首頁>> >> 社会学>> 卡爾·馬剋思 Karl Marx   德國 Germany   德意志帝國   (1818年五月5日1883年三月14日)
共産黨宣言 The Communist Manifesto
  1847年6月,共産主義者同盟第1次代表大會上,討論了恩格斯草擬的準備作為同盟綱領的《共産主義信條草案》,决定進一步討論修改。同年9月,同盟領導人K.沙佩爾、H.鮑威爾和J.莫爾提出的題為《共産主義問答》的草案,帶有空想社會主義的色彩。稍後,“真正的社會主義者”M.赫斯在巴黎提出一個修正前者的草案。在一次巴黎區部委員會會議上,恩格斯對這個草案作了尖銳批評。會議委托恩格斯擬出新草案。恩格斯寫了作為綱領初稿的《共産主義原理》。1847年11月舉行的共産主義者同盟第2次代表大會,經過激烈辯論接受馬剋思和恩格斯的觀點,委托他們起草一個周詳的理論和實踐的黨綱。馬剋思、恩格斯在倫敦和布魯塞爾就如何起草宣言交換意見,取得一致認識,並研究了宣言的整個內容和結構,由馬剋思執筆寫成。中央委員會接到《宣言》手稿後即付印出版。 1848年2月,《宣言》在倫敦第 1次以單行本問世。中國最早的《共産黨宣言》中譯本發現於山東省廣饒縣大王鎮,現存於東營市歷史博物館(廣饒縣)。
  《共産黨宣言》-核心內容
  
  《共産黨宣言》(又被譯為《共産主義宣言》)是卡爾·馬剋思和弗裏德裏希·恩格斯為共産主義者同盟起草的綱領,國際共産主義運動第一個綱領性文獻,馬剋思主義誕生的重要標志。 1847 年11月共産主義者同盟第二次代表大會委托馬剋思和恩格斯起草一個周詳的理論和實踐的黨綱。馬剋思 、恩格斯取得一致認識,並研究了宣言的整個內容和結構,由馬剋思執筆寫成 。1848年2月,《宣言》在倫敦第一次以單行本問世。
  
  《宣言》第一次全面係統地闡述了科學社會主義理論,指出共産主義運動已成為不可抗拒的歷史潮流。全文包括簡短的引論、資産者和無産者、無産者和共産黨人、社會主義的和共産主義的文獻、共産黨人對各種反對黨派的態度等幾個部分。構成《宣言》核心的基本原理是:每一歷史時代主要的生産方式與交換方式以及必然由此産生的社會結構,是該時代政治的和精神的歷史所賴以確立的基礎,並且衹有從這一基礎出發,歷史才能得到說明。從原始社會解體以來人類社會的全部歷史都是階級鬥爭的歷史;這個歷史包括一係列發展階段,現在已經達到這樣一個階段,即無産階級如果不同時使整個社會擺脫任何剝削、壓迫以及階級劃分和階級鬥爭,就不能使自己從資産階級的剝削統治下解放出來。
  
  《宣言》運用辯證唯物主義和歷史唯物主義分析生産力與生産關係、基礎與上層建築的矛盾,分析階級和階級鬥爭,特別是資本主義社會階級鬥爭的産生、發展過程,論證資本主義必然滅亡和社會主義必然勝利的客觀規律,作為資本主義掘墓人的無産階級肩負的世界歷史使命。《宣言》公開宣佈必須用革命的暴力推翻資産階級的統治,建立無産階級的“政治統治”,表述了以無産階級專政代替資産階級專政的思想。《宣言》還指出無産階級在奪取政權後,必須在大力發展生産力的基礎上,逐步地進行巨大的社會改造,進而達到消滅階級對立和階級本身的存在條件。《宣言》批判當時各種反動的社會主義思潮,對“空想的批判的社會主義”作了科學的分析和評價。
  
  《宣言》闡述作為無産階級先進隊伍的共産黨的性質、特點和鬥爭策略,指出為黨的最近目的而奮鬥與爭取實現共産主義終極目的之間的聯繫。《宣言》最後莊嚴宣告:“無産者在這個革命中失去的衹是鎖鏈。他們獲得的將是整個世界。”並發出國際主義的戰鬥號召:“全世界無産者,聯合起來 !”   
  《共産黨宣言》-實踐和影響
  
  《宣言》的基本原理是客觀規律的科學總結。馬剋思、恩格斯指出:“這些基本原理的實際運用,正如《宣言》中所說的,隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移。”他們非常重視在實踐中檢驗自己的理論,研究新的歷史經驗。及時總結巴黎公社(1792~1794)的經驗並把它作為對《宣言》的補充和修改就是一個範例。全世界無産階級一直把《宣言》作為爭取解放的思想武器。
  
  《宣言》在20世紀初開始傳入中國。自1906年起一些報刊上陸續出現《宣言》的某些內容介紹和片斷譯文。1920年出版陳望道翻譯的《共産黨宣言》,是《宣言》在中國最早的全文譯本。
  《共産黨宣言》-歷史背景
  
  
  《共産黨宣言》由馬剋思和恩格斯、寫於1847年12月至1848年1月,發表於1848年2月。
  
  《宣言》是無産階級反對資産階級的鬥爭日益尖銳條件下産生的。
  
  《宣言》是馬剋思、恩格斯進行理論研究和理論鬥爭爭取得巨大成效的情況下産生的。
  
  《宣言》是馬剋思和恩格斯為建立無産階級政黨而鬥爭的實踐中産生的。
  《共産黨宣言》-內容提要
  
  
  1848年2月24日,馬剋思和恩格斯合著的《共産黨宣言》在倫敦第一次出版。這個宣言是共産主義者同盟第二次代表大會委托馬剋思、恩格斯起草的同盟綱領。
  
  《共産黨宣言》包括引言和正文四章。1872年—1893年,馬剋思和恩格斯先後為《宣言》的德文、俄文、英文、波蘭文、意大利文版撰寫了七篇序言。七篇序言簡要說明了《宣言》的基本思想及其在國際共産主義運動中的歷史地位,指明《宣言》的理論原理是歷史唯物主義,並根據無産階級革命的經驗和教訓,對《宣言》作了補充和修改。
  
  引言部分說明寫作《宣言》的背景和目的。
  
  “資産者和無産者”這一章,馬剋思,恩格斯運用歷史唯物主義的基本觀點,分析了資産階級和無産階級的産生,發展及其相互鬥爭的過程,揭示了資本主義必然滅亡和社會主義必然勝利的客觀規律,闡明了無産階級的歷史使命,論述了馬剋思主義的階級鬥爭學說。
  
  階級鬥爭是推動階級社會發展的直接動力(第1--5段)。
  
  考察資産階級的産生和發展過程,揭示資本主義必然滅亡的規律(第6-28段)。
  
  無産階級的産生和發展及其歷史使命(第29--54段)。
  
  “無産者和共産黨人”這一章,馬剋思、恩格斯闡明了共産黨的性質、特點、目的和任務,以及共産黨的理論和基本綱領,批判了資産階級攻擊共産主義的各種謬論,闡述了無産階級專政的基本思想和通嚮共産主義的必由之路。
  
  共産黨的性質、特點和基本綱領(第1--14段)。
  
  批駁資産階級攻擊共産主義的各種謬論(第15--68段)。
  
  無産階級專政的基本思想和通嚮共産主義的必由之路(第69--86段)。
  
  “社會主義和共産主義的文獻”這章,分析和批判了當時的各種假社會主義和空想社會主義,指出它們代表各自的階級利益,但是打着社會主義的旗號進行活動,分析了各種假社會主義流派産生的社會歷史條件,並揭露了它們的階級實質。
  
  反動的社會主義(第1--34段)。
  
  保守的或資産階級的社會主義(第35--42段)。
  
  批判的空想的社會主義和共産主義(第43--56段)。
  《共産黨宣言》《共産黨宣言》
  
  “共産黨人對各種反對黨派的態度”這一章,主要是從共産黨人對帶各種反對黨派的態度上,闡述了共産黨人革命鬥爭的思想策略。
  
  共産黨人政治鬥爭策略的基本原則(第1--4段)。
  
  共産黨人在德國的鬥爭策略(第5--7段)。
  
  共産黨人運用鬥爭策略的目的(第8--12段)。
  
  《宣言》是科學共産主義的第一個綱領性文獻,它標志着馬剋思主義的誕生。《宣言》剛剛發表,就迎來了歐洲1848年的革命風暴。
  
  《宣言》完整、係統而嚴密地闡述了馬剋思主義的主要思想;闡述了馬剋思主義的世界觀,特別是它的階級鬥爭學說;揭示了資本主義社會的內在矛盾和發展規律,論證了資本主義滅亡和社會主義勝利的必然性。《宣言》論述了無産階級作為資本主義掘墓人的偉大歷史使命;闡述了馬剋思主義關於無産階級專政的思想;闡明了共産主義革命不僅要同傳統的所有製關係實行最徹底的决裂,而且要同傳統觀念實行最徹底的决裂;闡明了共産黨的性質和任務。這部著作從誕生起就鼓舞和推動着全世界無産階級爭取解放鬥爭,成為無産階級最銳利的戰鬥武器。恩格斯指出:它是全部社會主義文獻中傳播最廣和最具國際性的著作,是世界各國千百萬工人共同的綱領。
  
  《宣言》結束時強調:共産黨人嚮全世界宣佈,用暴力革命推翻全部現成的社會制度實現共産主義。讓一切反動階級在共産主義革命的面前發抖!無産階級革命中失去的衹是鎖鏈,它將獲得整個世界。《宣言》用響雲霄的最強音,發出無産階級國際主義的偉大號召:全世界無産者,聯合起來!
  《共産黨宣言》-1872年德文版序言
  
  共産主義者同盟這個在當時條件下自然衹能是秘密團體的國際工人組織,1847年11 月在倫敦代表大會上委托我們兩人起草一個準備公佈的周祥的理論和實踐的黨綱。結果就産生了這個《宣言》,《宣言》原稿在二月革命前幾星期寄到倫敦付印。《宣言》最初用德文出版,後來又用德文在德國、英國和美國至少翻印過十二次。第一個英譯本是由艾琳·麥剋法林女士翻譯的,於1850年在倫敦《紅色共和黨人》雜志上發表,後來在1871年至少又有三種不同的英譯本在美國出版。法譯本於1848年六月起義前不久第一次在巴黎印行,最近又在紐約《社會主義者報》上登載;現在又有人在準備新譯本。波蘭文譯本在德國本初版問世後不久就在倫敦出現。俄譯本是於六十年代在日內瓦出版的。丹麥文譯本也是在原書問世後不久就出版了。
  
  不管最近二十五年來的情況發生了多大變化,這個《宣言》中所發揮的一般基本原理整個說來直到現在還是完全正確的。個別地方本來可已作某些修改。這些原理的實際運用,正如《宣言》中所說的,隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移,所以第二章末尾提出的那些革命措施並沒有什麽特殊的意義。現在這一段在許多方面都應該有不同的寫法了。由於最近二十五年來大工業已有很大發展而工人階級的政黨組織也跟着發展起來,由於首先有了二月革命的實際經驗而後來尤其是有了無産階級第一次掌握政權達兩月之久的巴黎公社的實際經驗,所以這個綱領現在有些地方已經過時了。特別是公社已經證明:“工人階級不能簡單地掌握現成的國傢機器,並運用它來達到自己的目的。”(見《法蘭西內戰。國際工人協會總委員會宣言》德文版第十九頁,那裏把這個思想發揮得更加完備。)其次,很明顯,對於社會主義文獻所做的批判在今天看來是不完全的,因為這一批判衹包括到1847年為止;同樣也很明顯,關於共産黨人對各種反對黨派的態度問題所提出的意見(第四章)雖然大體上至今還是正確的,但是由於政治形式已經完全改變,而當時所列舉的那些黨派大部分已被歷史的發展進程所徹底掃除,所以這些意見在實踐方面畢竟是過時了。
  
  但是《宣言》是一個歷史文件,我們已沒有權力來加以修改。下次再版時也許能加上一篇包括從1847年到現在這段時期的導言。這次再版太倉卒了,以致我們竟來不及做這件工作。
  
  卡爾·馬剋思 弗裏德裏希·恩格斯 1872年6月24日於倫敦
  
  《共産黨宣言》-1883年德文版序言
  
  本版序言不幸衹能由我一個人署名了。馬剋思這位比其他任何人都更應受到歐美整個工人階級感謝的人物,已經長眠於海格特公墓,他的墓上已經初次長出了青草。在他逝世以後,就更談不上對《宣言》作什麽修改或補充了。因此,我認為更有必要在這裏再一次明確地申述下面這一點。
  
  貫穿《宣言》的基本思想:每一歷史時代的經濟生産以及必然由此産生的社會結構,是該時代政治的和精神的歷史的基礎;因此(從原始土地公有製解體以來)全部歷史都是階級鬥爭的歷史,即社會發展各個階段上被剝削階級和剝削階級之間、被統治階級和統治階級之間鬥爭的歷史;而這個鬥爭現在已經達到這樣一個階段,即被剝削被壓迫的階級(無産階級),如果不同時使整個社會永遠擺脫剝削、壓迫和階級鬥爭,就不再能使自己從剝削它壓迫它的那個階級(資産階級)下解放出來,—— 這個基本思想完全是屬於馬剋思一個人的。
  
  這一點我已經屢次說過,但正是現在必須在《宣言》本身的前面也寫明這一點。
  
  弗· 恩格斯  1883年6月28日於倫敦
  《共産黨宣言》-中國第一本中譯本《共産黨宣言》
  
  
  簡介
  
   在東營市廣饒縣收藏着1920年8月出版的我國最早的《共産黨宣言》中文譯本,這看似平常的一本書,卻被稱為“國寶”,它的保存與流傳,經歷了世紀的風風雨雨。
  
  《共産黨宣言》節譯發表
  
  1919年4月6日,《每周評論》第十六號在 “名著”欄內刊載《共産黨宣言》(節譯)第二章《無産者與共産黨人》後面屬於綱領的一段,並在按語中指出:“這個宣言是馬剋思和恩格斯最先最重大的意見。......其要旨在主張階段戰爭,要求各地的勞工聯合。......是表示新時代的文書。”
  
  《每周評論》第十六號還發表了陳獨秀的短文《綱常名教》,文章說:“歐洲各國社會主義的學說,已經大大流行了,俄、德和匈牙利,並且成了共産黨的世界,這種風氣,恐怕馬上就要來到東方。”
  
  
  
  第一本中譯本《共産黨宣言》的發現及意義
  廣饒藏本《共産黨宣言》(存於東營市歷史博物館)廣饒藏本《共産黨宣言》(存於東營市歷史博物館)
  
    1975年,《共産黨宣言》中文譯本在廣饒的發現,可謂石破天驚,它提出了新的情況並作出了新的說明。廣饒藏本,係平裝本,長18釐米,寬12 釐米,比現在的32開本略小一點。書面印有水紅色馬剋思半身像,上端從右至左模印着“社會主義研究小叢書第一種”,上署“馬格斯、安格爾斯合著”、“陳望道譯”。全文用5號鉛字竪排,計56頁。封底印有“一千九百二十年八月出版”、“定價大洋一角”字樣,印刷及發行者是“社會主義研究社”。經調查和研究得出:第一,廣饒藏本糾正了過去在上海藏本報道中的不確之處。廣饒藏本的封面標題是“共黨産宣言”,而不是“共産黨宣言”。《黨史資料叢刊》所刊載的上海8 月藏本的介紹文章和照片,都標明上海本的封面標題是“共黨産宣言”。經過對照,廣饒本和上海本完全是一個版本。第二,廣饒本打破了“孤本”和“孤證”的局面。過去,認為《共産黨宣言》全譯本在我國出版是1920年8月說,衹有上海檔案館一本實物作證,被稱為“孤本”、“孤證”。有了廣饒藏本(另上海圖書館尚有同本),再加上北京圖書館保存的殘本,至少是有了4本8月的版本。現在可以證明,《共産黨宣言》全譯本是1920年8月出版的。第三,進一步弄清了出版情況。從廣饒藏本及上海檔案館、上海圖書館的收藏本封面標題都是“共黨産宣言”這一情況來看,8月版本封面標題之誤並非發生在個別印本之上。這個封面標題錯誤,顯然是因排印或校對疏忽所造成的,而非什麽譯法或其他原因所造成的。因為,扉頁上竪排的標題清楚地印着“共産黨宣言”五個大字。可以斷定,正是因為發生和發現了這一版封面標題的行文詞序錯誤,又加新書售罄,故在9月間進行“再版”時糾正了封面標題錯誤。從現有已發現的各版本分析,1920年8月版本,就是最早的版本。而且8月版本封底分明印着“出版”,9月版本印着“再版”,中央檔案館收藏的1924年6月版本印着“第三版”字樣,也足可說明。假定8月版本之前還有一個版本的話,則8月本就應為“再版”,9月本為“三版”,1924年6月本成了“四版”,但這種情況並不存在。
  
  奇書的由來與傳播
  
    廣饒收藏的這本《共産黨宣言》先是在濟南共産主義者手中,後又傳到了廣饒,不曾想經歷了一番漫長而麯折的過程。
    由於1919年 “五四”運動爆發的導火綫是山東問題,故而,“五四”時期山東的愛國反帝鬥爭特別高漲與廣泛。這就促使馬剋思著作《共産黨宣言》在山東傳播開來,那時《每周評論》嚮幾個學校寄售。是年秋,王盡美、鄧恩銘、王翔千等在濟南成立馬剋思學說研究會,學習和研究的主要文獻也是《共産黨宣言》。會員馬馥堂回憶說: “當時的主要學習資料是《共産黨宣言》。我把《共産黨宣言》、《嚮導》帶回傢去,我父親看了,極為稱贊,說馬剋思是聖人。”廣饒收藏的這本《共産黨宣言》最初就是在濟南共産主義者中流傳、學習的。
    在廣饒藏本《共産黨宣言》的首頁右下角蓋有一方“葆臣”朱紅印痕。而這位“葆臣”是誰呢?經調查,他是濟南的早期團員和黨員張葆臣。中央檔案館保存的1923年12月15日《濟南地區團員調查表》表明,張葆臣是江蘇無錫人,1922年1月1日入團,後到濟南工作,從事青年運動。中央檔案館還有檔案說明他是濟南團的主要負責人之一,主管“教育兼發行”工作。1922年曾任濟南黨的代理書記的馬剋先回憶,張葆臣是當時在濟南的七名黨員之一。據王辯、劉子久等濟南地區的早期黨員回憶,張葆臣當時在道生銀行做職員,在黨內管黨、團刊物的發行工作。道生銀行是沙俄在中國開設的銀行,總行設在上海,十月革命後仍繼續開辦。張葆臣是該行濟南分行的職員,常來往於上海、濟南之間,又在黨內負責黨團刊物、馬列書籍的發行工作,因此,他能收存這個最早版本的《共産黨宣言》。那麽,它又是怎樣傳到廣饒縣劉集村的呢?原來是通過另一名早期女共産黨員劉雨輝。
    劉雨輝是廣饒縣劉集村人,曾先後就讀於濟南女子養蠶講習所和蘇州女子産業學校,1925年夏畢業後回濟南女子職業學校任教。在濟南期間,她結識了濟南女師的王辯、侯玉蘭、於佩貞、劉淑琴、王蘭英等許多共産黨員,同年由於佩貞介紹加入中國共産黨。他們常和延伯真、劉子久、李雲生、張葆臣等男同志一起學習和活動。這樣,那本蓋有“葆臣”印痕的《共産黨宣言》就輾轉到了劉雨輝的手中。1926年春節,她和同鄉延伯真、劉子久一同回傢省親時,就把這本《共産黨宣言》和其他許多馬剋思主義書籍、黨的宣傳材料帶回了廣饒縣劉集村。從此,這本革命文獻便在這個偏僻的農村經歷了不平凡的50個春秋。
    廣饒劉集黨支部是在1925年春建立的。劉子久在幫助組建劉集黨支部時,也曾從外地帶回過一本《共産黨宣言》和其他馬列著作、黨的宣傳文件。
    這本《共産黨宣言》當時由支部書記劉良纔保存。其後,1926年春節期間,劉雨輝又給劉集支部帶來了那本蓋有“葆臣”印痕的《共産黨宣言》。這樣,劉集支部六七個黨員,就擁有了兩本《共産黨宣言》。這在當時一個普通的農村黨支部來說,委實難能可貴。支部書記劉良纔經常在晚上召集黨員們,在他傢的三間北屋裏,於煤油燈下學習《共産黨宣言》和其他文件。入鼕農閑季節,黨支部還舉辦農民夜校,由劉良纔或其他黨員宣講革命道理和文化知識。《共産黨宣言》又成了劉良纔等同志備課的好材料。從現存《共産黨宣言》可以看出,由於這本書當年經常被翻閱,以至於在書的左下角留下了明顯的指漬痕跡和破損。
    《共産黨宣言》是馬剋思主義著作在中國傳播得最早、最廣泛的一部寶書。它在大城市,在知識分子中,在革命的先知先覺者那裏發揮了極為重要的作用。但是像廣饒藏本這樣的傳播情況,則是不多見的。它在當時山東這樣衹有百戶人傢的小村,在貧苦農民當中傳播,發揮着實實在在的作用,這對認識“五四”後馬剋思主義在中國傳播的廣度和深度,不能不說是一個突破。
  
  《共産黨宣言》-指導思想
  
  貫穿《宣言》全篇的基本思想或指導是唯物主義歷史觀,《宣言》的中心思想是關於“兩個必然性”的原理。即運用唯物史觀論證並闡明無産階級解放的性質、條件和一般目的,尤其是關於現代工人階級的偉大歷史作用和歷史使命,工人階級先進政黨得歷史地位、歷史使命指導思想和它的先進性、預見性、戰鬥性、原則性、策略性等特徵,從而為工人階級和全人類的徹底解放指明了科學的途徑。
  《共産黨宣言》-主要特點
  
  《共産黨宣言》是馬剋思、恩格斯全部成熟著作的綱領和紅綫,是理解什麽是馬剋思主義的關鍵。馬剋思、恩格斯的全部著作,就是為實現《宣言》中的“兩個必然性”,為實現無産階級的徹底解放而進行的理論研究。不斷完善、發展科學社會主義理論,並使理論變為綱領,使綱領付諸實施,是理論同實踐相結合,使科學社會主義同工人運動相結合這就是馬剋思主義的科學社會主義,與其它形形色色的社會主義相區別的主要特點。
  《共産黨宣言》-意義
  
  (一)《共産黨宣言》確立了科學社會主義的基本原理
  
  第一、科學地論證了共産主義的歷史必然性。
  
  第二、明確指出了無産階級革命的基本路綫和主要任務。
  
  第三、扼要地闡明了無産階級的建黨學說和策略原則。
  
  (二)《共産黨宣言》是工人階級解放的偉大旗幟。
  
  工人階級藴涵着自己解放自己的最強大的力量源泉,是推動歷史前進的火車頭。工人階級是在改造舊世界、建設新社會的依靠力量和領導力量。這種力量的發現成了科學社會主義理論的第一塊主要的“基石”。由於馬剋思主義是工人階級利益的理論表現,即無産階級解放條件的理論概括。因此,它一旦産生出來,並嚮工人階級進行灌輸後,它就能掌握千百萬無産者的心靈被覺悟的工人所接受,成為工人階級的世界觀,導致工人階級政黨的産生,從而使無産階級由自在階級嚮自為階級轉變。
  
  《宣言》闡明了工人階級的歷史作用、歷史使命和無産階級解放的性質、條件與目的。
  
  《宣言》是無産階級根本利益的理論表現。
  
  馬剋思主義理論一經掌握群衆,就會為不可戰勝的物質力量。
  
  (三)《共産黨宣言》給予中國共産黨人、中國革命和社會主義事業的偉大影響和光輝指導。
  
  《共産黨宣言》(以下簡稱《宣言》)是馬剋思和恩格斯為共産主義者同盟起草的黨綱,是科學社會主義的綱領性文獻。《宣言》揭示了人類社會發展的客觀規律,對中國社會的發展産生了深遠的影響。一個多世紀以來,中國産生了三位站在時代前列的代表人物:孫中山、毛澤東、李大釗,他們都受到《宣言》的直接影響和教育。
  
  1896 年,中國革命的先行者孫中山留居英國期間,就在大英博物館讀到《宣言》等馬剋思主義論著。他曾敦促留學生研究馬剋思的《資本論》和《共産黨宣言》。 1899年3月上海《萬國公報》刊載節譯的英國社會學家頡德的《大同學》一文就涉及到《宣言》的有關內容。1905年底,資産階級革命派朱執信在同盟會機關報《民報》第二號上發表的《德意志社會革命傢小傳》一文,記述了馬剋思和恩格斯的生平和學說,並第一次簡要介紹了《宣言》的寫作背景、基本思想和歷史意義,還依據《宣言》的日文本並參照英文本摘譯了該書的幾段文字和第二章的十大綱領全文,並作瞭解釋。作者將該書的書名譯為《共産主義宣言》。1908年3 月15日,劉師培(署名申叔)在《天義報》發表了《〈共産黨宣言〉序》。這是中國人第一次為《宣言》作序。此後,有關《宣言》的文章不斷見諸報端。
  
  1917 年俄國十月革命的勝利,進一步喚醒了中國的先進分子。“五四運動”前後,中國出現了許多介紹和討論《宣言》的文章,馬剋思主義在中國得到廣泛的傳播。 1920年3月,李大釗倡導成立的“北京大學馬剋斯(即馬剋思 ——編輯註)學研究會”集體翻譯了德文版《宣言》的全文,印發了少量油印本在當時的先進分子中傳閱。1920年8月,由陳望道根據日文和英文版本翻譯的《宣言》的第一個中文譯本在共産國際的資助下由上海社會主義研究社正式出版。陳望道譯本在以後的20年中,多次重印,廣為流傳。毛澤東在1920年第一次閱讀了考茨基著的《階級鬥爭》、陳望道翻譯的《共産黨宣言》和一個英國人作的《社會主義史》。周恩來對陳望道就說過:“我們都是你教育出來的。”
  
  《宣言》對當時在國外勤工儉學的青年也産生了重要的影響。1920年初,蔡和森在法國先後翻譯出《宣言》、《社會主義從空想到科學的發展》等著作的重要段落,在赴法勤工儉學的學生中廣為流傳。鄧小平也是在法國勤工儉學時讀到《宣言》的。他後來說,我的入門老師是《共産黨宣言》和《共産主義ABC》。
  
  隨着中國革命形勢的發展,對《宣言》的需求與日俱增。《宣言》的第一個中文譯本出版後到1949年中華人民共和國成立,又有5個中文譯本陸續問世,譯文質量不斷提高,所收序言不斷增加,發行數量日益擴大。
  
  新中國成立後,1949年11月在北京印了蘇聯外交出版局出版的收有馬剋思恩格斯寫的全部7篇序言的《宣言》百周年紀念本。1958年中共中央編譯局校訂了《宣言》的中譯本,收入《馬剋思恩格斯全集》第四捲。1964年根據德文並參考英法俄等文本再次作了校訂,出版了單行本,是中國流傳最廣的版本。1972年5月,新編的四捲本《馬剋思恩格斯選集》正式出版,其中收入了《宣言》的正文和馬剋思恩格斯寫的7篇序言。1995年6月,又編輯出版了第二版。這版《馬剋思恩格斯選集》對收載的文獻作了較大調整,並按原著文字對譯文重新作了校訂。 1997年8月人民出版社又根據《馬剋思恩格斯選集》中文第二版第一捲中的 《宣言》的新譯文出版了單行本,並作為馬列著作的係列書《馬剋思列寧主義文庫》之一種出版發行。這是《共産黨宣言》迄今在我國出版的最新版本。
  
  江澤民同志在黨的十五大報告中指出:“近20年來改革開放和現代化建設取得成功的根本原因之一,就是剋服了那些超越階段的錯誤觀念和政策,又抵製了拋棄社會主義基本制度的錯誤主張”。這就清楚地告訴我們,必須完整地、準確地理解關於社會主義初級階段,這就决定了我們現階段的奮鬥目標是建設中國特色的社會主義,我們要為此而貢獻自己的一切,捨此而空談共産主義,那就是有意無意地、或多或少地背叛了共産主義。
  《共産黨宣言》-學習態度和方法
  
  (一)對基本原理的實際運用,隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移。
  
  在《宣言》的出版序言中多次說明,對基本原理的實際運用,隨時隨地都要以當時的歷史條件為轉移,對個別原理和具體原理更要根據此時此地的實際情況進行具體的分析。這裏關鍵是準確把握基本原理和具體原理的科學界限,因為對基本原理是不能違背的,違背了基本原理就會走嚮馬剋思主義的反面,葬送革命成果,從而可能成為馬剋思主義的可恥叛徒。
  
  (二)要實事求是地堅持馬剋思主義的唯物辨證觀點
  
  從長遠看,社會主義終將徹底戰勝資本主義,終將在全世界範圍內取得完全勝利。而在此之前,社會主義在每個國傢的實踐有可能發生一次甚至多次的暫時失敗或挫折,國際社會主義運動還可能經歷若幹個高潮交替的時期。因此,對社會主義的前途和命運,既要滿懷信心又不可掉以輕心,任何悲觀的論調和盲目樂觀、麻痹大意僥幸心理,都是極其錯誤和十分有害的。
  
  (三)馬剋思主義不是一成不變的教條,它必須隨着時代的發展而不斷地得到豐富和發展。
  
  鄧小平同志說過:“真正的馬剋思列寧主義者必須根據現在的情況,認識、繼承和發展馬剋思列寧主義。.....不以新的思想、觀點去繼承、發展馬剋思主義,不是真正的馬剋思主義者。”必須廢除靜止地孤立地學習研究馬剋思主義的方法。離開本國的實際和時代發展來談馬剋思主義,沒有出路,也沒有意義。正如黨的十五大報告指出的那樣:“一定要以我國改革開放和現代化建設的實際問題,以我們正在做的事情為中心,着眼於馬剋思主義理論的運用,着眼於對實際問題的理論思考,着眼於新的實踐和新發展。”
  
  (四)要正確認識從《共産黨宣言》到鄧小平理論的繼承發展關係。
  
  鄧小平理論的基本觀點同《共産黨宣言》的基本原理和精神實質是一致的。包括《共産黨宣言》在內的馬列主義、毛澤東思想是鄧小平理論的深厚根基和主要來源,鄧小平理論是包括《宣言》在內的馬列主義、毛澤東思想的基本原理原則的繼承和發展,二者同處於一個科學體係之中,是不可分割的統一體,不應人為地把二者對立起來或割裂開來。所以,對那些事關重大原則的是非問題必須予以澄清,對已經造成很大的不良影響的有些非馬剋思主義的錯誤思想觀點應當認真加以糾正和剋服。
  《共産黨宣言》-結語
  
  在過去不到一個半世紀中,社會主義的實踐已經經歷三次高潮。第一次高潮是巴黎公社的創立;第二次高潮是俄國十月革命的勝利和首先在蘇聯建設社會主義國傢;第三次高潮是第二次世界大戰後至70年代,社會主義革命和建設在一係列國傢特別是在中國取得勝利。
  
  社會主義的實踐表明,實現社會主義和共産主義决不是什麽空想,而是已經或將要變成活生生的現實,這是經過革命政黨和人民持久奮鬥終將取得最後勝利的崇高理想。同時表明,實現社會主義的道路是很麯折的,它要經過多次的成功與失敗、高潮與低潮,這樣迂回麯折的歷程。
  
  一部馬剋思主義發展史就是不斷創造性發展和用新的原理代替個別舊的原理的過程。就馬剋思主義作為科學理論而言永遠不會過時。因為它以實踐為源頭活水,不斷與時俱進。會過時的是個別原理,而個別的原理的過時,正是整個馬剋思主義科學學說永具活力的保證。迄今為止,還沒有一種理論和學說,在總體上能象馬剋思主義這樣為人們認識和改造世界提供科學的基本理論和方法,也就有一種理論和學說像馬剋思主義這樣強調理論的運用必須聯繫實際,必須具有創造性。


  Manifesto of the Communist Party (German: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei), often referred to as The Communist Manifesto, was published on February 21, 1848, and is one of the world's most influential political manuscripts. Commissioned by the Communist League and written by communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it laid out the League's purposes and program. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms.
  
  Friedrich Engels has often been credited in composing the first drafts, which led to The Communist Manifesto. In July 1847, Engels was elected into the Communist League, where he was assigned to draw up a catechism. This became the Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith. The draft contained almost two dozen questions that helped express the ideas of both Engels and Karl Marx at the time. In October 1847, Engels composed his second draft for the Communist League entitled, The Principles of Communism. The text remained unpublished until 1914, despite its basis for The Manifesto. From Engels's drafts Marx was able to write, once commissioned by the Communist League, The Communist Manifesto, where he combined more of his ideas along with Engels's drafts and work, The Condition of the Working Class in England.
  
  Although the names of both Engels and Karl Marx appear on the title page alongside the "persistent assumption of joint-authorship", Engels, in the preface introduction to the 1883 German edition of the Manifesto, said that the Manifesto was "essentially Marx's work" and that "the basic thought... belongs solely and exclusively to Marx."
  
  Engels wrote after Marx's death,
  
   "I cannot deny that both before and during my forty years' collaboration with Marx I had a certain independent share in laying the foundations of the theory, but the greater part of its leading basic principles belong to Marx....Marx was a genius; we others were at best talented. Without him the theory would not be by far what it is today. It therefore rightly bears his name."
  
  Textual history
  
  The Communist Manifesto was first published (in German) in London by a group of German political refugees in 1848. It was also serialised at around the same time in a German-language London newspaper, the Deutsche Londoner Zeitung. The first English translation was produced by Helen Macfarlane in 1850. The Manifesto went through a number of editions from 1872 to 1890; notable new prefaces were written by Marx and Engels for the 1872 German edition, the 1882 Russian edition, the 1883 French edition, and the 1888 English edition. This edition, translated by Samuel Moore with the assistance of Engels, has been the most commonly used English text since.
  
  However, some recent English editions, such as Phil Gasper's annotated "road map" (Haymarket Books, 2006), have used a slightly modified text in response to criticisms of the Moore translation made by Hal Draper in his 1994 history of the Manifesto, The Adventures of the "Communist Manifesto" (Center for Socialist History, 1994).
  Contents
  
  The Manifesto is divided into an introduction, three substantive sections, and a conclusion.
  Preamble
  
  The introduction begins with the notable comparison of communism to a "spectre", claiming that across Europe communism is feared, but not understood, and thus communists ought to make their views known with a manifesto:
  
   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 opposition party that has not been decried as Communist by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition party that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
  
  I. Bourgeois and Proletarians
  
  The first section, "Bourgeois and Proletarians", puts forward Marx's neo-Hegelian version of history, historical materialism, claiming that
  
   The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
  
   Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, have 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.
  
  The section goes on to argue that the class struggle under capitalism is between those who own the means of production, the ruling class or bourgeoisie, and those who labour for a wage, the working class or proletariat.
  
   The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It ... has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “payment in cash” ... for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation ... Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
  
  However:
  
   The essential condition for the existence and rule of the bourgeois class is the accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation and increase of capital; the essential condition of capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests entirely on the competition among the workers.
  
  This section further explains that the proletarians will eventually rise to power through class struggle: the bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its manual labour and cheap wages, ultimately to create profit for the bourgeois; the proletariat rise to power through revolution against the bourgeoisie such as riots or creation of unions. The Communist Manifesto states that while there is still class struggle amongst society, capitalism will be overthrown by the proletariat only to start again in the near future; ultimately communism is the key to class equality amongst the citizens of Europe.
  II. Proletarians and Communists
  
  The second section, "Proletarians and Communists," starts by outlining the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class:
  
   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 whole.
   They do not set up any sectarian 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.
  
  It goes on to defend communism from various objections, such as the claim that communists advocate "free love", and the claim that people will not perform labor in a communist society because they have no incentive to work.
  
  The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands. These included, among others, the abolition of both private land ownership and of the right to inheritance, a progressive income tax, universal education, centralization of the means of communication and transport under state management, and the expansion of the means of production owned by the state. The implementation of these policies, would, the authors believed, be a precursor to the stateless and classless society.
  
  One particularly controversial passage deals with this transitional period:
  
   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 organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
  
  It is this concept of the transition from socialism to communism which many critics of the Manifesto, particularly during and after the Soviet era, have highlighted. Anarchists, liberals, and conservatives have all asked how an organization such as the revolutionary state could ever (as Engels put it elsewhere) "wither away."
  
  In a related dispute, later Marxists make a separation between "socialism", a society ruled by workers, and "communism", a classless society. Engels wrote little and Marx wrote less on the specifics of the transition to communism, so the authenticity of this distinction remains a matter of dispute.
  10 point program of Communism
  
   1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
   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.
   5. Centralisation 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 between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
   10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
  
  According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism, but Marx and Engels later expressed a desire to modernize this passage.
  III. Socialist and Communist Literature
  
  The third section, "Socialist and Communist Literature," distinguishes communism from other socialist doctrines prevalent at the time the Manifesto was written. While the degree of reproach of Marx and Engels toward rival perspectives varies, all are eventually dismissed for advocating reformism and failing to recognize the preeminent role of the working class. Partly because of Marx's critique, most of the specific ideologies described in this section became politically negligible by the end of the nineteenth century.
  IV. Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties
  
  The concluding section, "Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties," briefly discusses the communist position on struggles in specific countries in the mid-nineteenth century such as France, Switzerland, Poland, and Germany. It then ends with a declaration of support for other communist revolutions and a call to action:
  
   In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
   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 Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
  
  Workers of the world, unite!
序言
  一個幽靈,主義的幽靈,在歐洲遊蕩。為了對這個幽靈進行神聖的圍剿,舊歐洲的一切勢力,教皇和沙皇、梅特涅和基佐、法國的激進派和德國的,都聯合起來了。
   有哪一個反對黨不被它的當政的敵人駡為呢?又有哪一個反對黨不拿主義這個罪名去回敬更進步的反對黨人和自己的反動敵人呢?
   從這一事實中可以得出兩個結論:
   主義已經被歐洲的一切勢力公認為一種勢力;
   現在是人嚮全世界公開說明自己的觀點、自己的目的、自己的意圖並且拿黨自己的宣言來反駁關於主義幽靈的神話的時候了。
   為了這個目的,各國人集會於倫敦,擬定了如下的宣言,用英文、法文、德文、意大利文、弗拉芒文和丹麥文公佈於世。


  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 Power.
   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.
一、資産者和無産者
  至今一切社會的歷史都是階級鬥爭的歷史。
   自由民和奴隸、貴族和平民、領主和農奴、行會師傅和幫工,一句話,壓迫者和被壓迫者,始終處於相互對立的地位,進行不斷的、有時隱蔽有時公開的鬥爭,而每一次鬥爭的結局是整個社會受到改造或者鬥爭的各階級同歸於盡。
   在過去的各個歷史時代,我們幾乎到處都可以看到社會完全劃分為各個不同的等級,看到社會地位分成的多種多樣的層次。在古羅馬,有貴族、騎士、平民、奴隸,在中世紀,有封建主、臣僕、行會師傅、幫工、農奴,而且幾乎在每一個階級內部又有一些特殊的階層。
   從封建社會的滅亡中産生出來的現代資産階級社會並沒有消滅階級對立。它衹是用新的階級、新的壓迫條件、新的鬥爭形式代替了舊的。
   但是,我們的時代,資産階級時代,卻有一個特點:它使階級對立簡單化了。整個社會日益分裂為兩大敵對的陣營,分裂為兩大相互直接對立的階級:資産階級和無産階級。
   從中世紀的農奴中産生了初期城市的城關市民;從這個市民等級中發展出最初的資産階級分子。
   美洲的發現、繞過非洲的航行,給新興的資産階級開闢了新天地。東印度和中國的市場、美洲的殖民化、對殖民地的貿易、交換手段和一般的商品的增加,使商業、航海業和工業空前高漲,因而使正在崩潰的封建社會內部的因素迅速發展。
   以前那種封建的或行會的工業經營方式已經不能滿足隨着新市場的出現而增加的需求了。工場手工業代替了這種經營方式。行會師傅被工業的中間等級排擠掉了;各種行業組織之間的分工隨着各個作坊內部的分工的出現而消失了。
   但是,市場總是在擴大,需求總是在增加。甚至工場手工業也不再能滿足需要了。於是,蒸汽和機器引起了工業生産的。現代大工業化替了工場手工業;工業中的百萬富翁,一支一支産業大軍的首領,現代資産者,代替了工業的中間等級。
   大工業建立了由美洲的發現所準備好的世界市場。世界市場使商業、航海業和陸路交通得到了巨大的發展。這種發展又反過來促進了工業的擴展,同時,隨着工業、商業、航海業和鐵路的擴展,資産階級也在同一程度上得到發展,增加自己的資本,把中世紀遺留下來的一切階級都排擠到後面去。
   由此可見,現代資産階級本身是一個長期發展過程的産物,是生産方式和交換方式的一係列變革的産物。
   資産階級的這種發展的每一個階段,都伴隨着相應的上進展。它在封建主統治下是被壓迫的等級,在公社裏是武裝的和自治的團體,在一些地方組成獨立的城市共和國,在另一些地方組成君主國中的納稅的第三等級;後來,在工場手工業時期,它是等級製君主國或君主國中同貴族抗衡的勢力,而且是大君主國的主要基礎;最後,從大工業和世界市場建立的時候起,它在現代的代議製國傢裏奪得了獨占的統治。現代的國傢政權不過是管理整個資産階級的共同事務的委員會罷了。
   資産階級在歷史上曾經起過非常的作用。
   資産階級在它已經取得了統治的地方把一切封建的、宗法的和田園詩般的關係都破壞了。它無情地斬斷了把人們束縛於天然尊長的形形色色的封建羈絆,它使人和人之間除了赤裸裸的利害關係,除了冷酷無情的“現金交易”,就再也沒有任何別的聯繫了。它把宗教虔誠、騎士熱忱、小市民傷感這些情感的神聖發作,淹沒在利己主義打算的冰水之中。它把人的尊嚴變成了交換價值,用一種沒有良心的貿易自由代替了無數特許的和自力掙得的自由。總而言之,它用公開的、無恥的、直接的、露骨的剝削代替了由宗教幻想和幻想掩蓋着的剝削。
   資産階級抹去了一切嚮來受人尊崇和令人敬畏的職業的神聖光環。它把醫生、律師、教士、詩人和學者變成了它出錢招雇的雇傭勞動者。
   資産階級撕下了罩在家庭關係上的溫情脈脈的面紗,把這種關係變成了純粹的金錢關係。
   資産階級揭示了,在中世紀深受反動派稱許的那種人力的野蠻使用,是以極端怠惰作為相應補充的。它第一個證明了,人的活動能夠取得什麽樣的成就。它創造了完全不同於埃及金字塔、羅馬水道和哥特式教堂的奇跡;它完成了完全不同於民族大遷徙和十字軍東徵的遠征。
   資産階級除非對生産工具,從而對生産關係,從而對全部社會關係不斷地進行,否則就不能生存下去。反之,原封不動地保持舊的生産方式,卻是過去的一切工業階級生存的首要條件。生産的不斷變革,一切社會狀況不停的動蕩,永遠的不安定和變動,這就是資産階級時代不同於過去一切時代的地方。一切固定的僵化的關係以及與之相適應的素被尊崇的觀念和見解都被消除了,一切新形成的關係等不到固定下來就陳舊了。一切等級的和固定的東西都煙消雲散了,一切神聖的東西都被褻瀆了。人們終於不得不用冷靜的眼光來看他們的生活地位、他們的相互關係。
   不斷擴大産品銷路的需要,驅使資産階級奔走於全球各地。它必須到處落戶,到處開發,到處建立聯繫。
   資産階級,由於開拓了世界市場,使一切國傢的生産和消費都成為世界性的了。使反動派大為惋惜的是,資産階級挖掉了工業腳下的民族基礎。古老的民族工業被消滅了,並且每天都還在被消滅。它們被新的工業排擠掉了,新的工業的建立已經成為一切文明民族的生命攸關的問題;這些工業所加工的,已經不是本地的原料,而是來自極其遙遠的地區的原料;它們的産品不僅供本國消費,而且同時供世界各地消費。舊的、靠國産品來滿足的需要,被新的、要靠極其遙遠的國傢和地帶的産品來滿足的需要所代替了。過去那種地方的和民族的自給自足和閉關自守狀態,被各民族的各方面的互相往來和各方面的互相依賴所代替了。物質的生産是如此,精神的生産也是如此。各民族的精神産品成了公共的財産。民族的片面性和局限性日益成為不可能,於是由許多種民族的和地方的文學形成了一種世界的文學。
   資産階級,由於一切生産工具的迅速改進,由於交通的極其便利,把一切民族甚至最野蠻的民族都捲到文明中來了。它的商品的低廉價格,是它用來摧毀一切萬裏長城、徵服野蠻人最頑強的仇外心理的重炮。它迫使一切民族----如果它們不想滅亡的話----采用資産階級的生産方式;它迫使它們在自己那裏推行所謂文明,即變成資産者。一句話,它按照自己的面貌為自己創造出一個世界。
   資産階級使農村屈服於城市的統治。它創立了巨大的城市,使城市人口比農村人口大大增加起來,因而使很大一部分居民脫離了農村生活的愚昧狀態。正象它使農村從屬於城市一樣,它使未開化和半開化的國傢從屬於文明的國傢,使農民的民族從屬於資産階級的民族,使東方從屬於西方。
   資産階級日甚一日地消滅生産資料、財産和人口的分散狀態。它使人口密集起來,使生産資料集中起來,使財産聚集在少數人的手裏。由此必然産生的結果就是的集中。各自獨立的、幾乎衹有同盟關係的、各有不同利益、不同法律、不同政府、不同關稅的各個地區,現在已經結合為一個擁有統一的政府、統一的法律、統一的民族階級利益和統一的關稅的統一的民族。
   資産階級在它的不到一百年的階級統治中所創造的生産力,比過去一切世代創造的全部生産力還要多,還要大。自然力的徵服,機器的采用,化學在工業和農業中的應用,輪船的行駛,鐵路的通行,電報的使用,整個整個大陸的開墾,河川的通航,仿佛用法術從地下呼喚出來的大量人口,----過去哪一個世紀料想到在社會勞動裏藴藏有這樣的生産力呢?
   由此可見,資産階級賴以形成的生産資料和交換手段,是在封建社會裏造成的。在這些生産資料和交換手段發展的一定階段上,封建社會的生産和交換在其中進行的關係,封建的農業和工場手工業組織,一句話,封建的所有製關係,就不再適應已經發展的生産力了。這種關係已經在阻礙生産而不是促進生産了。它變成了束縛生産的桎梏。它必須被炸毀,而且已經被炸毀了。
   起而代之的是自由競爭以及與自由競爭相適應的社會制度和制度、資産階級的經濟統治和統治。
   現在,我們眼前又進行着類似的運動。資産階級的生産關係和交換關係,資産階級的所有製關係,這個曾經仿佛用法術創造了如此龐大的生産資料和交換手段的現代資産階級社會,現在像一個魔法師一樣不能再支配自己用法術呼喚出來的魔鬼了。幾十年來的工業和商業的歷史,衹不過是現代生産力反抗現代生産關係、反抗作為資産階級及其統治的存在條件的所有製關係的歷史。衹要指出在周期性的重複中越來越危及整個資産階級社會生存的商業危機就夠了。在商業危機期間,總是不僅有很大一部分製成的産品被毀滅掉,而且有很大一部分已經造成的生産力被毀滅掉。在危機期間,發生一種在過去一切時代看來都好像是荒唐現象的社會瘟疫,即生産過剩的瘟疫。社會突然發現自己回到了一時的野蠻狀態;仿佛是一次饑荒、一場普遍的毀滅性戰爭,使社會失去了全部生活資料;仿佛是工業和商業全被毀滅了,----這是什麽緣故呢?因為社會上文明過度,生活資料太多,工業和商業太發達。社會所擁有的生産力已經不能再促進資産階級文明和資産階級所有製關係的發展;相反,生産力已經強大到這種關係所不能適應的地步,它已經受到這種關係的阻礙;而它一着手剋服這種障礙,就使整個資産階級社會陷入混亂,就使資産階級所有製的存在受到威脅。資産階級的關係已經太狹窄了,再容納不了它本身所造成的財富了。----資産階級用什麽辦法來剋服這種危機呢?一方面不得不消滅大量生産力,另一方面奪取新的市場,更加徹底地利用舊的市場。這究竟是怎樣的一種辦法呢?這不過是資産階級準備更全面更猛烈的危機的辦法,不過是使防止危機的手段越來越少的辦法。
   資産階級用來推翻封建制度的武器,現在卻對準資産階級自己了。
   但是,資産階級不僅鍛造了置自身於死地的武器;它還産生了將要運用這種武器的人----現代的工人,即無産者。
   隨着資産階級即資本的發展,無産階級即現代工人階級也在同一程度上得到發展;現代的工人衹有當他們找到工作的時候才能生存,而且衹有當他們的勞動增殖資本的時候才能找到工作。這些不得不把自己零星出賣的工人,像其他任何貨物一樣,也是一種商品,所以他們同樣地受到競爭的一切變化、市場的一切波動的影響。
   由於機器的推廣和分工,無産者的勞動已經失去了任何獨立的性質,因而對工人也失去了任何吸引力。工人變成了機器的單純的附屬品,要求他做的衹是極其簡單、極其單調和極容易學會的操作。因此,花在工人身上的費用,幾乎衹限於維持工人生活和延續工人後代所必需的生活資料。但是,商品的價格,從而勞動的價格,是同它的生産費用相等的。因此,勞動越使人感到厭惡,工資也就越減少。不僅如此,機器越推廣,分工越細緻,勞動量也就越增加,這或者是由於工作時間的延長,或者是由於在一定時間內所要求的勞動的增加,機器運轉的加速,等等。
   現代工業已經把傢長式的師傅的小作坊變成了工業資本傢的大工廠。擠在工廠裏的工人群衆就象士兵一樣被組織起來。他們是産業軍的普通士兵,受着各級軍士和軍官的層層監視。他們不僅是資産階級的、資産階級國傢的奴隸,並且每日每時都受機器、受監工、首先是受各個經營工廠的資産者本人的奴役。這種制度越是公開地把營利宣佈為自己的最終目的,它就越是可鄙、可恨和可惡。
   手的操作所要求的技巧和氣力越少,換句話說,現代工業越發達,男工也就越受到女工和童工的排擠。對工人階級來說,性別和年齡的差別再沒有什麽社會意義了。他們都衹是勞動工具,不過因為年齡和性別的不同而需要不同的費用罷了。
   當廠主對工人的剝削告一段落,工人領到了用現錢支付的工資的時候,馬上就有資産階級中的另一部分人----房東、小店主、當鋪老闆等等嚮他們撲來。
   以前的中間等級的下層,即小工業傢、小商人和小食利者,手工業者和農民----所有這些階級都降落到無産階級的隊伍裏來了,有的是因為他們的小資本不足以經營大工業,經不起較大資本傢的競爭;有的是因為他們的手藝已經被新的生産方法弄得不值錢了。無産階級的隊伍就是這樣從居民的所有階級中得到補充的。
   無産階級經歷了各個不同的發展階段。它反對資産階級的鬥爭是和它的存在同時開始的。
   最初是單個的工人,然後是某一工廠的工人,然後是某一地方的某一勞動部門的工人,同直接剝削他們的單個資産者作鬥爭。他們不僅僅攻擊資産階級的生産關係,而且攻擊生産工具本身;他們毀壞那些來競爭的外國商品,搗毀機器,燒毀工廠,力圖恢復已經失去的中世紀工人的地位。
   在這個階段上,工人們還是分散在全國各地並為競爭所分裂的群衆。工人的大規模集結,還不是他們自己聯合的結果,而是資産階級聯合的結果,當時資産階級為了達到自己的目的必須而且暫時還能夠把整個無産階級發動起來。因此,在這個階段上,無産者不是同自己的敵人作鬥爭,而是同自己的敵人的敵人作鬥爭,即同君主製的殘餘、地主、非工業資産階級和小資産者作鬥爭。因此,整個歷史運動都集中在資産階級手裏;在這種條件下取得的每一個勝利都是資産階級的勝利。
   但是,隨着工業的發展,無産階級不僅人數增加了,而且它結合成更大的集體,它的力量日益增長,它越來越感覺到自己的力量。機器使勞動的差別越來越小,使工資幾乎到處都降到同樣低的水平,因而無産階級內部的利益和生活狀況也越來越趨於一致。資産者彼此間日益加劇的競爭以及由此引起的商業危機,使工人的工資越來越不穩定;機器的日益迅速的和繼續不斷的改良,使工人的整個生活地位越來越沒有保障;單個工人和單個資産者之間的衝突越來越具有兩個階級的衝突的性質。工人開始成立反對資産者的同盟;他們聯合起來保衛自己的工資。他們甚至建立了經常性的團體,以便為可能發生的反抗準備食品。有些地方,鬥爭爆發為起義。
   工人有時也得到勝利,但這種勝利衹是暫時的。他們鬥爭的真正成果並不是直接取得的成功,而是工人的越來越擴大的聯合。這種聯合由於大工業所造成的日益發達的交通工具而得到發展,這種交通工具把各地的工人彼此聯繫起來。衹要有了這種聯繫,就能把許多性質相同的地方性的鬥爭匯合成全國性的鬥爭,匯合成階級鬥爭。而一切階級鬥爭都是鬥爭。中世紀的市民靠鄉間小道需要幾百年才能達到的聯合,現代的無産者利用鐵路衹要幾年就可以達到了。
   無産者組織成為階級,從而組織成為政黨這件事,不斷地由於工人的自相競爭而受到破壞。但是,這種組織總是重新産生,並且一次比一次更強大,更堅固,更有力。它利用資産階級內部的分裂,迫使他們用法律形式承認工人的個別利益。英國的十小時工作日法案就是一個例子。
   舊社會內部的所有衝突在許多方面都促進了無産階級的發展。資産階級處於不斷的鬥爭中:最初反對貴族:後來反對同工業進步有利害衝突的那部分資産階級;經常反對一切外國的資産階級。在這一切鬥爭中,資産階級都不得不嚮無産階級呼籲,要求無産階級援助,這樣就把無産階級捲進了運動。於是,資産階級自己就把自己的教育因素即反對自身的武器給予了無産階級。
   其次,我們已經看到,工業的進步把統治階級的整批成員拋到無産階級隊伍裏去,或者至少也使他們的生活條件受到威脅。他們也給無産階級帶來了大量的教育因素。
   最後,在階級鬥爭接近决戰的時期,統治階級內部的、整個舊社會內部的瓦解過程,就達到非常強烈、非常尖銳的程度,甚至使得統治階級中的一小部分人脫離統治階級而歸附於的階級,即掌握着未來的階級。所以,正像過去貴族中有一部分人轉到資産階級方面一樣,現在資産階級中也有一部分人,特別是已經提高到從理論上認識整個歷史運動這一水平的一部分資産階級思想傢,轉到無産階級方面來了。
   在當前同資産階級對立的一切階級中,衹有無産階級是真正的階級。其餘的階級都隨着大工業的發展而日趨沒落和滅亡,無産階級卻是大工業本身的産物。
   中間等級,即小工業傢、小商人、手工業者、農民,他們同資産階級作鬥爭,都是為了維護他們這種中間等級的生存,以免於滅亡。所以,他們不是的,而是保守的。不僅如此,他們甚至是反動的,因為他們力圖使歷史的車輪倒轉。如果說他們是的,那是鑒於他們行將轉入無産階級的隊伍,這樣,他們就不是維護他們目前的利益,而是維護他們將來的利益,他們就離開自己原來的立場,而站到無産階級的立場上來。
   流氓無産階級是舊社會最下層中消極的腐化的部分,他們在一些地方也被無産階級捲到運動裏來,但是,由於他們的整個生活狀況,他們更甘心於被人收買,去幹反動的勾當。
   在無産階級的生活條件中,舊社會的生活條件已經被消滅了。無産者是沒有財産的;他們和妻子兒女的關係同資産階級的家庭關係再沒有任何共同之處了;現代的工業勞動,現代的資本壓迫,無論在英國或法國,無論在美國或德國,都是一樣的,都使無産者失去了任何民族性。法律、道德、宗教,在他們看來全都是資産階級偏見,隱藏在這些偏見後面的全都是資産階級利益。
   過去一切階級在爭得統治之後,總是使整個社會服從於它們發財致富的條件,企圖以此來鞏固它們已經獲得的生活地位。無産者衹有廢除自己的現存的占有方式,從而廢除全部現存的占有方式,才能取得社會生産力。無産者沒有什麽自己的東西必須加以保護,他們必須摧毀至今保護和保障私有財産的一切。
   過去的一切運動都是少數人的或者為少數人謀利益的運動。無産階級的運動是絶大多數人的、為絶大多數人謀利益的獨立的運動。無産階級,現今社會的最下層,如果不炸毀構成官方社會的整個上層,就不能擡起頭來,挺起胸來。
   如果不就內容而就形式來說,無産階級反對資産階級的鬥爭首先是一國範圍內的鬥爭。每一個國傢的無産階級當然首先應該本國的資産階級。
   在敘述無産階級發展的最一般的階段的時候,我們循序探討了現存社會內部或多或少隱蔽着的國內戰爭,直到這個戰爭爆發為公開的,無産階級用暴力推翻資産階級而建立自己的統治。
   我們已經看到,至今的一切社會都是建立在壓迫階級和被壓迫階級的對立之上的。但是,為了有可能壓迫一個階級,就必須保證這個階級至少有能夠勉強維持它的奴隸般的生存的條件。農奴曾經在農奴制度下掙紮到公社社員的地位,小資産者曾經在封建制度的束縛下掙紮到資産者的地位。現代的工人卻相反,他們並不是隨着工業的進步而上升,而是越來越降到本階級的生存條件以下。工人變成赤貧者,貧睏比人口和財富增長得還要快。由此可以明顯地看出,資産階級再不能做社會的統治階級了,再不能把自己階級的生存條件當做支配一切的規律強加於社會了。資産階級不能統治下去了,因為它甚至不能保證自己的奴隸維持奴隸的生活,因為它不得不讓自己的奴隸落到不能養活它反而要它來養活的地步。社會再不能在它統治下生活下去了,就是說,它的存在不再同社會相容了。
   資産階級生存和統治的根本條件,是財富在私人手裏的積纍,是資本的形成和增殖;資本的條件是雇傭勞動。雇傭勞動完全是建立在工人的自相競爭之上的。資産階級無意中造成而又無力抵抗的工業進步,使工人通過結社而達到的聯合代替了他們由於競爭而造成的分散狀態。於是,隨着大工業的發展,資産階級賴以生産和占有産品的基礎本身也就從它的腳下被挖掉了。它首先生産的是它自身的掘墓人。資産階級的滅亡和無産階級的勝利是同樣不可避免的。


  The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.
   Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
   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 the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
   The 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 revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
   Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its time, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
   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.
   Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune; here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France), afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
   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 callous "cash payment. " It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value. And in place of the numberless and feasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
   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, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
   The 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 impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
   The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i. e. , to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
   The bourgeoisie 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 production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff. The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
   We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
   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 like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand inforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
   The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
   But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons -- the modern working class -- the proletarians.
   In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i. e. , capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed -- a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
   Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of the machinery, etc.
   Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.
   The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.
   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 tradespeople, shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants -- all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by the new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.
   The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
   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 nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (Trades Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there the contest breaks out into riots.
首頁>> >> 社会学>> 卡爾·馬剋思 Karl Marx   德國 Germany   德意志帝國   (1818年五月5日1883年三月14日)