《共产党宣言》 (Communist Manifesto) - 苏维埃工坊 (Communism Mod)

MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY [From the English edition of 1888, edited by Friedrich Engels] A spectre is haunting Europe梩he 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 is 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. I. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS 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 indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom桭ree 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梬hat 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梩he 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梩he modern working class梩he proletarians. In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed梐 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梩he small tradespeople, shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants梐ll 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. Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years. This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus the ten-hours' bill in England was carried. Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all times, with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own instruments of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie. Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling classes are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress. Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole. Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat. The "dangerous class," the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue. In the conditions of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family-relations; modern industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property. All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air. Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

一个幽灵，共产主义的幽灵，在欧洲游荡。为了对这个幽灵进行神圣的围剿，旧欧洲的一切势力，教皇和沙皇、梅特涅和基佐、法国的激进派和德国的警察，都联合起来了。有哪一个反对党不被它的当政的敌人骂为共产党呢？又有哪一个反对党不拿共产主义这个罪名去回敬更进步的反对党人和自己的反动敌人呢？从这一事实中可以得出两个结论：共产主义已经被欧洲的一切势力公认为一种势力；现在是共产党人向全世界公开说明自己的观点、自己的目的、自己的意图并且拿党自己的宣言来反驳关于共产主义幽灵的神话的时候了。为了这个目的，各国共产党人集会于伦敦，拟定了如下的宣言，用英文、法文、德文、意大利文、弗拉芒文和丹麦文公布于世。一、资产者和无产者至今一切社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史。自由民和奴隶、贵族和平民、领主和农奴、行会师傅和帮工，一句话，压迫者和被压迫者，始终处于相互对立的地位，进行不断的、有时隐蔽有时公开的斗争，而每一次斗争的结局是整个社会受到革命改造或者斗争的各阶级同归于尽。在过去的各个历史时代，我们几乎到处都可以看到社会完全划分为各个不同的等级，看到社会地位分成的多种多样的层次。在古罗马，有贵族、骑士、平民、奴隶，在中世纪，有封建主、臣仆、行会师傅、帮工、农奴，而且几乎在每一个阶级内部又有一些特殊的阶层。从封建社会的灭亡中产生出来的现代资产阶级社会并没有消灭阶级对立。它只是用新的阶级、新的压迫条件、新的斗争形式代替了旧的。但是，我们的时代，资产阶级时代，却有一个特点：它使阶级对立简单化了。整个社会日益分裂为两大敌对的阵营，分裂为两大相互直接对立的阶级：资产阶级和无产阶级。从中世纪的农奴中产生了初期城市的城关市民；从这个市民等级中发展出最初的资产阶级分子。美洲的发现、绕过非洲的航行，给新兴的资产阶级开辟了新天地。东印度和中国的市场、美洲的殖民化、对殖民地的贸易、交换手段和一般的商品的增加，使商业、航海业和工业空前高涨，因而使正在崩溃的封建社会内部的革命因素迅速发展。以前那种封建的或行会的工业经营方式已经不能满足随着新市场的出现而增加的需求了。工场手工业代替了这种经营方式。行会师傅被工业的中间等级排挤掉了；各种行业组织之间的分工随着各个作坊内部的分工的出现而消失了。但是，市场总是在扩大，需求总是在增加。甚至工场手工业也不再能满足需要了。于是，蒸汽和机器引起了工业生产的革命。现代大工业化替了工场手工业；工业中的百万富翁，一支一支产业大军的首领，现代资产者，代替了工业的中间等级。大工业建立了由美洲的发现所准备好的世界市场。世界市场使商业、航海业和陆路交通得到了巨大的发展。这种发展又反过来促进了工业的扩展，同时，随着工业、商业、航海业和铁路的扩展，资产阶级也在同一程度上得到发展，增加自己的资本，把中世纪遗留下来的一切阶级都排挤到后面去。由此可见，现代资产阶级本身是一个长期发展过程的产物，是生产方式和交换方式的一系列变革的产物。资产阶级的这种发展的每一个阶段，都伴随着相应的政治上进展。它在封建主统治下是被压迫的等级，在公社里是武装的和自治的团体，在一些地方组成独立的城市共和国，在另一些地方组成君主国中的纳税的第三等级；后来，在工场手工业时期，它是等级制君主国或专制君主国中同贵族抗衡的势力，而且是大君主国的主要基础；最后，从大工业和世界市场建立的时候起，它在现代的代议制国家里夺得了独占的政治统治。现代的国家政权不过是管理整个资产阶级的共同事务的委员会罢了。资产阶级在历史上曾经起过非常革命的作用。资产阶级在它已经取得了统治的地方把一切封建的、宗法的和田园诗般的关系都破坏了。它无情地斩断了把人们束缚于天然尊长的形形色色的封建羁绊，它使人和人之间除了赤裸裸的利害关系，除了冷酷无情的“现金交易”，就再也没有任何别的联系了。它把宗教虔诚、骑士热忱、小市民伤感这些情感的神圣发作，淹没在利己主义打算的冰水之中。它把人的尊严变成了交换价值，用一种没有良心的贸易自由代替了无数特许的和自力挣得的自由。总而言之，它用公开的、无耻的、直接的、露骨的剥削代替了由宗教幻想和政治幻想掩盖着的剥削。资产阶级抹去了一切向来受人尊崇和令人敬畏的职业的神圣光环。它把医生、律师、教士、诗人和学者变成了它出钱招雇的雇佣劳动者。资产阶级撕下了罩在家庭关系上的温情脉脉的面纱，把这种关系变成了纯粹的金钱关系。资产阶级揭示了，在中世纪深受反动派称许的那种人力的野蛮使用，是以极端怠惰作为相应补充的。它第一个证明了，人的活动能够取得什么样的成就。它创造了完全不同于埃及金字塔、罗马水道和哥特式教堂的奇迹；它完成了完全不同于民族大迁徙和十字军东征的远征。资产阶级除非对生产工具，从而对生产关系，从而对全部社会关系不断地进行革命，否则就不能生存下去。反之，原封不动地保持旧的生产方式，却是过去的一切工业阶级生存的首要条件。生产的不断变革，一切社会状况不停的动荡，永远的不安定和变动，这就是资产阶级时代不同于过去一切时代的地方。一切固定的僵化的关系以及与之相适应的素被尊崇的观念和见解都被消除了，一切新形成的关系等不到固定下来就陈旧了。一切等级的和固定的东西都烟消云散了，一切神圣的东西都被亵渎了。人们终于不得不用冷静的眼光来看他们的生活地位、他们的相互关系。不断扩大产品销路的需要，驱使资产阶级奔走于全球各地。它必须到处落户，到处开发，到处建立联系。资产阶级，由于开拓了世界市场，使一切国家的生产和消费都成为世界性的了。使反动派大为惋惜的是，资产阶级挖掉了工业脚下的民族基础。古老的民族工业被消灭了，并且每天都还在被消灭。它们被新的工业排挤掉了，新的工业的建立已经成为一切文明民族的生命攸关的问题；这些工业所加工的，已经不是本地的原料，而是来自极其遥远的地区的原料；它们的产品不仅供本国消费，而且同时供世界各地消费。旧的、靠国产品来满足的需要，被新的、要靠极其遥远的国家和地带的产品来满足的需要所代替了。过去那种地方的和民族的自给自足和闭关自守状态，被各民族的各方面的互相往来和各方面的互相依赖所代替了。物质的生产是如此，精神的生产也是如此。各民族的精神产品成了公共的财产。民族的片面性和局限性日益成为不可能，于是由许多种民族的和地方的文学形成了一种世界的文学。资产阶级，由于一切生产工具的迅速改进，由于交通的极其便利，把一切民族甚至最野蛮的民族都卷到文明中来了。它的商品的低廉价格，是它用来摧毁一切万里长城、征服野蛮人最顽强的仇外心理的重炮。它迫使一切民族——如果它们不想灭亡的话——采用资产阶级的生产方式；它迫使它们在自己那里推行所谓文明，即变成资产者。一句话，它按照自己的面貌为自己创造出一个世界。资产阶级使农村屈服于城市的统治。它创立了巨大的城市，使城市人口比农村人口大大增加起来，因而使很大一部分居民脱离了农村生活的愚昧状态。正象它使农村从属于城市一样，它使未开化和半开化的国家从属于文明的国家，使农民的民族从属于资产阶级的民族，使东方从属于西方。资产阶级日甚一日地消灭生产资料、财产和人口的分散状态。它使人口密集起来，使生产资料集中起来，使财产聚集在少数人的手里。由此必然产生的结果就是政治的集中。各自独立的、几乎只有同盟关系的、各有不同利益、不同法律、不同政府、不同关税的各个地区，现在已经结合为一个拥有统一的政府、统一的法律、统一的民族阶级利益和统一的关税的统一的民族。资产阶级在它的不到一百年的阶级统治中所创造的生产力，比过去一切世代创造的全部生产力还要多，还要大。自然力的征服，机器的采用，化学在工业和农业中的应用，轮船的行驶，铁路的通行，电报的使用，整个整个大陆的开垦，河川的通航，仿佛用法术从地下呼唤出来的大量人口，——过去哪一个世纪料想到在社会劳动里蕴藏有这样的生产力呢？由此可见，资产阶级赖以形成的生产资料和交换手段，是在封建社会里造成的。在这些生产资料和交换手段发展的一定阶段上，封建社会的生产和交换在其中进行的关系，封建的农业和工场手工业组织，一句话，封建的所有制关系，就不再适应已经发展的生产力了。这种关系已经在阻碍生产而不是促进生产了。它变成了束缚生产的桎梏。它必须被炸毁，而且已经被炸毁了。起而代之的是自由竞争以及与自由竞争相适应的社会制度和政治制度、资产阶级的经济统治和政治统治。现在，我们眼前又进行着类似的运动。资产阶级的生产关系和交换关系，资产阶级的所有制关系，这个曾经仿佛用法术创造了如此庞大的生产资料和交换手段的现代资产阶级社会，现在像一个魔法师一样不能再支配自己用法术呼唤出来的魔鬼了。几十年来的工业和商业的历史，只不过是现代生产力反抗现代生产关系、反抗作为资产阶级及其统治的存在条件的所有制关系的历史。只要指出在周期性的重复中越来越危及整个资产阶级社会生存的商业危机就够了。在商业危机期间，总是不仅有很大一部分制成的产品被毁灭掉，而且有很大一部分已经造成的生产力被毁灭掉。在危机期间，发生一种在过去一切时代看来都好象是荒唐现象的社会瘟疫，即生产过剩的瘟疫。社会突然发现自己回到了一时的野蛮状态；仿佛是一次饥荒、一场普遍的毁灭性战争，使社会失去了全部生活资料；仿佛是工业和商业全被毁灭了，——这是什么缘故呢？因为社会上文明过度，生活资料太多，工业和商业太发达。社会所拥有的生产力已经不能再促进资产阶级文明和资产阶级所有制关系的发展；相反，生产力已经强大到这种关系所不能适应的地步，它已经受到这种关系的阻碍；而它一着手克服这种障碍，就使整个资产阶级社会陷入混乱，就使资产阶级所有制的存在受到威胁。资产阶级的关系已经太狭窄了，再容纳不了它本身所造成的财富了。——资产阶级用什么办法来克服这种危机呢？一方面不得不消灭大量生产力，另一方面夺取新的市场，更加彻底地利用旧的市场。这究竟是怎样的一种办法呢？这不过是资产阶级准备更全面更猛烈的危机的办法，不过是使防止危机的手段越来越少的办法。资产阶级用来推翻封建制度的武器，现在却对准资产阶级自己了。但是，资产阶级不仅锻造了置自身于死地的武器；它还产生了将要运用这种武器的人——现代的工人，即无产者。随着资产阶级即资本的发展，无产阶级即现代工人阶级也在同一程度上得到发展；现代的工人只有当他们找到工作的时候才能生存，而且只有当他们的劳动增殖资本的时候才能找到工作。这些不得不把自己零星出卖的工人，像其它任何货物一样，也是一种商品，所以他们同样地受到竞争的一切变化、市场的一切波动的影响。由于机器的推广和分工，无产者的劳动已经失去了任何独立的性质，因而对工人也失去了任何吸引力。工人变成了机器的单纯的附属品，要求他做的只是极其简单、极其单调和极容易学会的操作。因此，花在工人身上的费用，几乎只限于维持工人生活和延续工人后代所必需的生活资料。但是，商品的价格，从而劳动的价格，是同它的生产费用相等的。因此，劳动越使人感到厌恶，工资也就越减少。不仅如此，机器越推广，分工越细致，劳动量也就越增加，这或者是由于工作时间的延长，或者是由于在一定时间内所要求的劳动的增加，机器运转的加速，等等。现代工业已经把家长式的师傅的小作坊变成了工业资本家的大工厂。挤在工厂里的工人群众就象士兵一样被组织起来。他们是产业军的普通士兵，受着各级军士和军官的层层监视。他们不仅是资产阶级的、资产阶级国家的奴隶，并且每日每时都受机器、受监工、首先是受各个经营工厂的资产者本人的奴役。这种专制制度越是公开地把营利宣布为自己的最终目的，它就越是可鄙、可恨和可恶。手的操作所要求的技巧和气力越少，换句话说，现代工业越发达，男工也就越受到女工和童工的排挤。对工人阶级来说，性别和年龄的差别再没有什么社会意义了。他们都只是劳动工具，不过因为年龄和性别的不同而需要不同的费用罢了。当厂主对工人的剥削告一段落，工人领到了用现钱支付的工资的时候，马上就有资产阶级中的另一部分人——房东、小店主、当铺老板等等向他们扑来。以前的中间等级的下层，即小工业家、小商人和小食利者，手工业者和农民——所有这些阶级都降落到无产阶级的队伍里来了，有的是因为他们的小资本不足以经营大工业，经不起较大资本家的竞争；有的是因为他们的手艺已经被新的生产方法弄得不值钱了。无产阶级的队伍就是这样从居民的所有阶级中得到补充的。无产阶级经历了各个不同的发展阶段。它反对资产阶级的斗争是和它的存在同时开始的。最初是单个的工人，然后是某一工厂的工人，然后是某一地方的某一劳动部门的工人，同直接剥削他们的单个资产者作斗争。他们不仅仅攻击资产阶级的生产关系，而且攻击生产工具本身；他们毁坏那些来竞争的外国商品，捣毁机器，烧毁工厂，力图恢复已经失去的中世纪工人的地位。在这个阶段上，工人们还是分散在全国各地并为竞争所分裂的群众。工人的大规模集结，还不是他们自己联合的结果，而是资产阶级联合的结果，当时资产阶级为了达到自己的政治目的必须而且暂时还能够把整个无产阶级发动起来。因此，在这个阶段上，无产者不是同自己的敌人作斗争，而是同自己的敌人的敌人作斗争，即同专制君主制的残余、地主、非工业资产阶级和小资产者作斗争。因此，整个历史运动都集中在资产阶级手里；在这种条件下取得的每一个胜利都是资产阶级的胜利。但是，随着工业的发展，无产阶级不仅人数增加了，而且它结合成更大的集体，它的力量日益增长，它越来越感觉到自己的力量。机器使劳动的差别越来越小，使工资几乎到处都降到同样低的水平，因而无产阶级内部的利益和生活状况也越来越趋于一致。资产者彼此间日益加剧的竞争以及由此引起的商业危机，使工人的工资越来越不稳定；机器的日益迅速的和继续不断的改良，使工人的整个生活地位越来越没有保障；单个工人和单个资产者之间的冲突越来越具有两个阶级的冲突的性质。工人开始成立反对资产者的同盟；他们联合起来保卫自己的工资。他们甚至建立了经常性的团体，以便为可能发生的反抗准备食品。有些地方，斗争爆发为起义。工人有时也得到胜利，但这种胜利只是暂时的。他们斗争的真正成果并不是直接取得的成功，而是工人的越来越扩大的联合。这种联合由于大工业所造成的日益发达的交通工具而得到发展，这种交通工具把各地的工人彼此联系起来。只要有了这种联系，就能把许多性质相同的地方性的斗争汇合成全国性的斗争，汇合成阶级斗争。而一切阶级斗争都是政治斗争。中世纪的市民靠乡间小道需要几百年才能达到的联合，现代的无产者利用铁路只要几年就可以达到了。无产者组织成为阶级，从而组织成为政党这件事，不断地由于工人的自相竞争而受到破坏。但是，这种组织总是重新产生，并且一次比一次更强大，更坚固，更有力。它利用资产阶级内部的分裂，迫使他们用法律形式承认工人的个别利益。英国的十小时工作日法案就是一个例子。旧社会内部的所有冲突在许多方面都促进了无产阶级的发展。资产阶级处于不断的斗争中：最初反对贵族：后来反对同工业进步有利害冲突的那部分资产阶级；经常反对一切外国的资产阶级。在这一切斗争中，资产阶级都不得不向无产阶级呼吁，要求无产阶级援助，这样就把无产阶级卷进了政治运动。于是，资产阶级自己就把自己的教育因素即反对自身的武器给予了无产阶级。其次，我们已经看到，工业的进步把统治阶级的整批成员拋到无产阶级队伍里去，或者至少也使他们的生活条件受到威胁。他们也给无产阶级带来了大量的教育因素。最后，在阶级斗争接近决战的时期，统治阶级内部的、整个旧社会内部的瓦解过程，就达到非常强烈、非常尖锐的程度，甚至使得统治阶级中的一小部分人脱离统治阶级而归附于革命的阶级，即掌握着未来的阶级。所以，正像过去贵族中有一部分人转到资产阶级方面一样，现在资产阶级中也有一部分人，特别是已经提高到从理论上认识整个历史运动这一水平的一部分资产阶级思想家，转到无产阶级方面来了。在当前同资产阶级对立的一切阶级中，只有无产阶级是真正革命的阶级。其余的阶级都随着大工业的发展而日趋没落和灭亡，无产阶级却是大工业本身的产物。中间等级，即小工业家、小商人、手工业者、农民，他们同资产阶级作斗争，都是为了维护他们这种中间等级的生存，以免于灭亡。所以，他们不是革命的，而是保守的。不仅如此，他们甚至是反动的，因为他们力图使历史的车轮倒转。如果说他们是革命的，那是鉴于他们行将转入无产阶级的队伍，这样，他们就不是维护他们目前的利益，而是维护他们将来的利益，他们就离开自己原来的立场，而站到无产阶级的立场上来。流氓无产阶级是旧社会最下层中消极的腐化的部分，他们在一些地方也被无产阶级革命卷到运动里来，但是，由于他们的整个生活状况，他们更甘心于被人收买，去干反动的勾当。在无产阶级的生活条件中，旧社会的生活条件已经被消灭了。无产者是没有财产的；他们和妻子儿女的关系同资产阶级的家庭关系再没有任何共同之处了；现代的工业劳动，现代的资本压迫，无论在英国或法国，无论在美国或德国，都是一样的，都使无产者失去了任何民族性。法律、道德、宗教，在他们看来全都是资产阶级偏见，隐藏在这些偏见后面的全都是资产阶级利益。过去一切阶级在争得统治之后，总是使整个社会服从于它们发财致富的条件，企图以此来巩固它们已经获得的生活地位。无产者只有废除自己的现存的占有方式，从而废除全部现存的占有方式，才能取得社会生产力。无产者没有什么自己的东西必须加以保护，他们必须摧毁至今保护和保障私有财产的一切。过去的一切运动都是少数人的或者为少数人谋利益的运动。无产阶级的运动是绝大多数人的、为绝大多数人谋利益的独立的运动。无产阶级，现今社会的最下层，如果不炸毁构成官方社会的整个上层，就不能抬起头来，挺起胸来。如果不就内容而就形式来说，无产阶级反对资产阶级的斗争首先是一国范围内的斗争。每一个国家的无产阶级当然首先应该打倒本国的资产阶级。