In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
How do the Communists relate to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.
The Communists do not form a separate party that opposes other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They have no interests separate from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
They do not create their own sectarian principles to shape the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: (1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. (2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists differ from other working-class parties only in these ways: (1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of different countries, Communists highlight the shared interests of the entire proletariat, regardless of nationality. (2) The working class’s struggle against the bourgeoisie must pass through various stages. At every stage, Communists always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
In practice, therefore, the Communists are the most advanced and determined section of every country’s working-class parties. The Communists push all the other sections forward. In theory, the Communists have an advantage over the great majority of the proletariat. The Communists clearly understand the proletarian movement’s direction, its conditions, and its overall results in the end.
The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The Communists share the same immediate aim as all other proletarian parties. That aim is to form the proletariat into a class, overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie, and win political power for the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of Communism.
The Communists’ theoretical conclusions are not based in any way on ideas or principles invented or discovered by self-proclaimed universal reformers. These conclusions simply describe, in general terms, real relationships arising from an existing class struggle. These relationships grow out of a historical movement happening right before our eyes. Abolishing existing property relations is not at all unique to Communism.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
All property relations throughout history have continually changed in response to changes in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The French Revolution, for example, replaced feudal property with bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
What sets Communism apart is not the abolition of property in general, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete form of a system of production and ownership. This system rests on conflicts between classes, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
In this sense, the Communists’ theory can be summed up in one sentence: Abolish private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
We Communists have been accused of wanting to abolish the right to acquire property through a person’s own labor. Such property is said to be the foundation of all personal freedom, activity, and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Hard-won property, acquired and earned through your own efforts! Do you mean the property of small craftspeople and small farmers, a form that existed before bourgeois property? There is no need to abolish this kind of property. Industrial development has already largely destroyed it and continues to destroy it every day.
Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?
Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?
But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage-labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.
But does wage labor create any property for the worker? Not a bit. Wage labor creates capital, the kind of property that exploits wage labor. Capital can grow only by creating a new supply of wage labor to exploit. Property in its current form rests on the conflict between capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this conflict.
To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.
Being a capitalist means having not just a personal but also a social status in production. Capital is a collective product. It can be put to work only through the united action of many members of society. Indeed, ultimately, capital requires the united action of all members of society to be put to work.
Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.
Capital, therefore, is not a personal power but a social one.
When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class-character.
So when capital becomes common property, owned by all members of society, personal property does not become social property. Only the social character of the property changes. The property loses its class character.
Let us now take wage-labour.
Let us now look at wage labor.
The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence, which is absolutely requisite in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with, is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.
The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, that is, the bare essentials needed to survive as a laborer. So what wage laborers gain through their work is only enough to sustain and reproduce a bare existence. We have no intention of abolishing this personal use of the products of labor. Such use sustains and reproduces human life, leaving no surplus to command the labor of others. All we want to abolish is the misery of these conditions. Under these conditions, laborers live only to increase capital. They are allowed to live only as far as the interests of the ruling class require.
In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.
In bourgeois society, workers' labor serves only to increase the wealth accumulated through past labor. In Communist society, that accumulated wealth serves only to broaden, enrich, and improve workers' lives.
In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
So in bourgeois society, the past dominates the present. In Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society, capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
And the bourgeoisie call ending this state of affairs the abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The goal is certainly to abolish bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom.
By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
Under the current bourgeois system of production, freedom means free trade, the freedom to buy and sell.
But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.
But if buying and selling disappear, so does free buying and selling. Our bourgeoisie talks about free buying and selling, along with all its other “brave words” about freedom in general. Such talk has meaning, if any, only in contrast to restricted trade and the constrained traders of the Middle Ages. But such talk has no meaning as an argument against the Communist abolition of buying and selling. Nor does it have meaning against the abolition of bourgeois conditions of production and the bourgeoisie itself.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
You are horrified that we intend to abolish private property. But in your society, private property has already been abolished for nine-tenths of the population. The few have private property only because those nine-tenths have none. So you condemn us for wanting to abolish a form of property that depends on this condition: the vast majority of society must have no property at all.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
In short, you accuse us of intending to abolish your property. Exactly. Abolishing your property is precisely what we intend.
From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say individuality vanishes.
Suppose labor can no longer be turned into capital, money, or rent, into social power that can be monopolized. That is, suppose individual property can no longer be turned into bourgeois property, into capital. From that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
So you must admit that by “individual” you mean only the bourgeois, the middle-class property owner. This person must indeed be swept aside, and their existence made impossible.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.
Communism takes away no one’s ability to claim society’s products as their own. It only takes away their ability to use those products to control other people’s labor.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
Critics object that if private property is abolished, all work will stop and we will all become lazy.
According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.
By this logic, bourgeois society should have collapsed long ago from sheer laziness. For its members who work gain nothing, while those who gain anything do not work. This entire objection merely repeats an obvious point: there can be no wage labor when there is no capital.
All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic modes of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.
All objections raised against Communist ways of producing and owning material goods have also been raised against Communist ways of producing and owning intellectual works. To the bourgeois, ending class property means ending production itself. In the same way, ending class culture means ending all culture.
That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.
He mourns the loss of that culture. But for the vast majority, that culture is nothing more than training to act like a machine.
But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.
But don’t argue with us as long as you judge our proposed abolition of bourgeois property by your bourgeois standards. Those standards include your ideas of freedom, culture, law, and so on. Your very ideas are nothing more than products of the conditions of bourgeois production and property. In the same way, your legal system is nothing more than your class’s will turned into law for all. The economic conditions of your class’s existence determine the basic nature and direction of that will.
The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property—historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production—this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.
Your selfish misunderstanding leads you to treat your current social arrangements as eternal laws of nature and reason. These arrangements arise from your present system of production and form of property ownership. They are historical relationships that emerge and disappear as production develops. You share this misunderstanding with every ruling class before you. You clearly see that ancient forms of property were temporary, and you admit the same about feudal property. But of course, you are forbidden to admit the same about your own bourgeois form of property.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
Abolish the family! Even the most radical people react with outrage at this infamous proposal from the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
What is the foundation of today’s family, the bourgeois family? Capital and private gain. In its fully developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this arrangement has its counterpart in the virtual absence of family life among proletarians and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
The bourgeois family will naturally disappear when its counterpart disappears. Both will disappear when capital disappears.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
Do you accuse us of wanting to stop parents from exploiting their children? We plead guilty to this crime.
But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
But you will say we destroy the most sacred relationships when we replace education at home with education by society.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
And your education! Isn’t education also social, shaped by the social conditions in which you educate? Isn’t education shaped by society’s direct or indirect involvement, through schools and so on? The Communists did not invent society’s involvement in education. They seek only to change the nature of that involvement and free education from the ruling class’s influence.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
The bourgeoisie's empty talk about family, education, and the sacred bond between parent and child is disgusting. It becomes even more disgusting as Modern Industry tears apart all family ties among the proletarians. At the same time, Modern Industry turns their children into mere goods for sale and tools of labor.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.
But you Communists would make women common property, the whole bourgeoisie screams in unison.
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
The bourgeois sees his wife as nothing more than a tool of production. He hears that the tools of production are to be used by everyone in common. Naturally, he can only conclude that women will also be shared by everyone.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
He has no idea that the real goal is to stop treating women as mere tools of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Besides, nothing is more ridiculous than our bourgeoisie’s self-righteous outrage at the sharing of women. Our bourgeoisie pretends that the Communists will openly and officially establish this practice. The Communists have no need to introduce the sharing of women. The practice has existed for almost as long as humanity can remember.
Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Our bourgeois have their proletarians’ wives and daughters at their disposal, not to mention ordinary prostitutes. But that is not enough for them. They take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
Bourgeois marriage is really a system in which wives are shared. So, at most, the Communists might be accused of wanting to replace a hypocritically hidden sharing of women with an openly legalized one. Beyond that, abolishing the current system of production must obviously end the sharing of women that this system creates, that is, prostitution, both public and private.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The Communists are also accused of wanting to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
Workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they do not have. The proletariat must first gain political control, become the nation’s leading class, and make itself the nation. For that reason, the proletariat is itself national to that extent, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world-market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
National differences and hostility between peoples are disappearing more and more each day. This is because of the growth of the bourgeoisie, free trade, and the world market. Increasing uniformity in production methods and the living conditions that go with them also drives this change.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
The proletariat’s rule will make them disappear even faster. United action, at least among the leading civilized countries, is one of the first requirements for freeing the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.
As exploitation of one person by another ends, exploitation of one nation by another will also end. As conflict between classes within a nation disappears, hostility between nations will come to an end.
The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Criticisms of Communism based on religion, philosophy, or ideology in general do not deserve serious consideration.
Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
Does it take deep insight to understand how people’s ideas, views, and beliefs change? In short, people’s consciousness changes with every change in their material living conditions, social relationships, and social lives.
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
What else does the history of ideas prove? It proves that the way ideas are produced changes as the way material goods are produced changes. The dominant ideas of every age have always been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express the fact, that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they are simply expressing a fact. The elements of a new society have formed within the old society. And old ideas break down at the same pace as the old conditions of life.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
As the ancient world neared its end, Christianity defeated the ancient religions. In the 18th century, Christian ideas gave way to rationalist ideas. At the same time, feudal society fought its final battle against the bourgeoisie, who were then revolutionary. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely expressed the dominance of free competition in intellectual life.
“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”
“Of course,” some will say, “religious, moral, philosophical, and legal ideas have changed throughout history. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law have always survived these changes.”
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
“Besides, there are eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, and so on, shared by all forms of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths. Communism abolishes all religion and all morality instead of giving them a new foundation. Communism therefore goes against all past historical experience.”
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
What does this accusation really amount to? The history of all past societies has consisted of the development of conflicts between classes. These conflicts took different forms in different periods.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.
But whatever forms they may have taken, all past ages share one fact: one part of society exploited another. So it is no surprise that, despite its many different expressions, past societies’ shared thinking follows certain common patterns or general ideas. These patterns or ideas cannot disappear completely until conflicts between classes disappear entirely.
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
The Communist revolution is the most radical break with traditional property relations. No wonder, then, that as the revolution develops, it brings the most radical break with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.
But let's move on from the bourgeois objections to Communism.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy.
As we saw earlier, the working-class revolution begins by bringing the proletariat to power. Bringing the proletariat to power means winning the battle for democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
The proletariat will use its political power to gradually seize all capital from the bourgeoisie. It will centralize all means of production in the hands of the State, that is, of the proletariat organized as the ruling class. The proletariat will also use its political power to increase overall productive capacity as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
Of course, at first, this can only be achieved through authoritarian attacks on property rights and the conditions of bourgeois production. It therefore requires measures that appear economically inadequate and unsustainable. But as the movement develops, these measures go beyond their initial scope and require further attacks on the old social order. They are unavoidable as a means of completely transforming the mode of production.
These measures will of course be different in different countries.
These measures will, of course, vary from country to country.
Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries, the following will apply fairly broadly.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
1. Abolish private ownership of land and use all land rents for public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
2. A steeply rising income tax rate as income increases.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
3. End all inheritance rights.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
4. Seize the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
5. Put credit under State control through a national bank funded by the State and holding an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
6. Bring communication and transport systems under centralized State control.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
7. Expand factories and production equipment owned by the State. Bring unused land into cultivation and improve soil generally, following a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
8. Everyone must be equally required to work. Establish organized armies of workers, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
9. Combine agriculture with manufacturing. Gradually eliminate the distinction between town and country by distributing the population more evenly across the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. End children’s factory labor in its current form. Combine education with industrial production, and so on, and so on.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
As society develops, class distinctions will disappear, and all production will come under one vast association of the whole nation. When that happens, public power will lose its political character. Political power, strictly speaking, is simply the organized power of one class to oppress another. If circumstances force the proletariat to organize as a class in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, and if the proletariat becomes the ruling class through revolution and forcibly sweeps away the old conditions of production, then the proletariat will also eliminate the conditions that make class conflict and classes themselves possible. By doing so, the proletariat will also have abolished its own rule as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
We will replace the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class conflicts, with an association. In this association, the free development of each person is the condition for the free development of all.