain of command, with officers and sergeants. The workers are slaves not only to the bourgeois class and the bourgeois state. Every day and every hour, they are also enslaved by the machine, the supervisor, and above all, the individual bourgeois factory owner. The more openly this tyranny declares profit to be its goal, the more petty, hateful, and embittering it becomes.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

The less skill and physical strength manual labor requires, the more women’s labor replaces men’s. In other words, this replacement increases as modern industry develops. Differences in age and sex no longer have any distinct social significance for the working class. All are tools of labor, more or less expensive to use depending on their age and sex.

No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The manufacturer's exploitation of the worker ends for now when the worker receives his wages in cash. Immediately, other members of the bourgeoisie descend on him: the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, and so on.

The lower strata of the middle class—the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants—all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by the new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

The lower ranks of the middle class include small traders, shopkeepers, retired tradespeople in general, craftspeople, and peasants. All these groups gradually sink into the proletariat. This happens partly because their small amounts of capital cannot support production on the scale required by Modern Industry. Their capital is overwhelmed by competition with large capitalists. It also happens partly because new production methods make their specialized skills worthless. Thus the proletariat draws its members from all classes of the population.

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

The proletariat develops through several stages. Its struggle against the bourgeoisie begins with its birth. At first, individual workers carry on the struggle. Then the workers in a factory join together, followed by workers in one trade in one locality. These workers fight the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They attack not the bourgeois conditions of production, but the tools and machinery of production themselves. They destroy imported goods that compete with their labor. They smash machines to pieces and set factories on fire. They try to restore by force the lost position of workers in the Middle Ages.

At this stage the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeoisie. Thus the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

At this stage, the workers still form a disorganized mass, scattered across the country and divided by competition among themselves. If workers anywhere come together in more organized groups, they do not yet do so through their own organizing efforts. Instead, their unity comes from the unity of the bourgeoisie. To achieve its own political goals, the bourgeoisie is forced to mobilize the entire proletariat. And for a time, the bourgeoisie is still able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians fight not their own enemies, but the enemies of their enemies. These include the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeoisie, and the petty bourgeoisie. Thus, the entire historical movement remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Every victory won in this way is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (Trades Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there the contest breaks out into riots.

But as industry develops, the proletariat not only grows in number but also gathers in larger groups. Its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. Within the proletariat, interests and living conditions become increasingly alike as machinery wipes out all differences in work. At the same time, machinery reduces wages almost everywhere to the same low level. Growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make workers’ wages increasingly unstable. Machinery keeps improving at an ever faster pace, making workers’ livelihoods increasingly insecure. Conflicts between individual workers and individual bourgeois increasingly become conflicts between two classes. Workers then begin to form unions (trade unions) against the bourgeois. They band together to keep wages from falling. They establish permanent associations to prepare in advance for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the struggle erupts into riots.

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

From time to time, the workers win, but only temporarily. The real gain from their battles is not the immediate result, but the growing unity of the workers. Modern industry helps this unity grow by improving communication, bringing workers in different places into contact with one another. This contact was exactly what was needed to bring the many local struggles together. All these struggles had the same character, and together they became one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. With their poor roads, the burghers of the Middle Ages needed centuries to achieve such unity. Thanks to railways, modern proletarians achieve it in a few years.

This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.

Competition among workers themselves keeps disrupting the organization of the proletarians into a class and, as a result, into a political party. But the organization always rises again, stronger, more united, and more powerful. By exploiting divisions within the bourgeoisie, the workers’ organization forces lawmakers to recognize specific interests of workers. This is how the ten-hour bill was passed in England.

Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all times, with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own instruments of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Overall, conflicts between the classes of the old society advance the development of the proletariat in many ways. The bourgeoisie is constantly fighting. At first, the bourgeoisie fights the aristocracy. Later, the bourgeoisie fights those sections of its own class whose interests have come into conflict with industrial progress. Throughout, the bourgeoisie fights the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, the bourgeoisie is forced to appeal to the proletariat for help. In doing so, the bourgeoisie drags the proletariat into politics. The bourgeoisie therefore provides the proletariat with the tools for political and general education. In other words, the bourgeoisie gives the proletariat weapons to fight the bourgeoisie itself.

Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling classes are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

Furthermore, as we have already seen, industrial development forces entire sections of the ruling classes into the proletariat. Or at least it threatens their livelihoods. These groups also bring new sources of knowledge and progress to the proletariat.

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

Finally, as the class struggle approaches its decisive moment, the ruling class begins to break apart violently and unmistakably. In fact, the same process unfolds throughout society. The breakdown becomes so severe that a small section of the ruling class breaks away and joins the revolutionary class. The revolutionary class holds the future in its hands. Just as some nobles once joined the bourgeoisie, some members of the bourgeoisie now join the proletariat. In particular, some bourgeois thinkers make this shift after reaching a theoretical understanding of the historical movement as a whole.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

Of all the classes confronting the bourgeoisie today, only the proletariat is truly revolutionary. The other classes decline and eventually disappear as Modern Industry advances. The proletariat, by contrast, is Modern Industry’s unique and essential product. The lower middle class, small manufacturers, shopkeepers, artisans, and peasants all fight the bourgeoisie to survive as middle-class groups. So these groups are not revolutionary, but conservative. More than that, these groups are reactionary because they try to turn back the course of history. If these groups happen to be revolutionary, it is only because they face becoming part of the proletariat. In that case, these groups defend not their present interests, but their future interests. They abandon their own class position and adopt the proletariat’s.

The “dangerous class,” the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

The “dangerous class,” society’s scum, is a passively decaying mass cast off by old society’s lowest layers. Here and there, a proletarian revolution may sweep this class into the movement. But its living conditions make this class far more suited to serving as a paid tool of reactionary plots.

In the conditions of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family-relations; modern industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

The living conditions of the proletariat have already all but swept away the conditions of the old society as a whole. The proletarian owns no property. His relationship with his wife and children no longer has anything in common with bourgeois family relationships. Modern industrial work and modern subjection to capital have stripped him of every trace of national character. This is the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany. To him, law, morality, and religion are nothing but bourgeois prejudices. Behind each prejudice, a bourgeois interest lies in ambush.

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

All earlier classes that gained power tried to strengthen the position they had already secured. They did so by forcing all of society to follow their rules for acquiring property. The proletarians can take control of society’s productive forces only by abolishing their own previous way of acquiring property. In doing so, they must also abolish every other previous way of acquiring property. The proletarians have nothing of their own to protect and strengthen. Their mission is to destroy all previous protections and guarantees for individual property.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

All earlier movements in history were movements of minorities, or served the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the conscious, independent movement of the vast majority, acting in the interests of the vast majority. The proletariat is the lowest layer of our present society. It cannot move or rise up without blowing into the air all the layers of established society above it.

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

At first, the proletariat’s struggle against the bourgeoisie is national in form, though not in substance. The proletariat in each country must, of course, first settle matters with the bourgeoisie in that country.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

In outlining the broad stages of the proletariat’s development, we traced the civil war raging within existing society. This war, hidden to varying degrees, eventually breaks out into open revolution. At that point, the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the proletariat’s rule.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

As we have already seen, every society so far has been based on conflict between oppressing and oppressed classes. But to oppress a class, the oppressors must guarantee certain conditions for the oppressed. Those conditions must at least allow the oppressed to continue living in servitude. Under serfdom, the serf rose to become a member of the commune. Similarly, under the yoke of absolute feudal rule, the petty bourgeois managed to become a bourgeois. The modern worker, by contrast, does not rise as industry advances. Instead, he sinks further and further below even his own class’s conditions of survival. He becomes destitute, and destitution grows faster than population and wealth. Here it becomes clear that the bourgeoisie is no longer fit to be society’s ruling class. Nor is the bourgeoisie fit to impose its own conditions of existence on society as an overriding law. The bourgeoisie is unfit to rule because it cannot guarantee its slave’s survival even within slavery. The bourgeoisie cannot prevent him from sinking so low that it must feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under the bourgeoisie. In other words, the bourgeoisie’s existence is no longer compatible with society.

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

The bourgeois class can exist and rule only if capital is created and increased. Capital, in turn, depends on wage labor. Wage labor rests entirely on competition among workers. The bourgeoisie advances industry without intending the consequences. As industry advances, workers unite through association in revolutionary organization, instead of remaining isolated through competition. The development of modern industry therefore destroys the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces goods and claims them as its own. Above all, then, the bourgeoisie produces its own gravediggers. The fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.