In 1848, he co-authoredThe Communist Manifesto with Marx, and he also authored and co-authored (primarily with Marx) many other works. He later supported Marx financially to do research and writeDas Kapital. After Marx's death, Engels edited the second and third volumes. Additionally, Engels organised Marx's notes on theTheories of Surplus Value, which he later published as the "fourth volume" ofCapital.
For I am of the opinion... that the reconquest of the German speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?
Written under the pseudonym of Friedrich Oswald,“Telegraph für Deutschland”,Telegraph für Deutschland, Nos. 2-5, (January 1841)
Today I have shaved my moustache off again and buried the youthful corpse with much wailing. I look like a woman; it is shameful; and if I had known that without a moustache I should look such a sight I would not have hacked it off. As I stood before the mirror, scissors in hand, and had shorn off the right side, the Old Man came into the office and had to laugh out loud, when he saw me with half a moustache. But now I shall let it grow again, for I cannot show myself anywhere. In the Academy of Singing I was the only one with a moustache and always used to laugh at the philistines who could not marvel enough that I had the audacity to go so unshaven into decent society. The ladies, incidentally, liked it very much, and so did the Old Man. Only last night at the concert six young dandies stood around me, all in tail-coats and kid-gloves, and I stood among them in an ordinary coat and without gloves. The fellows made remarks all evening about me and my bristling upper lip. The best of it is that three months ago nobody knew me here and now all the world does, just because of the moustache! Oh, the philistines!
Letter to his sister, Marie (February 18, 1841)
How did this division of the nations come about, what was its basis? The division is in accordance with all the previous history of thenationalities in question.Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-ofindependence fromnatural laws, but in theknowledge of theselaws, and in thepossibility thisgives ofsystematically making them work towards definite ends.Hegel was the first to statecorrectly therelation between freedom andnecessity. To him, freedom is the insight into necessity.The onlydifference as compared with the old, outspokenslavery is this, that theworker oftoday seems to befree because he is notsold once for all, but piecemeal by theday, theweek, theyear, and because no oneowner sells him to another, but he isforced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particularperson, but of the wholeproperty-holdingclass.What eachindividualwills is obstructed by everyone else, and what emerges is something that no one willed.
There is nocountry inEurope which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples (Völkerruinen), the remnant of a formerpopulation that wassuppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle ofhistoricaldevelopment. Theserelics of a nationmercilessly trampled underfoot in the course of history, asHegel says, these residual fragments of peoples (Völkerabfälle) always becomefanaticalstandard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation orloss of their nationalcharacter, just as their wholeexistence in general is itself aprotest against a great historicalrevolution.
How did this division of the nations come about, what was its basis? The division is in accordance with all the previous history of thenationalities in question. It is the beginning of the decision on thelife ordeath of all these nations, large and small. All the earlierhistory of Austria up to the present day isproof of this and 1848 confirmed it. Among all the large andsmall nations ofAustria, only three standard-bearers ofprogress took an active part in history, and still retain theirvitality — theGermans, thePoles and theMagyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined toperish before long in the revolutionary worldstorm. (Weltsturm). For thatreason they are now counter-revolutionary.
The Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak abloodyrevenge on the Slavbarbarians. The generalwar which will then break out will smash this SlavSonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The nextworld war will result in thedisappearance from the face of the earth not only ofreactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.
It is clear even from the English press thatGirardin doesn't supportCavaignac. But the very fact that he remarked on the brightness of Cavaignac's prospects is enough to characterise the situation. You mentioned the possibility that the majority [in the Legislative Assembly] might conclude an agreement withBonaparte and endeavour to carry out an illegal revision; if they do so, I think it will go awry. They'll never succeed so long as it's opposed byThiers,Changarnier and theDébats and their respective adherents. It would be too fine an opportunity for Cavaignac; and in that case he could, I believe, count on the army. If there's a fracas next year, Germany will be in the devil of a position. France, Italy and Poland all have an interest in her dismemberment. As you'll have seen,Mazzini has even promised the Czechs rehabilitation. Apart from Hungary, Germany would have only one possible ally, Russia — provided that a peasants' revolution had taken place there. Otherwise we shall have a guerre à mort with our noble friends from all points of the compass, and it's very questionable how the business will end.
The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes to me that the Poles areune nation foutue [a finished nation] who can only continue to serve a purpose until such time as Russia herself becomes caught up into the agrarian revolution. From that momentPoland will have absolutely noraison d'étre any more. The Poles' sole contribution to history has been to indulge in foolish pranks at once valiant and provocative. Nor can a single moment be cited when Poland, even if only by comparison with Russia, has successfully represented progress or done anything of historical significance.
Conclusion: To take as much as possible away from thePoles in the West, to man their fortresses, especiallyPosen, with Germans on the pretext of defence, to let them stew in their own juice, send them into battle, gobble bare their land, fob them off with promises of Riga and Odessa and, should it be possible to get the Russians moving, to ally oneself with the latter and compel the Poles to give way. Every inch of the frontier between Memel and Cracow we cede to the Poles will, militarily speaking, be utterly ruinous to this already wretchedly weak frontier, and will leave exposed the whole of the Baltic coast as far as Stettin. Besides, I am convinced that, come the next fracas, the entire Polish insurrection will be confined to Poseners and Galician nobility together with a few who have come over from the Kingdom, this having been bled so white that it's capable of nothing more, and that the pretensions of these knights, unless supported by French, Italians and Scandinavians, etc., and bolstered up by rumpuses on the part of the Czechs, will founder on the wretchedness of their performance. A nation which can muster 20,000 to 30,000 men at most, is not entitled to a voice. And Poland certainly could not muster very much more.
Lassalle. It would be a pity about the fellow because of his great ability, but these goings-on are really too bad. He was always a man one had to keep a devilish sharp eye on and as a real Jew from the Slav border was always to exploit anyone for his own private ends on party pretexts. And then his urge to push his way into polite society,de parvenir, if only for appearance's sake, to disguise the greasy Breslau Jew with all kinds of pomade and paint was always repulsive.
Letter toKarl Marx (7 March 1856), quoted inThe Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Volume 40. Letters 1856–59 (2010), p. 27
What do you say to theelections in the factory districts? Once again the proletariat has discredited itself terribly... [I]t cannot be denied that theincrease of working-class voters has brought theTories more than their mere additional percentage and has improved their relative position.
Letter toKarl Marx (18 November 1868), quoted inKarl Marx and Frederick Engels: Selected Correspondence, 1846–1895 (1942), pp. 253-254
Labour is the source of allwealth, the politicaleconomists assert. And it really is the source -- next tonature, which supplies it with the material that it converts into wealth. But it is eveninfinitely more than this. It is the prime basic condition for allhuman existence, and this to such an extent that, in asense, we have to say that labourcreated man himself.
Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research.
Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence fromnatural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends.
Without slavery, no Greek state, no Greek art and science, without slavery, no Roman Empire. But without the basis laid by Hellenism and the Roman Empire, also no modern Europe. We should never forget that our whole economic, political and intellectual development presupposes a state of things in which slavery was as necessary as it was universally recognised. In this sense we are entitled to say: Without the slavery of antiquity no modern socialism.
Theanarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that theproletarian revolution must begin by doing away with thepolitical organisation of the state. But after itsvictory the soleorganisation which the proletariat finds already in existence is precisely the state. This state may require very considerable alterations before it can fulfil its new functions. But todestroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conqueredpower, hold down itscapitalistadversaries and carry out thateconomic revolution ofsociety without which the whole victory mustend in a newdefeat and in amass slaughter of the workers similar to those after theParis Commune.
We are now approaching asocial revolution, in which the old economic foundations ofmonogamy will disappear just as surely as those of its complement,prostitution. Monogamy arose through the concentration of considerable wealth in onehand — aman's hand — and from the endeavor to bequeath this wealth to thechildren of this man to the exclusion of all others. This necessitated monogamy on thewoman's, but not on the man's part. Hence this monogamy of women in no way hindered open orsecretpolygamy of men. Now, the impending social revolution will reduce this whole care ofinheritance to a minimum bychanging at least the overwhelming part of permanent and inheritable wealth—themeans of production—intosocial property. Since monogamy was caused by economic conditions, will it disappear when these causes are abolished? One might reply, not without reason: not only will it not disappear, but it will rather beperfectlyrealized. For with thetransformation of the means ofproduction intocollective property,wagelabor will also disappear, and with it the proletariat and the necessity for a certain,statistically ascertainable number of women tosurrender formoney. Prostitution disappears and monogamy, instead of going out of existence, at last becomes a reality—for men also. At all events, the situation will be very much changed for men. But also that of women, and of all women, will be considerably altered. With the transformation of the means of production into collective property the monogamousfamily ceases to be theeconomic unit of society. The private household changes to a socialindustry. The care andeducation of children become? apublic matter. Society caresequally well forall children,legal orillegal. This removes the care about the "consequences" which now forms theessential social factor—moral and economic—hindering agirl to surrender unconditionally to thebeloved man. Will not this be sufficient cause for a gradual rise of a more unconventionalintercourse of thesexes and a more lenientpublic opinion regardingvirginhonor and femaleshame? And finally, did we not see that in themodern world monogamy and prostitution, though antitheses, are inseparable and poles of the same social condition? Can prostitution disappear without engulfing at the same time monogamy?
With this as its basic constitution, civilization achieved things of which gentile society was not even remotely capable. But it achieved them by setting in motion the lowest instincts and passions in man and developing them at the expense of all his other abilities.From its first day to this, sheer greed was the driving spirit of civilization; wealth and again wealth and once more wealth, wealth, not of society, but of the single scurvy individual–here was its one and final aim. If at the same time the progressive development of science and a repeated flowering of supreme art dropped into its lap, it was only because without them modern wealth could not have completely realized its achievements.
My dearLaura. My congratulations toPaul le candidat du Jardin des Plantes—et des animaux. Being, in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district. Let us hope the animaux will have the best of it in this struggle against the bêtes.—I am rather surprised at Basly's holding back, but if a set of men succeeds in being excluded from the press altogether, what can they expect? From Mesa's letter in the Spanish Socialista I See that theBlanquists too are making volte-face and approaching the Possibilists—another bad sign. A little success—even relative—at the elections would therefore be very welcome when our people are under such a momentary cloud. I know very well that that cloud will pass, that Parisian party life is a continual change of ups and downs, but at the same time I cannot but wish that next time they will cherish their own little weekly paper a little more than those disreputable dailies to which they work hard to give a reputation in order to be kicked out as soon as they have succeeded.
Letter toLaura Marx after her husband andKarl Marx's son-in-law,Paul Lafargue, stood for election as a candidate in a Paris district that containeda zoo (26 April 1887), quoted in Friedrich Engels,Correspondence, 1887–1890 (1959), p. 37
By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor. By proletariat, the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced toselling theirlabor power in order to live.
Introduction to 1891 edition of Karl Marx's,The Civil War in France
The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself therepresentative of the whole of society—the takingpossession of the means of production in thename of society—this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference insocial relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; thegovernment of persons is replaced by theadministration of things, and by theconduct of processes of production. The State is not “abolished.” It dies out.
Socialism, Utopian and Scientific (1901)
History has proved us, and all who thought like us, wrong. It has made it clear that the state of economic development on the Continent at that time [1848] was not, by a long way, ripe for the removal of capitalist production.
The irony of world history turns everything upside down. We, the "revolutionaries," the "rebels"—we are thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods and revolt. The parties of order, as they call themselves, are perishing under the legal conditions created by themselves. They cry despairingly with Odilon Barrot:la légalité notes tue, legality is the death of us; whereas we, under this legality, get firm muscles and rosy cheeks and look like eternal life.
Die Nationalökonomie entstand als eine natürliche Folge der Ausdehnung des Handels, und mit ihr trat an die Stelle des einfachen, unwissenschaftlichen Schachers ein ausgebildetes System des erlaubten Betrugs, eine komplette Bereicherungswissenschaft.
Diese aus dem gegenseitigen Neid und der Habgier der Kaufleute entstandene Nationalökonomie oder Bereicherungswissenschaft trägt das Gepräge der ekelhaftesten Selbstsucht auf der Stirne.
This political economy or science of enrichmentborn of themerchants' mutualenvy andgreed, bears on its brow the mark of the most detestableselfishness.
Das Merkantilsystem hatte noch eine gewisse unbefangene, katholische Geradheit und verdeckte das unsittliche Wesen des Handels nicht im mindesten. ... Als aber der ökonomische Luther, Adam Smith, die bisherige Ökonomie kritisierte, hatten sich die Sachen sehr geändert. ... An die Stelle der katholischen Geradheit trat protestantische Gleisnerei.
TheMercantile System still had a certain artlessCatholiccandour and did not in the least conceal theimmoral nature of trade. ... But when the economicLuther,Adam Smith, criticisedpast economics things had changed considerably. ...Protestanthypocrisy took the place of Catholic candour.
Natürlich ist es im Interesse des Handelnden, mit dem einen, von welchem er wohlfeil kauft, wie mit dem andern, an welchen er teuer verkauft, sich in gutem Vernehmen zu halten. Es ist also sehr unklug von einer Nation gehandelt, wenn sie bei ihren Versorgern und Kunden eine feindselige Stimmung nährt. Je freundschaftlicher, desto vorteilhafter. Dies ist die Humanität des Handels, und diese gleisnerische Art, die Sittlichkeit zu unsittlichen Zwecken zu mißbrauchen, ist der Stolz des Systems der Handelsfreiheit.
Naturally, it is in the interest of the trader to be on good terms with the one from whom hebuys cheap as well as with the other to whom he sells dear. A nation therefore acts very imprudently if it fostersfeelings ofanimosity in its suppliers andcustomers. The morefriendly, the moreadvantageous. Such is the humanity of trade. And this hypocritical way of misusing morality for immoralpurposes is thepride of thefree-trade system.
Ihr habt die kleinen Monopole vernichtet, um das EINE große Grundmonopol, das Eigentum, desto freier und schrankenloser wirken zu lassen; ihr habt die Enden der Erde zivilisiert, um neues Terrain für die Entfaltung eurer niedrigen Habsucht zu gewinnen, ihr habt die Völker verbrüdert, aber zu einer Brüderschaft von Dieben.
You have destroyed the smallmonopolies so that the one great basic monopoly, property, may function the more freely and unrestrictedly. You havecivilised the ends of theearth towin new terrain for the deployment of yourvile avarice. You have brought about thefraternisation of the peoples – but the fraternity is the fraternity ofthieves.
Ihr habt ... die Kriege vermindert, um im Frieden desto mehr zu verdienen, um die Feindschaft der einzelnen, den ehrlosen Krieg der Konkurrenz, auf die höchste Spitze zu treiben! - Wo habt ihr etwas aus reiner Humanität, aus dem Bewußtsein der Nichtigkeit des Gegensatzes zwischen dem allgemeinen und individuellen Interesse getan? Wo seid ihr sittlich gewesen, ohne interessiert zu sein, ohne unsittliche, egoistische Motive im Hintergrund zu hegen?
You have reduced the number of wars – to earn all the biggerprofits inpeace, to intensify to the utmost the enmity between individuals, the ignominious war ofcompetition! When have you done anything out of purehumanity, fromconsciousness of the futility of the opposition between the general and theindividual interest? When have you been moral without being interested, without harbouring at the back of yourmind immoral, egoistical motives?
Nachdem die liberale Ökonomie ihr Bestes getan hatte, um durch die Auflösung der Nationalitäten die Feindschaft zu verallgemeinern, die Menschheit in eine Horde reißender Tiere - und was sind Konkurrenten anders? - zu verwandeln, die einander ebendeshalb auffressen, WEIL jeder mit allen andern gleiches Interesse hat, nach dieser Vorarbeit blieb ihr nur noch ein Schritt zum Ziele übrig, die Auflösung der Familie. Um diese durchzusetzen, kam ihr eine eigene schöne Erfindung, das Fabriksystem, zu Hülfe.
By dissolving nationalities, the liberal economic system had done itsbest to universaliseenmity, to transformmankind into a horde of ravenousbeasts (for what else are competitors?) who devour one another just because each hasidentical interests with all the others – after this preparatory[work there remained but one step to take before thegoal was reached, the dissolution of the family. To accomplish this, economy's ownbeautifulinvention, thefactory system, came to its aid.
Die Nachfrage des Ökonomen ist nicht die wirkliche Nachfrage, seine Konsumtion ist eine künstliche. Dem Ökonomen ist nur der ein wirklich Fragender, ein wirklicher Konsument, der für das, was er empfängt, ein Äquivalent zu bieten hat.
The economist's “demand” is not the real demand; his “consumption” is an artificial consumption. For the economist, only that person really demands, only that person is a real consumer, who has anequivalent to offer for what he receives.
German title:Die Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England
Page numbers refer to 1987 Penguin edition
What the proletarianneeds, he can obtain only from this bourgeoisie, which isprotected in its monopoly by the power of the state.I have neverseen a class so deeply demoralised, so incurably debased by selfishness, so corroded within, so incapable of progress, as the Englishbourgeoisie; and I mean by this, especially the bourgeoisie proper, particularly theLiberal,Corn Law repealing bourgeoisie. For it nothing exists in this world, except for the sake of money, itself not excluded.The way in which the vastmass of thepoor are treated by modern society istrulyscandalous. They are herded into greatcities where theybreathe a foulerair than in thecountryside which they have left.
I forsook the company and the dinner-parties, the port-wine and champagne of themiddle-classes, and devoted my leisure-hours almost exclusively to the intercourse with plain working men; I am bothglad and proud of having done so. Glad, because thus I was induced to spend many ahappyhour in obtaining a knowledge of the realities of life—many an hour, which else would have been wasted infashionabletalk and tiresomeetiquette; proud, because thus I got anopportunity of doingjustice to an oppressed andcalumniatedclass of men who with all theirfaults and under all the disadvantages of theirsituation, yetcommand the respect of every one but anEnglishmoney-monger.
p. 27
The bourgeoisie has gained a monopoly of all means of existence in the broadest sense of theword. What the proletarianneeds, he can obtain only from this bourgeoisie, which isprotected in its monopoly by the power of the state. The proletarian is, therefore, in law and in fact, the slave of the bourgeoisie, which can decree his life or death.
p. 112
The bourgeoisie ... lets him have the appearance of acting from afree choice, of making acontract with free, unconstrainedconsent, as aresponsible agent who has attained hismajority. Fine freedom, where the proletarian has no otherchoice than that of either accepting the conditions which the bourgeoisie offers him, or ofstarving, of freezing to death, ofsleepingnaked among the beasts of theforests!
p. 112
Der ganze Unterschied gegen die alte, offenherzige Sklaverei ist nur der, dass der heutige Arbeiter frei zu sein scheint, weil er nicht auf einmal verkauft wird, sondern stückweise, pro Tag, pro Woche, pro Jahr, und weil nicht ein Eigenthümer ihn dem andern verkauft, sondern er sich selbst auf diese Weise verkaufen muss, da er ja nicht der Sklave eines Einzelnen, sondern der ganzen besitzenden Klasse ist.
The onlydifference as compared with the old, outspokenslavery is this, that the worker oftodayseems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by theday, theweek, theyear, and because no oneowner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of thewhole property-holding class.
pp. 114-115
I have neverseen a class so deeply demoralised, so incurably debased by selfishness, so corroded within, so incapable of progress, as the Englishbourgeoisie; and I mean by this, especially the bourgeoisie proper, particularly theLiberal,Corn Law repealing bourgeoisie. For it nothing exists in this world, except for the sake of money, itself not excluded. It knows nobliss save that of rapidgain, nopain save that of losinggold. In the presence of this avarice andlust of gain, it is not possible for a single humansentiment oropinion to remain untainted.
How is it possible that the poorer classes can remainhealthy and have a reasonableexpectation of life under such conditions? What can one expect but that they shouldsuffer from continual outbreaks ofepidemics and an excessively low expectation of life? The physical condition of the workers shows a progressive deterioration.
The bourgeoisie ischaritable out of self-interest; it gives nothing outright, but regards its gifts as a business matter, makes a bargain with the poor, saying: "If I spend this much upon benevolent institutions, I thereby purchase the right not to be troubled any further, and you are bound thereby to stay in your dusky holes and not to irritate my tender nerves by exposing your misery. You shall despair as before, but you shall despair unseen."
True, the law is sacred to the bourgeois, for it is his own composition, enacted with his consent, and for his benefit and protection. He knows that, even if an individual law should injure him, the whole fabric protects his interests; and more than all, the sanctity of the law, the sacredness of order as established by the active will of one part of society, and the passive acceptance of the other, is the strongest support of his social position. Because the English bourgeois finds himself reproduced in his law, as he does in his God, the policeman's truncheon which, in a certain measure, is his own club, has for him a wonderfully soothing power. But for the working-man quite otherwise! The working-man knows too well, has learned from too oft-repeated experience, that the law is a rod which the bourgeois has prepared for him; and when he is not compelled to do so, he never appeals to the law.
Communism is thedoctrine of the conditions of theliberation of the proletariat.Thecapitalists soon had everything in theirhands and nothing remained to the workers.Big industry, competition and generally theindividualistic organization of production have become a fetter which it must and will shatter.Abolishcompetition and replace it withassociation.
The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind ofcapital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existencedepends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state ofbusiness, on the vagaries of unbridled competition.
There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today.
The capitalists soon had everything in theirhands and nothing remained to the workers.
The class of big capitalists, who, in allcivilizedcountries, are already in almost exclusive possession of all the means of subsistance and of the instruments (machines,factories) and materials necessary for the production of the means ofsubsistence. This is the bourgeois class, or the bourgeoisie.
The class of the wholly propertyless, who are obliged to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to get, in exchange, the means of subsistence for their support. This is called the class of proletarians, or the proletariat.
Labor is acommodity, like any other, and itsprice is therefore determined by exactly the same laws that apply to other commodities. In a regime of big industry or of free competition – as we shall see, the two come to the same thing – the price of a commodity is, on the average, always equal to itscost of production. Hence, the price of labor is also equal to the cost of production of labor. But, the costs of production of labor consist ofprecisely thequantity of means of subsistence necessary to enable the worker to continue working, and to prevent the working class from dying out. The worker will therefore get no more for his labor than is necessary for this purpose; the price of labor, or thewage, will, in other words, be the lowest, the minimum, required for the maintenance of life.
The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.
The slave frees himself when, of all the relations ofprivate property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.
The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another, for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of theproduct. ... The proletarian liberates himself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences.
The manufacturing worker almost always lives in the countryside and in a more or lesspatriarchal relation to his landlord or employer; the proletarian lives, for the most part, in the city and his relation to his employer is purely acash relation. The manufacturing worker is torn out of his patriarchal relation by big industry,loses whatever property he still has, and in this way becomes a proletarian.
Big industry has brought all the people of the Earth into contact with each other, has merged all localmarkets into one world market, has spread civilization and progress everywhere and has thus ensured that whatever happens in civilized countries will haverepercussions in all other countries. It follows that if the workers inEngland orFrance now liberate themselves, this must set offrevolution in all other countries – revolutions which, sooner or later, must accomplish the liberation of their respective working class.
Wherever big industries displacedmanufacture, the bourgeoisie developed in wealth and power to the utmost and made itself the first class of the country. The result was that wherever this happened, the bourgeoisie tookpolitical power into its own hands and displaced the hithertoruling classes, thearistocracy, theguildmasters, and their representative, theabsolute monarchy. The bourgeoisie annihilated the power of the aristocracy, the nobility, by abolishing the entailment of estates – in other words, by makinglanded property subject to purchase and sale, and by doing away with the special privileges of the nobility. It destroyed the power of the guildmasters by abolishing guilds and handicraftprivileges. In their place, it put competition – that is, a state of society in which everyone has theright to enter into any branch of industry, the only obstacle being a lack of the necessary capital.
The introduction of free competition is thus public declaration that from now on the members of society areunequal only to the extent that their capitals are unequal, that capital is the decisive power, and that therefore the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, have become the first class in society. Free competition is necessary for the establishment of big industry, because it is the only condition of society in which big industry can make its way.
Having destroyed thesocial power of thenobility and the guildmasters, the bourgeois also destroyed their political power. Having raised itself to the actual position of first class in society, it proclaims itself to be also the dominant political class. This it does through the introduction of the representative system which rests on bourgeoisequality before the law and the recognition of free competition, and in European countries takes the form ofconstitutional monarchy. In these constitutional monarchies, only those who possess a certain capital arevoters – that is to say, only members of the bourgeoisie. These bourgeois voters choose thedeputies, and these bourgeois deputies, by using their right to refuse to votetaxes, choose a bourgeois government.
Everywhere the proletariat develops in step with the bourgeoisie. In proportion, as the bourgeoisie grows in wealth, the proletariat grows in numbers. For, since the proletarians can be employed only by capital, and since capital extends only through employing labor, it follows that the growth of the proletariat proceeds at precisely the same pace as the growth of capital. Simultaneously, this process draws members of the bourgeoisie and proletarians together into the great cities where industry can be carried on most profitably, and by thus throwing great masses in one spot it gives to the proletarians a consciousness of their own strength. Moreover, the further this process advances, the more new labor-saving machines are invented, the greater is the pressure exercised by big industry on wages, which, as we have seen, sink to their minimum and therewith render the condition of the proletariat increasingly unbearable. The growingdissatisfaction of the proletariat thus joins with its rising power to prepare a proletarian social revolution.
Big industry, competition and generally theindividualistic organization of production have become a fetter which it must and will shatter.
It makes unavoidably necessary an entirely new organization of society in which production is no longer directed by mutually competing individual industrialists but rather by the whole society operating according to a definiteplan and taking account of the needs of all.
Big industry, and the limitless expansion of production which it makes possible, bring within the range of feasibility asocial order in which so much is produced that every member of society will be in a position to exercise and develop all his powers andfaculties in complete freedom. It thus appears that the very qualities of big industry which, in our present-day society, producemisery andcrises are those which, in a different form of society, will abolish this misery and thesecatastrophicdepressions. We see with the greatest clarity: (i) That all theseevils are from now on to be ascribed solely to a social order which no longer corresponds to the requirements of the real situation; and (ii) That it is possible, through a new social order, to do away with these evils altogether.
Abolish competition and replace it withassociation.
Since themanagement of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and thedistribution of all products according to commonagreement – in a word, what is called thecommunal ownership ofgoods.
The abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.
Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of thecreation of newforces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations. Private property has not always existed. When, towards the end of theMiddle Ages, there arose a newmode of production which could not be carried on under the then existingfeudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.
The abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary. ... The outcome can only be thevictory of the proletariat.It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.
So long as it is not possible to produce so much that there is enough forall, with more left over for expanding thesocial capital and extending the forces of production – so long as this is not possible, there must always be a ruling class directing the use of society's productive forces, and a poor, oppressed class. How these classes are constituted depends on the stage of development.
The abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary. ... The outcome can only be thevictory of the proletariat.
In allprobability, the proletarian revolution willtransform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity. What will be the course of this revolution? Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirectdominance of the proletariat.
Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.
Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, allagriculture, alltransport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing theircentralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country's productiveforces.
When all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economichabits may remain.
By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a nationalphenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries.
It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.
What will be the consequences of the ultimate disappearance of private property? Society will take all forces of production and means ofcommerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability ofresources and the needs of the whole society. In this way, most important of all, the evil consequences which are now associated with the conduct of big industry will be abolished. There will be no more crises; the expanded production, which for the present order of society isoverproduction and hence a prevailing cause of misery, will then be insufficient and in need of being expanded much further. Instead of generating misery, overproduction will reach beyond the elementary requirements of society to assure thesatisfaction of the needs of all; it will create new needs and, at the same time, the means of satisfying them. It will become the condition of, and the stimulus to, new progress, which will no longer throw the whole social order intoconfusion, as progress has always done in the past.
Big industry, freed from the pressure of private property, will undergo such an expansion that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison as manufacture seems when put beside the big industry of our own day. This development of industry will make available to society a sufficient mass of products to satisfy the needs of everyone. The same will be true of agriculture, which also suffers from the pressure of private property and is held back by the division ofprivately owned land into small parcels. Here, existingimprovements and scientific procedures will be put into practice, with a resulting leap forward which will assure to society all the products it needs. In this way, such anabundance of goods will be able to satisfy the needs of all its members.
Industry controlled by society as a whole, and operated according to a plan, presupposes well-rounded human beings, theirfaculties developed inbalanced fashion, able to see the system of production in its entirety.
Industry controlled by society as a whole, and operated according to a plan, presupposes well-rounded human beings, theirfaculties developed inbalanced fashion, able to see the system of production in its entirety.
Education will enableyoung people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations. It will, therefore, free them from the one-sided character which the present-daydivision of labor impresses upon every individual.Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use. But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear. It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other.
The generalco-operation of all members of society for the purpose of planned exploitation of the forces of production, the expansion of production to the point where it will satisfy the needs of all, the abolition of a situation in which the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the needs of others, the complete liquidation of classes and their conflicts, the rounded development of thecapacities of all members of society through the elimination of the present division of labor, through industrial education, through engaging in varying activities, through the participation by all in the enjoyments produced by all, through the combination of city and country – these are the main consequences of the abolition of private property.
What will be the influence of communist society on the family? It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.
Community ofwomen is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.
Community ofwomen is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.
What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities? The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle ofcommunity will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.
Allreligions so far have been the expression of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples. But communism is the stage of historical development which makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their disappearance.
Some propose merewelfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended topreserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society. Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for theenemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.
Democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat. It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a commonpolicy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists. It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.
Since the communists cannot enter upon the decisive struggle between themselves and the bourgeoisie until the bourgeoisie is in power, it follows that it is in the interest of the communists to help the bourgeoisie to power as soon as possible in order the sooner to be able to overthrow it.
From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into asocial power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say individuality vanishes.
Engels always considered himself a junior partner, and so, without doubt, he was. But that does not lessen his role. Had he not been the junior partner, much for which his senior partner is known would not have been done. ~John Kenneth Galbraith
Paula Gunn AllenThe Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in American Indian Traditions (1986)
That the Materialistic Socialists will improve H. [History] for the poor. Their best writer, Engels, made known the errors and the horrors of our Factory System.
Lord Acton, quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb,Lord Acton: A Study in Conscience and Politics (1952), pp. 181–82
Engels always considered himself a junior partner, and so, without doubt, he was. But that does not lessen his role. Had he not been the junior partner, much for which his senior partner is known would not have been done.
Friedrich Engels once said: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” What does “regression into barbarism” mean to our lofty European civilization? Until now, we have all probably read and repeated these words thoughtlessly, without suspecting their fearsome seriousness. A look around us at this moment shows what the regression of bourgeois society into barbarism means. This world war is a regression into barbarism. The triumph of imperialism leads to the annihilation of civilization.
Engels's analysis has faced criticism in the twentieth century, both for its anthropological inaccuracy and for its theoretical confusion. Simone de Beauvoir found the materialist position inadequate to describe the nature of female subordination. "Historical materialism takes for granted facts that call for explanations.... It cannot provide solutions for the problems we have raised, because these concern the whole man and not that abstraction: Homo economicus."Simone de Beauvoir argued that woman's oppression is at bottom not based on economic factors, for "if the human consciousness had not included the original category of the Other and an original aspiration to dominate the Other, the invention of the bronze tool could not have caused the oppression of woman." More recentlyAnn Lane has attacked not materialism but Engels's inconsistency in applying it. She has argued that Engels mistakenly believed "that the responsibilities of home and family, and the economic ties that bind them together, are not an important part of what establishes their cohesion, that society can remove a vital function of an institution in order to perfect it. Socialist society will strip the family of most of its traditional jobs, but the family itself, in its pristine state, untouched by history or reality, shall remain."
Margaret S Marsh,Anarchist Women, 1870-1920 (1981)
Today in Korea—in Southeast Asia—in Latin America and the West Indies, in the Middle East—in Africa, one sees tens of millions of long oppressed colonial peoples surging toward freedom. What courage—what sacrifice—what determination never to rest until victory!...And arrayed against them, the combined powers of the so-called Free West, headed by the greedy, profit-hungry, war-minded industrialists and financial barons of our America. The illusion of an “American Century” blinds them for the immediate present to the clear fact that civilization has passed them by—that we now live in a people’s century—that the star shines brightly in the East of Europe and of the world. Colonial peoples today look to the Soviet Socialist Republics...One reverently speaks ofMarx,Engels,Lenin andStalin—the shapers of humanity’s richest present and future.
You cannot conquer an awakened people. You cannot Prussianize Belgium and France. You cannot eradicate the teachings ofMarx and Engels from the minds of hundreds of thousands of German Socialists. Surely they would find some way of uniting in spirit and in deed with the comrades of other nations in case of such an invasion on the part of a government which they had always understood and denounced.
.jpg)
.jpg)
%2c_1864.png)
_1981%2c_MiNr_2646.jpg)
.jpg)
_1970%2c_MiNr_1622.jpg)
.jpg)
_1970%2c_MiNr_657.jpg)
.jpg)
