In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the 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 theproletarian movement
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In thenational struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to thefront the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In thevarious stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie hasto pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolutesection of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward allothers; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat theadvantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate generalresults of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties:formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest ofpolitical power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles thathave been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle,from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing propertyrelations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequentupon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but theabolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and mostcomplete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on classantagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolitionof private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personallyacquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be thegroundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and ofthe small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need toabolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is stilldestroying it daily.
Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?
But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., thatkind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition ofbegetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of thisantagonism.
To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort,only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.
