Socialist and Communist Literature

Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political contest was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.

Their historical position led the aristocracies of France and England to take on the task of writing pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French revolution of July 1830 and the English reform movement, these aristocracies again lost to the hated upstart bourgeoisie. From then on, a serious political struggle was entirely out of the question. Only a literary battle remained possible. But even in literature, the old rallying cries of the restoration period could no longer be used.

In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy were obliged to lose sight, apparently, of their own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new master, and whispering in his ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe.

To win sympathy, the aristocracy had to pretend to set aside their own interests. They had to accuse the bourgeoisie of wrongdoing solely on behalf of the exploited working class. So the aristocracy took revenge by singing mocking songs about their new master. They also whispered dark predictions of coming disaster into their new master's ears.

In this way arose Feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.

This is how Feudal Socialism arose: half mourning, half mockery, half echo of the past, half threat of the future. At times, its bitter, witty, and sharp criticism struck the bourgeoisie to the very core. But Feudal Socialism always came across as ridiculous because it was completely unable to understand the course of modern history.

The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.

To rally the people, the aristocrats waved the proletarian begging bag in front of them like a banner. But whenever the people joined the aristocrats, the people spotted the old feudal coats of arms on the aristocrats’ backsides. And the people abandoned the aristocrats with loud, mocking laughter.

One section of the French Legitimists and “Young England” exhibited this spectacle.

Some of the French Legitimists and “Young England” put on this spectacle.

In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different, and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.

The feudalists point out that their way of exploiting people differed from that of the bourgeoisie. But they forget that they exploited people under very different conditions, which are now outdated. They show that the modern proletariat never existed under their rule. But they forget that the modern bourgeoisie necessarily grew out of their own form of society.

For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeoisie amounts to this, that under the bourgeois regime a class is being developed, which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society.

Moreover, they make so little effort to hide the reactionary nature of their criticism that their main accusation against the bourgeoisie is this: under the bourgeois regime, a class is developing that is destined to uproot the old social order completely.

What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat, as that it creates a revolutionary proletariat.

They blame the bourgeoisie less for creating a proletariat than for creating a revolutionary proletariat.

In political practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honour for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.

In political practice, therefore, they support all measures that use force against the working class. And in everyday life, despite their lofty talk, they stoop to gather golden apples fallen from the tree of industry. They trade truth, love, and honor for business in wool, beet sugar, and potato spirits.

As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism.

Just as the priest has always sided with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism sided with Feudal Socialism.

Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.

Nothing is easier than to give Christian self-denial a Socialist flavor. Has Christianity not spoken out against private property, marriage, and the State? Has Christianity not preached charity and poverty instead, along with celibacy, bodily self-punishment, monastic life, and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is nothing but the holy water the priest uses to bless the aristocrat’s bitterness.

The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The mediaeval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed, industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie.

The feudal aristocracy was not the only class ruined by the bourgeoisie. Nor was it the only class whose way of life withered and died in modern bourgeois society. Medieval townspeople and peasants who owned small plots of land were the forerunners of the modern bourgeoisie. In countries with little industrial and commercial development, these two classes still linger alongside the rising bourgeoisie.

In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced, in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.

In countries where modern civilization is fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has formed. This class shifts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, constantly renewing itself as a supplement to bourgeois society. But competition constantly forces individual members of this class down into the proletariat. As modern industry develops, these petty bourgeois even see a time approaching when their class will disappear entirely. They will no longer form an independent part of modern society. In manufacturing, agriculture, and trade, supervisors, estate managers, and shop assistants will take their place.

In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois regime, the standard of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but also in England.

In countries like France, peasants make up far more than half the population. Naturally, writers who supported the proletariat against the bourgeoisie criticized the bourgeois regime by peasant and petty-bourgeois standards. These writers defended the working class from the viewpoint of these intermediate classes. This gave rise to petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi led this school of thought, not only in France but also in England.

This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.

This school of Socialism analyzed the contradictions in modern production with great insight. It exposed economists’ hypocritical defenses of the system. It proved beyond dispute the disastrous effects of machinery and the division of labor. It also proved the concentration of capital and land in a few hands, along with overproduction and economic crises. It pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeoisie and peasants, and the misery of the proletariat. It highlighted the chaos in production and the glaring inequalities in the distribution of wealth. It exposed the industrial war of extermination between nations. It also pointed out the breakdown of old moral bonds, old family relationships, and old national identities.

In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange, within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.

However, in its practical aims, this form of Socialism seeks one of two things. It seeks to restore the old methods of production and exchange, along with old property relations and the old society. Or it seeks to force modern methods of production and exchange into the limits of old property relations. Modern methods have already shattered those old property relations, and were bound to do so. In either case, this form of Socialism is both reactionary and Utopian.

Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture, patriarchal relations in agriculture.

Its final message is: guilds for manufacturing, patriarchal relations in farming.

Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of Socialism ended in a miserable fit of the blues.

In the end, the hard facts of history wiped out all the intoxicating effects of self-deception. Then this form of Socialism sank into miserable gloom.

The Socialist and Communist literature of France, a literature that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that was the expression of the struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time when the bourgeoisie, in that country, had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism.

The Socialist and Communist literature of France arose under pressure from the ruling bourgeoisie. This literature expressed the struggle against bourgeois rule. It was introduced into Germany just as the German bourgeoisie began its own struggle against feudal absolute rule.

German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits, eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting, that when these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French social conditions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical significance, and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to the German philosophers of the eighteenth century, the demands of the first French Revolution were nothing more than the demands of “Practical Reason” in general, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie signified in their eyes the law of pure Will, of Will as it was bound to be, of true human Will generally.

German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and self-styled intellectuals eagerly seized on this literature. They forgot only that, when these writings moved from France to Germany, French social conditions did not come along. Under German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical relevance and became purely literary. Thus, eighteenth-century German philosophers saw the demands of the first French Revolution as nothing more than demands of “Practical Reason” in general. In their eyes, the revolutionary French bourgeoisie’s expression of its will represented the law of pure Will. They saw it as Will as it ought to be, as true human Will in general.

The world of the German literati consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience, or rather, in annexing the French ideas without deserting their own philosophic point of view.

The German literati focused solely on reconciling the new French ideas with their old philosophical beliefs. Or rather, they took over the French ideas without giving up their own philosophical standpoint.

This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign language is appropriated, namely, by translation.

This takeover happened in the same way that people adopt a foreign language: through translation.

It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic Saints over the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literati reversed this process with the profane French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic functions of money, they wrote “Alienation of Humanity,” and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois State they wrote “dethronement of the Category of the General,” and so forth.

Everyone knows how monks wrote silly accounts of Catholic Saints’ lives over manuscripts containing classical works from the ancient pagan world. The German literati reversed this process with secular French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For example, beneath the French criticism of money’s economic functions, they wrote “Alienation of Humanity.” Beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois State, they wrote “dethronement of the Category of the General,” and so on.

The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms they dubbed “Philosophy of Action,” “True Socialism,” “German Science of Socialism,” “Philosophical Foundation of Socialism,” and so on.

They added these philosophical phrases to the French historical critiques. They called this addition “Philosophy of Action,” “True Socialism,” “German Science of Socialism,” “Philosophical Foundation of Socialism,” and so on.

The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome “French one-sidedness” and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.

French Socialist and Communist writing was thus completely stripped of its force. In German hands, this writing no longer expressed the struggle of one class against another. Because of this, the German felt he had overcome “French one-sidedness”. He believed he represented not real needs, but the needs of truth. He believed he represented not the interests of the proletariat, but those of Human Nature, of Man in general. This Man belongs to no class and has no reality. He exists only in the misty world of philosophical fantasy.

This German Socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade in such mountebank fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic innocence.

This German Socialism took its schoolboy assignment so seriously and solemnly. It promoted its meager ideas with the showmanship of a quack. Meanwhile, this German Socialism gradually lost its bookish innocence.

The fight of the German, and especially, of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more earnest.

The German bourgeoisie, especially the Prussian bourgeoisie, grew more serious in their fight against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy. In other words, the liberal movement grew more serious.

By this, the long wished-for opportunity was offered to “True” Socialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things whose attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.

This gave “True” Socialism its long-awaited chance to challenge the political movement with Socialist demands. It could now heap the old curses on liberalism, representative government, bourgeois competition, and bourgeois freedom of the press. It could also condemn bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality. And it could preach to the masses that they had nothing to gain and everything to lose from this bourgeois movement. At just the right moment, German Socialism forgot what the French criticism it so foolishly echoed took for granted. That criticism assumed that modern bourgeois society already existed, along with its economic conditions and a political constitution suited to them. Yet establishing that society, those economic conditions, and that political constitution was the very aim of the ongoing struggle in Germany.

To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires and officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.

Autocratic governments and their followers, priests, professors, country landowners, and officials, welcomed it as a scare tactic against the threatening bourgeoisie.

It was a sweet finish after the bitter pills of floggings and bullets with which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings.

It was a sweet finish after the bitter pills of whippings and bullets. At that very time, those same governments were using whippings and bullets against German working-class uprisings.

While this “True” Socialism thus served the governments as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of the German Philistines. In Germany the petty bourgeois class, a relique of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.

“True” Socialism thus served governments as a weapon against the German bourgeoisie. At the same time, “True” Socialism directly represented a reactionary interest: the interests of the German Philistines. In Germany, the petty bourgeois class is a remnant of the sixteenth century. Since then, this class has constantly reappeared in various forms. This class is the real social foundation of the existing order.

To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction; on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. “True” Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.

Preserving this class means preserving the existing order in Germany. The bourgeoisie’s industrial and political dominance threatens this class with certain destruction. The threat comes from both the concentration of capital and the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. “True” Socialism seemed to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.

The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry “eternal truths,” all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public. And on its part, German Socialism recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine.

The robe was woven from cobwebs of abstract philosophy, embroidered with flowery language, and soaked in the dew of sickly sentiment. In this otherworldly robe, the German Socialists wrapped their pitiful “eternal truths,” all skin and bone. The robe helped them sell far more of their goods to such an audience. And German Socialism, for its part, increasingly recognized its own calling as the pompous spokesman for the petty-bourgeois Philistine.

It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the “brutally destructive” tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.

It declared the German nation the model nation, and the narrow-minded German petty bourgeois the typical human being. It gave every vile, petty act of this model man a hidden, higher, Socialist meaning. That meaning was the exact opposite of the act’s true character. It even went so far as to oppose Communism’s “brutally destructive” tendency directly. It also declared its lofty, impartial contempt for all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all so-called Socialist and Communist publications now circulating in Germany (1847) belong to this filthy, demoralizing literature.

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

Some of the bourgeoisie want to address social problems so that bourgeois society can continue to exist.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of Socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

This group includes economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, people seeking to improve workers’ conditions, and charity organizers. It also includes members of societies against cruelty to animals, fanatical opponents of alcohol, and small-time reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of Socialism has also been developed into complete systems.

We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.

We may point to Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

The socialist bourgeoisie want all the advantages of modern society without the struggles and dangers that necessarily come with them. They want society as it is, but without its revolutionary elements or the forces that break it apart. They want a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. Naturally, the bourgeoisie sees the world it dominates as the best possible world. And bourgeois Socialism turns this comfortable view into various systems, some more fully developed than others. Bourgeois Socialism calls on the proletariat to put such a system into practice and march straight into a social New Jerusalem. But in reality, this demand only asks the proletariat to stay within the limits of existing society. At the same time, the proletariat must abandon all its hostile ideas about the bourgeoisie.

A second and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class, by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economic relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

A second form of this Socialism was more practical but less systematic. It sought to discredit every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class. It argued that political reform alone could offer workers no benefit. Only changes in their material living conditions, in economic relations, could benefit them. But by changes in material living conditions, this form of Socialism does not mean abolishing bourgeois relations of production. Only a revolution can abolish those relations. Instead, it means administrative reforms that leave those relations in place. These reforms therefore do not affect the relations between capital and labor in any way. At best, they reduce the cost of bourgeois government and simplify its administrative work.

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression, when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Bourgeois Socialism finds its proper expression only when it becomes nothing more than a figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Tariffs: for the benefit of the working class. Prison reform: for the benefit of the working class. This claim is the final word of bourgeois socialism, and the only word it truly means.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois—for the benefit of the working class.

It comes down to this: the bourgeois is a bourgeois, for the benefit of the working class.

We do not here refer to that literature which, in every great modern revolution, has always given voice to the demands of the proletariat, such as the writings of Babeuf and others.

We do not mean the literature that has always voiced the proletariat’s demands in every great modern revolution. Such literature includes the writings of Babeuf and others.

The first direct attempts of the proletariat to attain its own ends, made in times of universal excitement, when feudal society was being overthrown, these attempts necessarily failed, owing to the then undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as to the absence of the economic conditions for its emancipation, conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be produced by the impending bourgeois epoch alone. The revolutionary literature that accompanied these first movements of the proletariat had necessarily a reactionary character. It inculcated universal asceticism and social levelling in its crudest form.

The proletariat’s first direct attempts to achieve its own goals came during widespread upheaval, when feudal society was being overthrown. These attempts were bound to fail because the proletariat was still undeveloped. The economic conditions needed for its liberation were also absent. Those conditions had yet to be created, and only the coming bourgeois era could create them. The revolutionary literature accompanying these early proletarian movements was therefore bound to be reactionary. It taught everyone to reject worldly pleasures and promoted social equality in its crudest form.

The Socialist and Communist systems properly so called, those of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, described above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie (see Section 1. Bourgeois and Proletarians).

Socialist and Communist systems in the strict sense are those of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen and others. These systems emerge during the early, undeveloped stage of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. That stage was described above (see Section 1. Bourgeois and Proletarians).

The founders of these systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action of the decomposing elements, in the prevailing form of society. But the proletariat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a class without any historical initiative or any independent political movement.

The founders of these systems do see the class conflicts in the existing society. They also see the forces at work breaking that society down. But the proletariat is still in its infancy. To these founders, it appears incapable of initiating historical change or forming an independent political movement.

Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a new social science, after new social laws, that are to create these conditions.

Class conflict develops at the same pace as industry. Because of this, the economic situation they encounter does not yet provide the material conditions needed to free the proletariat. So they seek a new science of society and new social laws to create these conditions.

Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action, historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones, and the gradual, spontaneous class-organisation of the proletariat to the organisation of society specially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans.

Historical action is to give way to their own inventive efforts. Conditions for liberation created by history are to give way to imaginary ones. The proletariat’s gradual, spontaneous organization as a class is to give way to a society specially designed by these inventors. In their eyes, future history amounts to nothing more than promoting and putting their social plans into practice.

In the formation of their plans they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.

When making their plans, they know they are mainly concerned with the interests of the working class, which suffers most. To them, the proletariat exists only as the class that suffers most.

The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?

The class struggle is still undeveloped, and this, along with their own surroundings, shapes how Socialists of this kind think. They see themselves as far above all class conflicts. They want to improve life for every member of society, even the most privileged. So they routinely appeal to society as a whole, without distinguishing between classes. In fact, they prefer to appeal to the ruling class. For once people understand their system, how could anyone fail to see it as the best possible plan for the best possible society?

Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavour, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

So they reject all political action, especially all revolutionary action. They want to achieve their goals peacefully. They try to pave the way for the new social Gospel through small experiments and the power of example. These experiments are inevitably doomed to fail.

Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.

Such imaginary visions of future society arise when the proletariat is still barely developed and understands its position only through fantasy. These visions reflect the class’s first instinctive desires for a complete rebuilding of society.

But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in them—such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the functions of the State into a mere superintendence of production, all these proposals, point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognised in their earliest, indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore, are of a purely Utopian character.

But these Socialist and Communist publications also contain criticism. They attack every principle of existing society. So they are full of extremely valuable material for educating the working class. The practical measures they propose include abolishing the distinction between town and country, the family, privately run industries, and the wage system. They also propose proclaiming social harmony and reducing the State’s functions to simply overseeing production. All these proposals point only to the disappearance of class conflicts. At that time, these conflicts were only just emerging. These publications recognize class conflicts only in their earliest, vague, and undefined forms. These proposals are therefore purely Utopian.

The significance of Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism bears an inverse relation to historical development. In proportion as the modern class struggle develops and takes definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest, these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all theoretical justification. Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated “phalansteres,” of establishing “Home Colonies,” of setting up a “Little Icaria”—duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem—and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees they sink into the category of the reactionary conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

The importance of Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism declines as history advances. As the modern class struggle develops and takes clear shape, these fanciful attempts to stand apart from it lose value. So do these fanciful attacks on the struggle. Both lose all practical value and all theoretical justification. Although the founders of these systems were revolutionary in many ways, their followers have always formed merely reactionary sects. These followers cling to their masters’ original views, opposing the progressive historical development of the proletariat. So they consistently try to dampen the class struggle and reconcile the opposing classes. They still dream of putting their social Utopias into practice through experiments. They dream of founding isolated “phalansteres,” establishing “Home Colonies,” and setting up a “Little Icaria.” These are pocket-sized editions of the New Jerusalem. To make all these castles in the air real, they must appeal to the bourgeoisie’s feelings and wallets. Gradually, these followers sink into the ranks of the reactionary conservative Socialists described above. They differ only in their more systematic pedantry and their fanatical, superstitious faith in their social science’s miraculous effects.

They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.

They therefore fiercely oppose all political action by the working class. In their view, such action can only come from blind disbelief in the new Gospel.

The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and the “Réformistes.”

The Owenites in England oppose the Chartists, and the Fourierists in France oppose the “Réformistes.”