Skip to main content

Full text of "Manifesto of the communist party"

See other formats




PEKING 1970 

First Edition 1965 

Second Printing 1968 

Third Printing 1970 

Prepared ©for the Internet by David J. Romagnolo, (November 1997) 
(Corrected and Updated January 2002) 

PDF created by 


The present English edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party is a reproduction of the 
translation made by Samuel Moore in 1888 from the original German text of 1848 and edited by 
Frederick Engels. Included in the present text are Engels's annotations for the English edition of 
1888 and the German edition of 1890 as well as all the authors' prefaces to the various editions. 

The notes at the end of the book are based on those given in the Chinese edition of the 
Manifesto of the Communist Party, published by the People's Publishing House, Peking, in 
September 1964. 












i. Reactionary Socialism 60 

a. Feudal Socialism 60 

b. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism 62 

c. German, or "True," Socialism 64 

2. Conservative, or Bourgeois, Socialism 68 

3. Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism 69 









Written between December 1 847 Original in German 

and January 1848 

First published as a pamphlet 
in London in February 1848 

EDITION OF 1872[2] 

The Communist League, an international association of workers, which could 
of course be only a secret one under the conditions obtaining at the time, 
commissioned the undersigned, at the Congress held in London in November 
1847, to draw up for publication a detailed theoretical and practical program of 
the Party. Such was the origin of the following Manifesto, the manuscript of 
which travelled to London, to be printed, a few weeks before the February 
Revolution. [3] First published in German, it has been republished in that language 
in at least twelve different editions in Germany, England and America. It was 
published in English for the first time in 1850 in the Red Republican.^ London, 
translated by Miss Helen Macfarlane, and in 1871 in at least three different 
translations in America. A French version first appeared in Paris shortly before 
the June insurrection of 1848 and recently in Le Socialiste m of New York. A new 
translation is in the course of preparation. A Polish version appeared in London 
shortly after it was first published in German. A Russian translation was 
published in Geneva in 

page 2 

the sixties. Into Danish, too, it was translated shortly after its first appearance. 

However much the state of things may have altered during the last twenty- five 
years, the general principles laid down in this Manifesto are, on the whole, as 
correct today as ever. Here and there some detail might be improved. The 
practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, 
everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being 
existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary 
measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, 
be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern 
Industry in the last twenty-five years, and of the accompanying improved and 
extended party organisation of the working class, in view of the practical 
experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the 
Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for 
two whole months, this program has in some details become antiquated. One 
thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot 
simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own 
purposes." (See The Civil War in France ; Address of the General Council of the 

International Working Men's Association, London, Truelove, 1871, p. 15, where 
this point is further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of 
socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes 
down only to 1847; also, that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the 
various opposition parties (Section IV), although in principle still correct, yet in 
practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, 
and the progress of history has swept from off the 

page 3 

earth the greater portion of the political parties there enumerated. 

But, then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no 
longer any right to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an 
introduction bridging the gap from 1847 to the present day; this reprint was too 
unexpected to leave us time for that. 

Karl Marx Frederick Engels 

London, June 24,1872 

page 4 

EDITION OF 1882[6] 

The first Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, translated 
by Bakunin, was published early in the sixtiesm by the printing office of the 
Kolokol.m Then the West could see in it (the Russian edition of the Manifesto) 
only a literary curiosity. Such a view would be impossible today. 

What a limited field the proletarian movement still occupied at that time 
(December 1847) is most clearly shown by the last section of the Manifesto: the 
position of the Communists in relation to the various opposition parties in the 

various countries. Precisely Russia and the United States are missing here. It was 
the time when Russia constituted the last great reserve of all European reaction, 
when the United States absorbed the surplus proletarian forces of Europe through 
immigration. Both countries provided Europe with raw materials and were at the 
same time markets for the sale of its industrial products. At that time both were, 
therefore, in one way or another, pillars of the existing European order. 


How very different today! Precisely European immigration fitted North America 
for a gigantic agricultural production, whose competition is shaking the very 
foundations of European landed property ~ large and small. In addition it enabled 
the United States to exploit its tremendous industrial resources with an energy and 
on a scale that must shortly break the industrial monopoly of Western Europe, and 
especially of England, existing up to now. Both circumstances react in 
revolutionary manner upon America itself. Step by step the small and middle land 
ownership of the farmers, the basis of the whole political constitution, is 
succumbing to the competition of giant farms; simultaneously, a mass proletariat 
and a fabulous concentration of capital are developing for the first time in the 
industrial regions. 

And now Russia! During the Revolution of 1848-49 not only the European 
princes, but the European bourgeois as well, found their only salvation from the 
proletariat, just beginning to awaken, in Russian intervention. The tsar was 
proclaimed the chief of European reaction. Today he is a prisoner of war of the 
revolution, in Gatchina,[9] and Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action 
in Europe. 

The Communist Manifesto had as its object the proclamation of the inevitably 
impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face 
to face with the rapidly developing capitalist swindle and bourgeois landed 
property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by 
the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchma,[io] though greatly 
undermined, yet a form of the primeval common ownership of land, pass directly 
to the higher form of communist common ownership? Or on the contrary, must it 
first pass through the 

page 6 

same process of dissolution as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? 

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution 
becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both 
complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may 
serve as the starting point for a communist development. 

Karl Marx F. Engels 
London, January 21,1882 


EDITION OF 1883[n] 

The preface to the present edition I must, alas, sign alone. Marx, the man to 
whom the whole working class of Europe and America owes more than to anyone 
else, rests at Highgate Cemetery and over his grave the first grass is already 
growing. Since his death, there can be even less thought of revising or 
supplementing the Manifesto. All the more do I consider it necessary again to 
state here the following expressly: 

The basic thought running through the Manifesto ~ that economic production 
and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom 
constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch; 
that consequently (ever since the dissolution of the primeval communal ownership 
of land) all history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between 
exploited and exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes at various 
stages of social development; that this struggle, however, has now reached a stage 
where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer 
emancipate itself from the class which exploits and oppresses it (the bour- 


geoisie), without at the same time forever freeing the whole of society from 
exploitation, oppression and class struggles ~ this basic thought belongs solely 
and exclusively to Marx.[*] 

I have already stated this many times; but precisely now it is necessary that it 
also stands in front of the Manifesto itself. 

F. Engels 

London, June 28,1883 

* "This proposition," I wrote in the preface to the English translation, "which, in my opinion, is 
destined to do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology, we, both of us, had been 
gradually approaching for some years before 1845. How far I had independently progressed 
towards it, is best shown by my 'Condition of the Working Class in England.' But when I again 
met Marx at Brussels, in spring, 1845, he had it ready worked out, and put it before me, in terms 
almost as clear as those in which I have stated it here." [Note by Engels to the German edition of 



The "Manifesto" was published as the platform of the "Communist League," a 
working men's association, first exclusively German, later on international, and, 
under the political conditions of the Continent before 1848, unavoidably a secret 
society. At a Congress of the League, held in London in November, 1847, Marx 
and Engels were commissioned to prepare for publication a complete theoretical 
and practical party programme. Drawn up in German, in January, 1848, the 
manuscript was sent to the printer in London a few weeks before the French 
revolution of February 24th. A French translation was brought out in Paris, 
shortly before the insurrection of June, 1848. The first English translation, by 
Miss Helen Macfarlane, appeared in George Julian Harney's "Red Republican," 
London, 1850. A Danish and a Pohsh edition had also been pubhshed. 

The defeat of the Parisian insurrection of June, 1848 ~ the first great battle 
between Proletariat and Bourgeoisie ~ drove again into the background, for a 

time, the social and political aspirations of the European working class. 
Thenceforth, the struggle for supremacy was again, as it had been before the 

page 10 

revolution of February, solely between different sections of the propertied class; 
the working class was reduced to a fight for political elbow-room, and to the 
position of extreme wing of the middle-class Radicals. Wherever independent 
proletarian movements continued to show signs of life, they were ruthlessly 
hunted down. Thus the Prussian police hunted out the Central Board of the 
Communist League, then located in Cologne. The members were arrested, and, 
after eighteen months' imprisonment, they were tried in October, 1852. This 
celebrated "Cologne Communist triar'[i2] lasted from October 4th till November 
12th; seven of the prisoners were sentenced to terms of imprisonment in a 
fortress, varying from three to six years. Immediately after the sentence, the 
League was formally dissolved by the remaining members. As to the "Manifesto," 
it seemed thenceforth to be doomed to oblivion. 

When the European working class had recovered sufficient strength for another 
attack on the ruling classes, the International Working Men's Association sprang 
up. But this association, formed with the express aim of welding into one body the 
whole militant proletariat of Europe and America, could not at once proclaim the 
principles laid down in the "Manifesto." The International was bound to have a 
programme broad enough to be acceptable to the English Trades' Unions, to the 
followers of Proudhon in France, Belgium, Italy, and Spain, and to the 
Lassalleans* in Germany. Marx, who drew up this programme to the satisfaction 
of all parties. 

* Lassalle personally, to us, always acknowledged himself to be a disciple of Marx, and, as 
such, stood on the ground of the "Manifesto." But in his public agitation, 1862-64, he did not go 
beyond demanding co-operative workshops supported by State credit. [Note by Engels.] 

page 11 

entirely trusted to the intellectual development of the working class, which was 
sure to result from combined action and mutual discussion. The very events and 
vicissitudes of the struggle against Capital, the defeats even more than the 
victories, could not help bringing home to men's minds the insufficiency of their 
various favourite nostrums, and preparing the way for a more complete insight 
into the true conditions of working-class emancipation. And Marx was right. The 
International, on its breaking up in 1874, left the workers quite different men from 
what it had found them in 1864. Proudhonism in France, Lassalleanism in 
Germany were dying out, and even the Conservative English Trades' Unions, 
though most of them had long since severed their connexion with the 
International, were gradually advancing towards that point at which, last year at 

Swansea, their President could say in their name, "Continental Socialism has lost 
its terrors for us"[i3] In fact, the principles of the "Manifesto" had made 
considerable headway among the working men of all countries. 

The "Manifesto" itself thus came to the front again. The German text had been, 
since 1850, reprinted several times in Switzerland, England, and America. In 
1872, it was translated into English in New York, where the translation was 
published in "WoodhuU and Claflin's Weekly. "[i4] From this English version, a 
French one was made in "L^ Socialiste " of New York. Since then at least two 
more English translations, more or less mutilated, have been brought out in 
America, and one of them has been reprinted in England. The first Russian 
translation, made by Bakounine, was published at Herzen's "Kolokol" office in 
Geneva, about 1863; a second one, by the heroic Vera Zasulich,[i5] also in 
Geneva, 1882. A new Danish edition[i6] is to be found in "Social- 

page 12 

demokratisk Bibliothek," Copenhagen, 1885; a fresh French translation in "Le 
Socialiste,'' Paris, 1886.[n] From this latter a Spanish version was prepared and 
published in Madrid, 1886.[i8] The German reprints are not to be counted there 
have been twelve altogether at the least. An Armenian translation, which was to 
be published in Constantinople some months ago, did not see the light, I am told, 
because the publisher was afraid of bringing out a book with the name of Marx on 
it, while the translator declined to call it his own production. Of further 
translations into other languages I have heard, but have not seen them. Thus the 
history of the "Manifesto" reflects, to a great extent, the history of the modern 
working-class movement; at present it is undoubtedly the most widespread, the 
most international production of all Socialist literature, the common platform 
acknowledged by millions of working men from Siberia to California. 

Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a Socialist Manifesto. By 
Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand, the adherents of the various 
Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them 
already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the 
other hand, the most multifarious social quacks, who, by all manners of tinkering, 
professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social 
grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking 
rather to the "educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class 
had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had 
proclaimed the necessity of a total social change, that portion then called itself 
Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of Communism; 
still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough 

page 13 

amongst the working class to produce the Utopian Communism, in France, of 
Cabet, and in Germany, of Weithng. Thus, Sociahsm was, in 1847, a middle-class 
movement. Communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the 
Continent at least, "respectable"; Communism was the very opposite. And as our 
notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the working class 
must be the act of the working class itself, "[i9] there could be no doubt as to which 
of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from 
repudiating it. 

The "Manifesto" being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state 
that the fundamental proposition, which forms its nucleus, belongs to Marx. That 
proposition is: that in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic 
production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from 
it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, 
the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole 
history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land 
in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between 
exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these 
class struggles forms a series of evolutions in which, now-a-days, a stage has been 
reached where the exploited and oppressed class ~ the proletariat ~ cannot attain 
its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class ~ the 
bourgeoisie ~ without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating 
society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinctions and class 

This proposition which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what 
Darwin's theory has done for biology, we, both of us, had been gradually 
approaching for some years 

page 14 

before 1845. How far I had independently progressed towards it, is best shown by 
my "Condition of the Working Class in England."[*] But when I again met Marx at 
Brussels, in spring, 1845, he had it ready worked out, and put it before me, in 
terms almost as clear as those in which I have stated it here. 

From our joint preface to the German edition of 1872, 1 quote the following: 

"However much the state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five 
years, the general principles laid down in this Manifesto are, on the whole, as 
correct to-day as ever. Here and there some detail might be improved. The 
practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, 
everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being 
existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary 
measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, 
be very differently worded to-day. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern 

Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended 
organization of the working class, [20] in view of the practical experience gained, 
first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, 
where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, 
this programme has in some details become antiquated. One thing especially was 
proved by the Commune, viz., that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of 
the ready-made State machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.' (See "The 
Civil War in 

* "The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844." By Frederick Engels. Translated 
by Florence K. Wischnewetzky, New York. Lovell ~ London. W. Reeves, 1888. [Note by Engels. 

page 15 

France; Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's 
Association," London, Truelove, 1871, p. 15, where this point is further 
developed.) Further, it is self evident, that the criticism of Socialist literature is 
deficient in relation to the present time, because it comes down only to 1847; also, 
that the remarks on the relation of the Communists to the various opposition 
parties (Section IV), although in principle still correct, yet in practice are 
antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the 
progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political 
parties there enumerated. 

"But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no 
longer any right to alter." 

The present translation is by Mr. Samuel Moore, the translator of the greater 
portion of Marx's "Capital." We have revised it in common, and I have added a 
few notes explanatory of historical allusions. 

F. Engels 

London, 30th January 1888 

page 16 

EDITION OF 1890[2i] 

Since the above was written,[22] a new German edition of the Manifesto has 
again become necessary, and much has also happened to the Manifesto which 
should be recorded here. 

A second Russian translation ~ by Vera Zasulich ~ appeared at Geneva in 
1882; the preface to that edition was written by Marx and myself. Unfortunately, 
the original German manuscript has gone astray; I must therefore retranslate from 
the Russian, which will in no way improve the text.[23] It reads: 

"The first Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, translated 
by Bakunin, was published early in the sixties by the printing office of the 
Kolokol. Then the West could see in it (the Russian edition of the Manifesto) only 
a literary curiosity. Such a view would be impossible today. 

"What a limited field the proletarian movement still occupied at that time 
(December 1847) is most clearly shown by the last section of the Manifesto: the 
position of the Communists in relation to the various opposition parties in the 
various countries. Precisely Russia and the United States are 

page 17 

missing here. It was the time when Russia constituted the last great reserve of all 
European reaction, when the United States absorbed the surplus proletarian forces 
of Europe through immigration. Both countries provided Europe with raw 
materials and were at the same time markets for the sale of its industrial products. 
At that time both were, there fore, in one way or another, pillars of the existing 
European order. 

"How very different today! Precisely European immigration fitted North 
America for a gigantic agricultural production, whose competition is shaking the 
very foundations of European landed property ~ large and small. In addition it 
enabled the United States to exploit its tremendous industrial resources with an 
energy and on a scale that must shortly break the industrial monopoly of Western 
Europe, and especially of England, existing up to now. Both circumstances react 
in revolutionary manner upon America itself. Step by step the small and middle 
land ownership of the farmers, the basis of the whole political constitution, is 
succumbing to the competition of giant farms; simultaneously, a mass proletariat 

and a fabulous concentration of capital are developing for the first time in the 
industrial regions. 

"And now Russia! During the Revolution of 1848-49 not only the European 
princes, but the European bourgeois as well, found their only salvation from the 
proletariat, just be ginning to awaken, in Russian intervention. The tsar was 
proclaimed the chief of European reaction. Today he is a prisoner of war of the 
revolution, in Gatchina, and Russia forms the vanguard of revolutionary action in 

"The Communist Manifesto had as its object the proclamation of the inevitably 
impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face 
to face with 

page 18 

the rapidly developing capitalist swindle and bourgeois landed property, just 
beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. 
Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a 
form of the primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form 
of communist common ownership? Or on the contrary, must it first pass through 
the same process of dissolution as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? 

"The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution 
becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both 
complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may 
serve as the starting point for a communist development. 

"Karl Marx Frederick Engels 

"London, January 21,1882" 

At about the same date, a new Polish version appeared in Geneva: Manifest 

Furthermore, a new Danish translation has appeared in the Socialdemokratisk 
Bibliothek, Kjobenhavn, 1885. Unfortunately it is not quite complete; certain 
essential passages, which seem to have presented difficulties to the translator, 
have been omitted, and in addition there are signs of carelessness here and there, 
which are all the more unpleasantly conspicuous since the translation indicates 
that had the translator taken a little more pains he would have done an excellent 
piece of work. 

A new French version appeared in 1885 in Le Socialiste of Paris; it is the best 
published to date. 

page 19 

From this latter a Spanish version was pubhshed the same year, first in El 
Socialista of Madrid, and then re-issued in pamphlet form: Manifiesto del Partido 
Comunista por Carlos Marx y F. Engels, Madrid, Administracion de El Socialista, 
Hernan Cortes 8. 

As a matter of curiosity I may also mention that in 1887 the manuscript of an 
Armenian translation was offered to a publisher in Constantinople. But the good 
man did not have the courage to publish something bearing the name of Marx and 
suggested that the translator set down his own name as author, which the latter, 
however, declined. 

After one and then another of the more or less inaccurate American translations 
had been repeatedly reprinted in England, an authentic version at last appeared in 
1888. This was by my friend Samuel Moore, and we went through it together 
once more before it was sent to press. It is entitled: Manifesto of the Communist 
Party, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Authorized English translation, edited 
and annotated by Frederick Engels, 1888, London, William Reeves, 185 Fleet St., 
E. C. I have added some of the notes of that edition to the present one. 

The Manifesto has had a history of its own. Greeted with enthusiasm, at the 
time of its appearance, by the then still not at all numerous vanguard of scientific 
Socialism (as is proved by the translations mentioned in the first preface), it was 
soon forced into the background by the reaction that began with the defeat of the 
Paris workers in June 1848, and was finally excommunicated "according to law" 
by the conviction of the Cologne Communists in November 1852. With the 
disappearance from the public scene of the workers' movement that had begun 
with the February Revolution, the Manifesto too passed into the background. 

page 20 

When the working class of Europe had again gathered sufficient strength for a 
new onslaught upon the power of the ruling classes, the International Working 
Men's Association came into being. Its aim was to weld together into one huge 
army the whole militant working class of Europe and America. Therefore it could 
not set out from the principles laid down in the Manifesto. It was bound to have a 
program which would not shut the door on the English trades' unions, the French, 
Belgian, Italian and Spanish Proudhonists and the German Lassalleans.[*] This 
program ~ the preamble to the Rules of the International ~ was drawn up by 
Marx with a master hand acknowledged even by Bakunin and the Anarchists. For 
the ultimate triumph of the ideas set forth in the Manifesto Marx relied solely and 
exclusively upon the intellectual development of the working class, as it 
necessarily had to ensue from united action and discussion. The events and 
vicissitudes in the struggle against capital, the defeats even more than the 

successes, could not but demonstrate to the fighters the inadequacy hitherto of 
their universal panaceas and make their minds more receptive to a thorough 
understanding of the true conditions for the emancipation of the workers. And 
Marx was right. The working class of 1874, at the dissolution of the International, 
was altogether different from that of 1864, at its foundation. Proudhonism in the 
Latin countries and the specific 

* Lassalle personally, to us, always acknowledged himself to be a "disciple" of Marx, and, as 
such, stood, of course, on the ground of the Manifesto. Matters were quite different with regard to 
those of his followers who did not go beyond his demand for producers' co-operatives supported 
by state credits and who divided the whole working class into supporters of state assistance and 
supporters of self-assistance. [Note by Engels.] 

page 21 

Lassalleanism in Germany were dying out, and even the then arch-conservative 
English trades' unions were gradually approaching the point where in 1887 the 
chairman of their Swansea Congress could say in their name: "Continental 
Socialism has lost its terrors for us." Yet by 1887 Continental Socialism was 
almost exclusively the theory heralded in the Manifesto. Thus, to a certain extent, 
the history of the Manifesto reflects the history of the modern working-class 
movement since 1848. At present it is doubtless the most widely circulated, the 
most international product of all Socialist literature, the common program of 
many millions of workers of all countries, from Siberia to California. 

Nevertheless, when it appeared we could not have called it a Socialist 
Manifesto. In 1847 two kinds of people were considered Socialists. On the one 
hand were the adherents of the various Utopian systems, notably the Owenites in 
England and the Fourierists in France, both of whom at that date had already 
dwindled to mere sects gradually dying out. On the other, the manifold types of 
social quacks who wanted to eliminate social abuses through their various 
universal panaceas and all kinds of patchwork, without hurting capital and profit 
in the least. In both cases, people who stood outside the labour movement and 
who looked for support rather to the "educated" classes. The section of the 
working class, however, which demanded a radical reconstruction of society, 
convinced that mere political revolutions were not enough, then called itself 
Communist. It was still a rough-hewn, only instinctive, and frequently somewhat 
crude Communism. Yet it was powerful enough to bring into being two systems 
of Utopian Communism ~ in France the "Icarian" Communism of Cabet, and in 
Germany that of Weitling. Socialism in 1847 signified a bourgeois movement. 
Communism a working- 

page 22 

class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, quite respectable, 
whereas Communism was the very opposite. And since we were very decidedly 
of the opinion as early as then that "the emancipation of the workers must be the 
act of the working class itself," we could have no hesitation as to which of the two 
names we should choose. Nor has it ever occurred to us since to repudiate it. 

"Working men of all countries, unite!" But few voices responded when we 
proclaimed these words to the world forty-two years ago, on the eve of the first 
Paris Revolution in which the proletariat came out with demands of its own. On 
September 28, 1864, however, the proletarians of most of the Western European 
countries joined hands in the International Working Men's Association of glorious 
memory. True, the International itself lived only nine years. But that the eternal 
union of the proletarians of all countries created by it is still alive and lives 
stronger than ever, there is no better witness than this day. Because today, as I 
write these lines, the European and American proletariat is reviewing its fighting 
forces, mobilized for the first time, mobilized as one army, under one flag, for one 
immediate aim: the standard eight-hour working day, to be established by legal 
enactment, as proclaimed by the Geneva Congress of the International in 1866, 
and again by the Paris Workers' Congress in 1889. [24] And today's spectacle will 
open the eyes of the capitalists and landlords of all countries to the fact that today 
the working men of all countries are united indeed. 

If only Marx were still by my side to see this with his own eyes! 

F. Engels 

London, May 1, 1890 

page 23 

EDITION OF 1892[25] 

The fact that a new Pohsh edition of the Communist Manifesto has become 
necessary gives rise to various thoughts. 

First of all, it is noteworthy that of late the Manifesto has become an index, as it 
were, of the development of large-scale industry on the European continent. In 
proportion as large-scale industry expands in a given country, the demand grows 
among the workers of that country for enlightenment regarding their position as 
the working class in relation to the possessing classes, the socialist movement 
spreads among them and the demand for the Manifesto increases. Thus, not only 
the state of the labour movement but also the degree of development of large- 
scale industry can be measured with fair accuracy in every country by the number 
of copies of the Manifesto circulated in the language of that country. 

Accordingly, the new Polish edition indicates a decided progress of Polish 
industry. And there can be no doubt whatever that this progress since the previous 
edition published ten years ago has actually taken place. Russian Poland, 
Congress Poland,[26] has become the big industrial region of the Russian Empire. 
Whereas Russian large-scale industry 

page 24 

is scattered sporadically ~ a part round the Gulf of Finland, another in the centre 
(Moscow and Vladimir), a third along the coasts of the Black and Azov seas, and 
still others else where ~ Polish industry has been packed into a relatively small 
area and enjoys both the advantages and the disadvantages arising from such 
concentration. The competing Russian manufacturers acknowledged the 
advantages when they demanded protective tariffs against Poland, in spite of their 
ardent desire to transform the Poles into Russians. The disadvantages ~ for the 
Polish manufacturers and the Russian government ~ are manifest in the rapid 
spread of socialist ideas among the Polish workers and in the growing demand for 
the Manifesto. 

But the rapid development of Polish industry, outstripping that of Russia, is in 
its turn a new proof of the inexhaustible vitality of the Polish people and a new 
guarantee of its impending national restoration. And the restoration of an 
independent strong Poland is a matter which concerns not only the Poles but all of 
us. A sincere international collaboration of the European nations is possible only 
if each of these nations is fully autonomous in its own house. The Revolution of 
1848, which under the banner of the proletariat, after all, merely let the proletarian 
fighters do the work of the bourgeoisie, also secured the independence of Italy, 
Germany and Hungary through its testamentary executors, Louis Bonaparte and 
Bismarck; but Poland, which since 1792 had done more for the Revolution than 
all these three together, was left to its own resources when it succumbed in 1863 
to a tenfold greater Russian force. The nobility could neither maintain nor regain 
Polish independence; today, to the bourgeoisie, this independence is, to say the 

least, immaterial. Nevertheless, it is a necessity for the harmonious collaboration 
of the Eu- 

page 25 

ropean nations. It can be gained only by the young Polish proletariat, and in its 
hands it is secure. For the workers of all the rest of Europe need the independence 
of Poland just as much as the Polish workers themselves. 

F. Engels 

London, February 10, 1892 

page 26 

EDITION OF 1893[27] 


Publication of the Manifesto of the Communist Party coincided, one may say, 
with March 18, 1848, the day of the revolutions in Milan and Berlin, which were 
armed uprisings of the two nations situated in the centre, the one, of the continent 
of Europe, the other, of the Mediterranean; two nations until then enfeebled by 
division and internal strife, and thus fallen under foreign domination. While Italy 
was subject to the Emperor of Austria, Germany underwent the yoke, not less 
effective though more indirect, of the Tsar of all the Russias. The consequences of 
March 18, 1848, freed both Italy and Germany from this disgrace; if from 1848 to 
1871 these two great nations were reconstituted and somehow again put on their 
own, it was, as Karl Marx used to say, because the men who suppressed the 
Revolution of 1848 were, nevertheless, its testamentary executors in spite of 
themselves. [28] 

page 27 

Everywhere that revolution was the work of the working class; it was the latter 
that built the barricades and paid with its lifeblood. Only the Paris workers, in 
overthrowing the government, had the very definite intention of overthrowing the 
bourgeois regime. But conscious though they were of the fatal antagonism 
existing between their own class and the bourgeoisie, still, neither the economic 
progress of the country nor the intellectual development of the mass of French 
workers had as yet reached the stage which would have made a social 
reconstruction possible. In the final analysis, therefore, the fruits of the revolution 
were reaped by the capitalist class. In the other countries, in Italy, in Germany, in 
Austria, the workers, from the very outset, did nothing but raise the bourgeoisie to 
power. But in any country the rule of the bourgeoisie is impossible without 
national independence. Therefore, the Revolution of 1848 had to bring in its train 
the unity and autonomy of the nations that had lacked them up to then: Italy, 
Germany, Hungary. Poland will follow in turn. 

Thus, if the Revolution of 1848 was not a socialist revolution, it paved the way, 
prepared the ground for the latter. Through the impetus given to large-scale 
industry in all countries, the bourgeois regime during the last forty-five years has 
everywhere created a numerous, concentrated and powerful proletariat. It has thus 
raised, to use the language of the Manifesto, its own gravediggers. Without 
restoring autonomy and unity to each nation, it will be impossible to achieve the 
international union of the proletariat, or the peaceful and intelligent cooperation of 
these nations toward common aims. Just imagine joint international action by the 
Italian, Hungarian, German, Polish and Russian workers under the political 
conditions preceding 1848! 

page 28 

The battles fought in 1848 were thus not fought in vain. Nor have the forty- five 
years separating us from that revolutionary epoch passed to no purpose. The fruits 
are ripening, and all I wish is that the publication of this Italian translation may 
augur as well for the victory of the Italian proletariat as the publication of the 
original did for the international revolution. 

The Manifesto does full justice to the revolutionary part played by capitalism in 
the past. The first capitalist nation was Italy. The close of the feudal Middle Ages, 
and the opening of the modern capitalist era are marked by a colossal figure: an 
Italian, Dante, both the last poet of the Middle Ages and the first poet of modern 
times. Today, as in 1300, a new historical era is approaching. Will Italy give us 
the new Dante, who will mark the hour of birth of this new, proletarian era? 

Frederick Engels 

London, February 1, 1893 

page 29 

A spectre is haunting Europe ~ the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old 
Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, 
Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies. 

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by 
its opponents in power? Where the Opposition that has not hurled back the 
branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, 
as well as against its reactionary adversaries? 

Two things result from this fact. 

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a 

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole 
world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale 
of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself. 

To this end. Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, 
and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, 
German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages. 

page 30 


The history of all hitherto existing society** is the history of class struggles. 

* By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the means of social 
production and employers of wage-labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage-labourers 
who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour-power in 
order to live. [Note by Engels to the English edition of 1888.] 

** That is, all written history. In 1847, the pre-history of society, the social organization 
existing previous to recorded history, was all but unknown. Since then, Haxthausen discovered 
common ownership of land in Russia, Maurer proved it to be the social foundation from which all 
Teutonic races started in history, and by and by village communities were found to be, or to have 
been the primitive form of society everywhere from India to Ireland. The inner organization of this 
primitive Communistic society was laid bare, in its typical form, by Morgan's crowning discovery 
of the true nature of the gens and its relation to the tribe. With the dissolution of these primeval 
conmiunities society begins to be differentiated into separate and finally antagonistic classes. I 
have attempted to retrace this process of dissolution in Der Ursprung der Familie des 
Privateigentbums und des Staats \ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State ] 2nd 
edition, Stuttgart, 1886 [Note by Engels to the English edition of 1888.] 

page 31 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 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 

* Guild-master, that is, a full member of a guild, a master within, not a head of, a guild. [Note 
by Engels to the English edition of 1888.} 

page 32 

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 

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. 

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even 
manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionized 
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. 

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 
turn, 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. 

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. 

page 33 

Each Step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a 
corresponding political advance of that class. [29] 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), [30] there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France), [H] 
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. 

cornerstone 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. 

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

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 

* "Commune" was the name taken, in France, by the nascent towns even before they had 
conquered from their feudal lords and masters local self-government and political rights as the 
"Third Estate." Generally speaking, for the economical development of the bourgeoisie, England 
is here taken as the typical country; for its political development, France. [Note by Engels to the 
English edition of 1888.] 

This was the name given their urban communities by the townsmen of Italy and France, after 
they had purchased or wrested their initial rights of self-government from their feudal lords. [Note 
by Engels to the German edition of 1890.] 

page 34 

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 indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, 
unconscionable freedom ~ Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by 
religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal 

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

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 cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments 
of production, and thereby the relations of production, an 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 dis- 

page 35 

tinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. [32] All freed, 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 

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 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 

page 36 

impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures there arises a 

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, /. e., to 
become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after 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 keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of 
the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated 
population, centralised means of 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. 

page 37 

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? 

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; [33] they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were 
burst asunder. 

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. 

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 hke 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 rela- 

page 38 

tions 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;[34] 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 by 
enforced 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. 

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

page 39 

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. 

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, /. 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 
piecemeal, 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. 

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,[35] 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. 

Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master 
into the great factory of the industrial 

page 40 

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. 

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. [36] 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. 

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 lower strata of the middle class ~ the small trades people, shopkeepers, 
and 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 specialised skill is 
rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is 
recruited from all classes of the population. 

page 41 

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; [37] 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. 

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. 

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 

page 42 

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. There upon the workers 
begin to form combinations (Trades' Unions)[38] 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. 

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 
locahties in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to 
centrahse 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. 

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 

page 43 

workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus 
the ten-hours' bill in England was carried. 

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 elements of political and general 
education, [39] in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for 
fighting the bourgeoisie. 

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. [40] 

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 old 
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 

page 44 

the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole. 

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie to-day, 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. 

The "dangerous class," the social scum,[4i] 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. 

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 

page 45 

bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois 

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 previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the 
interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious,[42] 
independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest 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. 

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. 

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. 

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, 

page 46 

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 labourer, 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. 

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois 
class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is 
wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the 
labourers. 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 Modem 
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, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the 
proletariat are equally inevitable. 

page 47 



In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The 
Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties. 

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a 

They do not set up any sectarian[44] principles of their own, by which to shape 
and mould 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, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced 
and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section 

page 48 

pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the 
great mass of the proletariat the ad vantage of clearly understanding the line of 
march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian 

The immediate aim of the Communists 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 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 

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical 
change consequent upon the change in historical conditions. 

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of 
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. [45] 

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single 
sentence: Abolition of private property. 

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of 
personally acquiring property as 

page 49 

the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the ground work 
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. 

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. 

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. 

Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power. 

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. 

Let us now take wage-labour. 

The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, /. e., that quantum of 
the means of subsistence, which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in 
bare existence 

page 50 

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. 

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, 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 

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. 

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, 
free trade, free selling and buying. 

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 

page 51 

traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the 
Communistic abohtion of buying and seUing, of the bourgeois conditions of 
production, and of 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. 

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. 
Precisely so; that is just 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,[46] 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. 

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. 

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will 
cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. 

page 52 

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. 

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. 

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a 
mere training to act as 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. 

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 

page 53 

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. 

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous 
proposal of 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. 

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement 
vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. 

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their 
parents? To this crime we plead guilty. 

But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace 
home education by social. 

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. 

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. 

page 54 

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the 
whole bourgeoisie in chorus. 

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. 

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the 
status of women as mere instruments 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. 

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 others' 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. 

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and 

page 55 

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,[47] must constitute itself the nation, it is, 
so far, itself national, 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. 

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. 

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. 

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, 
generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious 

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? 

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. 

page 56 

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 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. [48] 

"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." 

"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." 

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. 

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 

page 57 

ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of 
class antagonisms. 

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. 

But let us have done with 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 class, to win the battle of 

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, /. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the 
total of productive forces 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,[49] and are 
unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. 

These measures will of course be different in different countries. 

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty 
generally applicable. 

1 . Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public 

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 

page 58 

5. Centrahsation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank 
with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of 
the State. 

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. 

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially 
for agriculture. 

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition 
of the distinction[50] between town and country, by a more equable distribution of 
the population over the country. [5i] 

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, etc., etc. 

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, [52] and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. 

page 59 

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. 

page 60 




a. Feudal Socialism 

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. 

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 

* Not the English Restoration 1660 to 1689, but the French Restoration 1814 to 1830. [Note by 
Engels to the English edition of 1888.] 

page 61 

took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new master, and whispering in 
his ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe. 

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. 

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. 

One section of the French Legitimists and "Young England"[53] exhibited this 

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. 

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. 

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

page 62 

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, [54] and to barter 
truth, love, and honour for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits. [*] 

As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical 
Socialism 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? Christians[55] 
Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart- 
burnings of the aristocrat. 

b. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism 

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, 

* This applies chiefly to Germany where the landed aristocracy and squirearchy have large 
portions of their estates cultivated for their own account by stewards, and are, moreover, extensive 
beetroot- sugar manufacturers and distillers of potato spirits. The wealthier British aristocracy are, 
as yet, rather above that; but they, too, know how to make up for declining rents by lending their 
names to floaters of more or less shady joint- stock companies. [Note by Engels to the English 
edition of 1888.] 

page 63 

industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with 
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 over-lookers, bailiffs and 

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. 

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 

page 64 

extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old 
family relations, of the old nationalities. 

In its positive aims, however, this form of Sociahsm 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. 

Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture; patriarchal relations in 

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. [56] 

c. German, or "True," Socialism 

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. 

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. [57] Thus, to 
the German philosophers of the Eighteenth Century, the demands of the first 

page 65 

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 laws of pure Will, of Will as it was bound to be, of true human Will 

The work 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. 

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

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 

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 

page 66 

belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of 
philosophical fantasy. 

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

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. 

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

While this "True" Socialism thus served the governments as a weapon for 
fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the 

page 67 

same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of the German 
Philistines. In Germany tht petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the 16th century, and 
since then constantly cropping up again under various forms, is the real social 
basis of the existing state of things. 

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. 

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. 

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 

page 68 

in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.[^ 


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

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. 

We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misere 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 

* The revolutionary storm of 1848 swept away this whole shabby tendency and cured its 
protagonists of the desire to dabble further in Socialism. The chief representative and classical 
type of this tendency is Herr Karl Griin. [Note by Engels to the German edition of 1890.] 

page 69 

within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas 
concerning 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 economical 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. 

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

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


We do not here refer to that hterature which, in every great modern revolution, 
has always given voice to the de- 

page 70 

mands of the proletariat, such as 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 Socialist and Communist systems properly so called, those of St. Simon, 
Fourier, Owen and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, 
described above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie (see Section 
I. 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. 

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. 

page 71 

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 an 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. 

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. 

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? 

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. 

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[58] the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a 
general reconstruction of society. 

page 72 

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[59] ~ such as the abolition of the distinction[60] 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. 

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 

page 73 

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. 

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. 

The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively oppose 
the Chartists and the Reformist es.mA 

* Phalansteres were Socialist colonies on the plan of Charles Fourier; Icaria was the name 
given by Cabet to his Utopia and, later on, to his American Communist colony. [Note by Engels to 
the English edition of 1888.] 

"Home Colonies" were what Owen called his Communist model societies. Phalansteres was the 
name of the public palaces planned by Fourier. Icaria was the name given to the Utopian land of 
fancy, whose Communist institutions Cabet portrayed. [Note by Engels to the German edition of 

page 74 




Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing 
working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian 
Reformers in America. 

The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the 
enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the 
movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that 
movement. In France the Communists ally themselves with the Social- 
Democrats,* against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie. 

* The party then represented in Parliament by Ledru-Rollin, in literature by Louis Blanc, in the 
daily press by the Reforme. The name of Social-Democracy signified, with these its inventors, a 
section of the Democratic or Republican party more or less tinged with Socialism. [Note by Engels 
to the English edition of 1888.] 

The party in France which at that time called itself Socialist-Democratic was represented in 
political life by Ledru-Rollin and in [com. onto p. 75. - djr] literature by Louis Blanc; thus it differed 
immeasurably from present-day German Social-Democracy. [Note by Engels to the German 
edition of 1890.] 

page 75 

reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phrases and 
illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution. In Switzerland 
they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists 
of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, 
partly of radical bourgeois. 

In Poland they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the 
prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the 
insurrection of Cracow in 1846. 

In Germany they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary 
way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty 
bourgeoisie. [62] 

But they never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the working class the 
clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and 
proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many 
weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the 
bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order 

that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the 
bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin. 

The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country 
is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more 
advanced conditions of European civilisation, and with a much more developed 
proletariat, than that of England was in the seven- 

page 76 

teenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois 
revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following 
proletarian revolution. 

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement 
against the existing social and political order of things. 

In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, 
the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. 

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic 
parties of all countries. 

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare 
that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social 
conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The 
proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. 


From Marx 
to Mao 

Marx and Engels 

^ J. I Notes on 

^^ the Text 

Guide I -^ , 


page 77 


^" The Manifesto of the Communist Party is the greatest programmatic document of scientific 
communism. "This little booklet is worth whole volumes: to this day its spirit inspires and guides 
the entire organised and fighting proletariat of the civilised world." (V. I. Lenin, " Frederick 
Engels," Collected Works, Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1960, Vol. II, p. 24.) As a platform drawn up 
by Marx and Engels for the Communist League from December 1847 to January 1848, the 
Manifesto first appeared in February 1848 in London as a pamphlet of 23 pages. From March to 
July 1848, it was reprinted serially in Deutsche Londoner Zeitung, the democratic organ of the 
German emigrants. In the same year the German edition of the Manifesto was reprinted in London 
as a pamphlet of 30 pages. This edition served as the basis of the subsequent editions authorised 
by Marx and Engels. In 1848 the Manifesto was also translated into several other European 
languages ~ French, Polish, Italian, Danish, Flemish and Swedish. The authors' names were not 
mentioned in the editions of 1848. They were first given in the editor's preface written by George 
Harney for the first English translation of the Manifesto which was printed in the Chartist paper 
the Red Republican in 1850. r title-pagei 

^^^ On the initiative of the editorial board of Der Volksstaat, a new German edition of the 
Manifesto was published in 1872, with a preface by Marx and Engels and some minor changes in 
the text. It bore the title The Communist Manifesto, as did the later German editions of 1883 and 
1890. [p.i] 

^^^ The February Revolution in France, 1848. [p. ij 

page 78 

^^^ The Red Republican was a Chartist weekly published from June to November 1850 by George 
Harney. In its Nos. 21-24, November 1850, the first English translation of the Manifesto of the 
Communist Party appeared under the title. Manifesto of the German Communist Party, [p. i] 

^^^ Le Socialiste, organ of the French Section of the International, was a weekly in French 
published in New York from October 1871 to May 1873. It supported the bourgeois and petty- 
bourgeois elements in the North American Federation of the International. After the Hague 
Congress (September 1872) it severed connections with the International. The Manifesto of the 
Communist Party was published in the weekly in January and February 1872. [p. i] 

^^^ This refers to the second Russian edition of the Manifesto which appeared in 1882 in Geneva. 
In the postscript to the article "On Social Relations in Russia," Engels named G. V. Plekhanov as 
the translator. In the Russian edition of 1900 Plekhanov also indicated that he had done the 
translation. For the Russian edition of 1882 Marx and Engels wrote a preface which appeared in 
Russian in Narodnaya Volya (The Will of the People ) on February 5, 1882. This preface appeared 
in German on April 13, 1882, in No. 16 of Der Sozialdemokrat, organ of the German Social- 
Democratic Party. Engels included this preface in the German edition of the Manifesto of 1890. 

[p. 4] 

^^^ This edition appeared in 1869. In Engels's preface to the English edition of 1888, the 
publication date of this Russian translation of the Manifesto was also incorrectly given (see p. 11) . 

[p. 4] 

^^^ Kolokol {The Bell ), Russian revolutionary democratic journal, published by A. I. Herzen and 
N. P. Ogaryov in London from 1857 to 1865 and afterwards in Geneva. It was published in 
Russian from 1857 to 1867 and in French with a Russian supplement from 1868 to 1869. [p. 4] 

^"^^ This is a reference to the situation following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II by 
members of the Narodnaya Volya on March 13, 1881, when Alexander III, fearful of fresh acts of 
terrorism by the secret executive conmiittee of the Narodnaya Volya, hid himself in Gatchina, a 
place to the southwest of present-day Leningrad, [p. 5] 

^^°^ Obshchina : Village conmiunity. [p. 5] 

^^" This refers to the third German edition of the Manifesto, the first edition collated by Engels 
after Marx's death, [p. 7] 

^^^^ The Cologne Communist Trial (October 4 to November 12, 1852) was a case fabricated by 
the Prussian government. It arrested 1 1 members 

page 79 

of the Communist League (1847-52) ~ the first international communist organisation of the 
proletariat, led by Marx and Engels with the Manifesto of the Communist Party as its programme - 
- and handed them over to the court for trial on the charge of "high treason." Evidence produced 
by Prussian police-spies consisted of a forged "original minute-book" of the sittings of the 
Communist League's Central Board and other falsified documents, as well as papers stolen by the 
police from the adventurist Willich-Schapper faction, which had already been expelled from the 
League. Based on the faked documents and false testimonies, the court sentenced seven of the 
defendants from three to six years of imprisonment. Marx and Engels thoroughly exposed the 
provocation of the organisers of this trial and the despicable tricks the Prussian police state 
employed against the international workers' movement. (See Marx, "Revelations About the 
Cologne Communist Trial," and Engels, "The Late Trial at Cologne.") [p. lO] 

^^^^ A quotation from a speech by W. Bevan, President of the Trades Union Congress, delivered at 
a meeting of the Congress held at Swansea in 1887. Bevan's speech was reported in the journal 
Commonweal on September 17, 1887. [p. U] 

^^^^ Woodbull and Claflin's Weekly, an American journal published by the bourgeois feminists, 
Victoria Woodhull and Tennessee Claflin, in New York from 1870 to 1876. The weekly carried an 

abridged version of the Manifesto of the Communist Party in its issue of December 30, 1871. [p. 


^^^^ The translator of the second Russian edition of the Manifesto was actually G. V. Plekhanov. 
See Note 6 . [p. U] 

^^^^ The Danish translation referred to here ~ K. Marx og F. Engels: Der Kommunistiske Manifest, 
Kobenhavn, 1885 ~ contains some omissions and inaccuracies, which Engels pointed out in his 
preface to the German edition of 1 890 of the Manifesto, [p. nj 

^^^^ In fact, the French translation, made by Laura Lafargue, was published in Le Socialiste from 
August 29 to November 7, 1885. It was also printed as an appendix to G. T. Mermeix's La France 
Socialiste, Paris, 1886. 

Le Socialiste, a weekly founded in Paris by Jules Guesde in 1885. Before 1902 it was the organ 
of the French Labour Party. It became that of the Socialist Party of France from 1902 to 1905, and 
of the French Socialist Party from 1905. Engels contributed to the journal during the 1880s and 
1890s. [p. 12] 

page 80 

^^^^ The Spanish translation appeared in El Socialista from July to August 1886 and was also 
published as a pamphlet in the same year. 

El Socialista, organ of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, was a weekly first published in 
Madrid in 1885. [p. 12] 

^^'^^ This axiom had been set out by Marx and Engels in a number of their works since the 1840s. 
For the formulation referred to here, see the "General Rules of the International Working Men's 
Association." [p. 13] 

^^°^ In the preface to the German edition of 1872 this phrase is worded somewhat differently. See 
p. 2 of this book. [p. 14] 

^^^^ Engels wrote this preface for the fourth German edition of the Manifesto which appeared in 
London, May 1890, as one of the "Sozialdemokratische Bibliothek" series. This was the last 
edition collated by one of its authors. It also included the prefaces to the German editions of 1872 
and 1883. A part of Engels's preface to this new edition was reprinted in an editorial entitled "A 
New Edition of the Communist Manifesto " in No. 33, August 16, 1890, of Der Sozialdemokrat, 
organ of the German Social-Democratic Party, as well as in an editorial of Arbeiter-Zeitung, No. 
48, November 28, 1890, celebrating Engels's seventieth birthday, [p. 16] 

^^^^ Engels is referring to his preface to the German edition of 1883. [p. 16] 

[23] jYiQ lost German original manuscript of the preface by Marx and Engels to the Russian edition 
of the Manifesto has been finally found. When retranslating this preface from Russian to German, 
Engels made some slight changes in it. [p. 16] 

^^^^ The Geneva Congress of the First International was held September 3-8, 1866. Attending the 
Congress were sixty delegates representing the General Council and the different sections of the 
International, as well as workers' societies of England, France, Germany and Switzerland. 
Hermann Jung was in the chair. Marx's "Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional General 
Council, the Different Questions" was read at the Congress as the General Council's official 
report. The Proudhonists who commanded one third of the votes at the Congress counterposed 
Marx's "Instructions" with a comprehensive programme covering all items on the agenda. 
However, supporters of the General Council won on most of the questions under discussion. The 
Congress adopted six of the nine points in the "Instructions" as resolutions. These covered 
questions involving the united action of the international forces, the legislative introduction of the 
eight-hour working 

page 81 

day, child and woman labour, co-operative labour, trade unions, and the standing armies. The 
Geneva Congress also approved the Rules and Administrative Regulations of the International 
Working Men's Association. 

The Paris Workers' Congress - the International Socialist Workers' Congress ~ was held in 
Paris, July 14-20, 1889, and was actually the founding congress of the Second International. The 
French opportunists, the Possibilists, and their followers in the British Social Democratic 
Federation attempted to take the preparation for the Congress into their hands, seize its leadership 
and obstruct the building of a new international unity of the socialist and workers' organisations on 
the basis of Marxism. But the Marxists led directly by Engels waged a persistent struggle against 
them. And by the time the Congress opened on July 14, 1889 ~ the 100th anniversary of the 
storming of the Bastille ~ the Marxist parties had become dominant. Present at the Congress were 
393 delegates from 20 European and American countries. Their attempt having failed, the 
Possibilists called a rival congress in Paris on the same day to counterpose the Marxist Congress. 
Only a few of the foreign delegates attended the Possibilists' congress, and most of them were fake 

The International Socialist Workers' Congress listened to reports made by delegates of the 
socialist parties on the working-class movement in their respective countries, worked out the basic 
principles of international labour legislation, endorsed the demand for the legislative introduction 
of the eight-hour working day and pointed out the ways workers could attain their objectives. The 
Congress stressed the necessity of the political organisation of the proletariat and of struggling for 
the realisation of the workers' political demands. It advocated the abolition of standing armies and 
proposed the universal arming of the people. The most notable decision made by the Congress was 
to call on the workers of all lands to celebrate May First each year as the international festival of 
the working class, [p. 22] 

^^^^ Engels wrote this preface in German for the new Polish edition of the Manifesto, which was 
published in 1892 in London by the Przedswit Press run by Polish socialists. After sending the 
preface to the Przedswit Press, Engels wrote, in a letter to Stanislaw Mendelson, dated February 
11, 1892, that he would like to learn Polish and thoroughly study the development of the workers' 
movement in Poland, so that he could write a more detailed preface for the next Polish edition of 
the Manifesto . [p. 23] 

page 82 

^^^^ Congress Poland, a part of Poland which under the official name of Polish Kingdom was 
ceded to Russia by the decisions of the Vienna Congress of 1814-15. [p. 23] 

^^^^ This preface, originally entitled "To the Italian Reader," was written by Engels in French for 
the Italian edition of the Manifesto on the request of the Italian socialist leader Filippo Turati. The 
Italian edition was published as a pamphlet in Milan by the press of Critica Sociale, a socialist 
theoretical periodical. The Manifesto was translated into Italian by Pompeo Bettini, and Engels's 
preface by Turati. [p. 26] 

^^^^ In many of his works, particularly in his article "Die Erfurterei im Jahr 1859," Marx set out 
the idea that reaction after 1848 acted as a peculiar testamentary executor of the revolution, 
inevitably fulfilling the demands of the revolution, although in a tragi-comic manner, almost as a 
satire on the revolution, [p. 26] 

^^'^^ In the German original (the 1848 edition), the words "political advance of that class" read 
"political advance." [p. 33] 

^^°^ The words "(as in Italy and Germany)" are not in the German original, [p. 33] 

^^" The words "(as in France)" are not in the German original, [p. 33] 

f^^^ In the German edition of 1890, the word "earlier" reads "other." [p. 35] 

^^^^ In the German original, the sentence ends here. Then follows: "They hindered production, 
instead of promoting it. They became so many fetters. ..." [p. 37] 

^^^^ In the German edition of 1848, the words "development of the conditions of bourgeois 
property" read "development of bourgeois civilisation and the conditions of bourgeois property." 
But in the German editions of 1872, 1883 and 1890, the words "bourgeois civilisation and" were 
omitted, [p. 38] 

^^^^ In their works written in later periods, Marx and Engels substituted the more accurate 
concepts of "value of labour power" and "price of labour power" (first introduced by Marx) for 
"value of labour" and "price of labour." [p. 39] 

^^^^ In the first German edition of February 1848, the words "superseded by that of women" read 
"superseded by that of women and children." [p. 40] 

^^^^ In the German original, this sentence reads: "They direct their attacks not only against the 
bourgeois conditions of production, but. ..." [p. 4i] 

page 83 

^^^^ The words "(Trades' Unions)" are not in the German original, [p. 42] 

^^'^^ In the German original, the words "elements of political and general education" read 
"elements of education." [p. 43] 

^^°^ In the German original, the words "fresh elements of enlightenment and progress" read "mass 
educational elements." [p. 43] 

^^^^ In the German original, "The 'dangerous class,' the social scum," read "The lumpen 
proletariat." [p. 44] 

^^^^ The word "self-conscious" is not in the German original, [p. 45] 

^^^^ In the German original this sentence reads: "The essential condition for the existence, and for 
the sway of the bourgeois class, is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of private individuals, 
the formation and augmentation of capital. ..." [p. 46] 

^^^^ In the German original, the word "sectarian" reads "special." [p. 47] 

^^^^ In the German original, the words "the exploitation of the many by the few" read "the 
exploitation of the ones by the others." [p. 48] 

^^^^ The words "into capital," are not in the German original, [p. 5i] 

^^^^ In the German original, the words "the leading class of the nation" read "the national class." 

[p. 55] 

^^^^ In the German edition of 1848, the word "knowledge" reads "conscience." In the German 
editions of 1872, 1883 and 1890, the word "knowledge" was used as in the English translation. 

[p. 56] 

^^'^^ The words "necessitate further inroads upon the old social order," are not in the German 
original, [p. 57] 

^^°^ In the German edition of 1848, the word "distinction" reads "antithesis." In the German 
editions of 1872, 1883 and 1890, the word "distinction" was used as in the English translation, [p. 


^^^^ The words "by a more equable distribution of the population over the country" are not in the 
German original, [p. 58] 

^^^^ In the German editions of 1872, 1883 and 1890, the words "swept away the conditions for the 
existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally" read "swept away the conditions for the 
existence of class antagonisms, and classes generally." In the German edition of 1848, the wording 
is the same as in the English translation, [p. 58] 

^^^^ The Legitimists supported the Bourbon Dynasty which was overthrown in 1830 and which 
represented the interest of the hereditary 

page 84 

big landowners. In the struggle against the Orleans Dynasty, which was propped up by the finance 
aristocracy and big bourgeoisie, a section of the Legitimists often resorted to social demagogy and 
pretended to be the protectors of the working people against the exploitation by the bourgeoisie. 

Young England, a group of politicians and men of letters who belonged to the Tory Party. It was 
organised in the early 1840s. Representatives of Young England reflected the discontent of the 
landed aristocracy against the increasing economical and political strength of the bourgeoisie. 
They resorted to demagogic methods in order to place the working class under their influence and 
use them to combat the bourgeoisie, [p. 6i] 

^^^^ The words "dropped from the tree of industry" are not in the German original, [p. 62] 

^^^^ In the German edition of 1848, the word "Christian" reads "holy and present-day." In the 
German editions of 1872, 1883 and 1890, the word "Christian" was used as in the English 
translation, [p. 62] 

^^^^ In the German original, this sentence reads: "In its subsequent development this tendency sank 
into a cowardly fit of dejection." [p. 64] 

^^^^ In the German original there is another sentence after this which reads: "It was bound to 
appear as idle speculation about real society and about the realisation of the essence of man." In 
the German editions of 1872, 1883 and 1890, the sentence reads: "It was bound to appear as idle 
speculation about the realisation of the essence of man." [p. 64] 

^^^^ In the German editions of 1872, 1883 and 1890, the words "correspond with" read "arise 
from." [p. zu 

^^'^^ In the German original, the words "The practical measures proposed in them" read "Their 
positive proposals concerning the future society." [p. 72] 

^°^ In the German original, the word "distinction" reads "antithesis." [p. 72] 

^^^^ The Reformistes were adherents of the newspaper La Reforme, which was published in Paris 
from 1843 to 1850. They advocated the establishment of a republic and the carrying out of 
democratic and social reforms, [p. 73] 

^^^^ KleinbUrgerei in the German original. Marx and Engels used this term to describe the 
reactionary elements of the urban petty bourgeoisie, [p. 75]