Jan 10, 2009-
Is a document called “The Communist Manifesto”, apparently by Karl Marx
representing a committee of communists or something. It’s pretty funny by
itself, but I’ve added my commentary throughout to make it bearable for the
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
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 clash 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.
Is this to say there are employers
and those who are employed?
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.
Things were changing, people were sensing the opportunity to improve the
situation they were in.
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.
Boo F’n Hoo. Someone figured out how to make a product with less human
effort. If the hand-made versions are better, they would still sell for more
money. Otherwise, invent a machine or learn a different craft.
Meantime the markets kept
ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed.
Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. It wasn’t that manufacture no longer sufficed, it was that no one had
figured out how to use steam and machinery yet;
Classic example of confusing cause and effect. 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.
Marx sure is a crybaby.
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.
Now he’s crying about slavery
and serfdom disappearing as capitalism and technology flourish. How horrible
it is that the products required for a steadily increasing
standard-of-living are becoming readily and inexpensively available to
individuals of ever-lower economic circumstance.
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.
Yeah, shit changes over time. Jesus, do we really need a manifesto to come
up with this conclusion?
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.
This is a nice description of socialism, not capitalism under the
Constitution of the United States of America as written, anyway. The State
is a mechanism that is bound to defend the liberty and inherent natural
rights of every individual. Properly applied, a capitalist state would have
no interest- and no control- over which individuals are the “oppressed” and
those who are the “oppressors”.
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
Sold, where is this utopia of which you speak?
It has resolved personal worth into
This is just ridiculous. First Marx laments the class antagonisms of feudal
relationships, then he likens them to what displaced them, then he laments
the loss of those tender human bonds that apparently only a slave and master
can share; all eclipsed forever in by advancing knowledge and productivity.
Are we sure this manifesto wasn’t constructed with a random word generator?
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.
Too bad Marx can’t stick to one word as promised. I’m sure he didn’t find it
very convincing either. “numberless and feasible chartered freedoms”?
I guess that means when a master gives you an unexpected weekend away
from the fields. Under free trade, it’s apparently unconscionable that you
might have to make a decision or two regarding your future all by your
little proletarian self. This communism sells itself.
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 more you describe it, the more I love it.
The bourgeoisie has torn
away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family
relation to a mere money relation.
Man, that is one ugly family. The entire argument thus far is that the value
of the family has been a product of a limited, static, and barberic
hierarchy of human inter-relationships. Now that the individuals within the
family are left to their own aimless devices within a world of unlimited
possibility, how can they possibly value one another, or choose to work for
common aims, etc? How can they value one another in this new maelstrom of
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
What a pity, this progress.
The bourgeoisie cannot
exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and
thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of
(Actually, it is humankind that cannot exist without this development. We
don’t have shelter, most of us aren’t as furry as Marx and it gets cold
sometimes. Human beings must create and use technology to survive, from the
caveman to the quantum physicist) 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.
It must have been a breeze
living during the dark ages. As long as the plague or an endless supply of
conquerors didn’t kill you.
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
I bet he really means “classify”.
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
How could anyone view this as
bad? Ancient prejudices and opinions are swept away? Man is compelled to
face his real conditions of life? Truth is bad? Up is down and right is
wrong- this manifesto is a manifestation of insanity quite literally.
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.
Human interaction and trade is
natural, though Marx apparently views this as “obviously” evil. How dare
someone shake the illusions behind which an isolated band of people
currently “flourish”? Shall it be a right to remain unaware of opportunities
outside a prepared set? Who does the preparing?
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.
New industries are springing
up to supply demands that are arising from individuals choosing
life, rather than death. This natural distribution
of resources, manufacture, and consumption is an expression of capitalism in
action. What a beautiful engine of peace and prosperity for the greatest
number over the greatest area. Who could be against it?
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
You have a point there. If
something as poorly conceived as “The Communist Manifesto” can become a
famous piece of literature, there has to be something wrong. Now where can I
get some of this “intercourse in every direction”?
“The intellectual creations of
individual nations become common property”
Actually, most often,
intellectual creations come from individuals or small groups of people
working together in secret. (The Wright brothers) And, generally, there’s
copyright law which should allow those individuals to capitalize on their
creativity, even as the rest of us share in the bounty of those creations.
Let us praise capitalism.
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.
Is there no end to their
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 bourgeoisie keeps more
and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means
of production, and of property.
You should note this is the opposite of what he was just “arguing’ a few
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.
Pretty badass, I’d say
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?
There was plenty of
presentiment, from the Egyptians, to the Greeks, Romans, and anyone who ever
tried to figure something out to make work easier. Note this betrays the
lack of respect for individuals who have contributed to technological
advancement throughout history, and this culminates in the attribution of
this productive force to a non-existant entity: Social Labour. Instead of
viewing these individuals as having an opportunity to work due to the ideas
of other inventive souls, Marx defines them according to a job they’ve
chosen to do; he turns them into the faceless mass.
We see then: the means of
production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself
up, were generated in feudal society.
Didn’t you just say no prior
century even had a presentiment? Didn’t you just cry about the practices of
feudal society falling away in the wake of the new methods? Wow. Communists
don’t have to make sense, clearly.
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.
There is always free
competition- in even the most oppressive of societies. Free competition and
trade are intrinsic to human reality. The only question is the degree to
which that free competition and trade are hindered by social and political
constitutions- or the neglect thereof.
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.
She’s a witch I say!
For many a decade past the
history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern
(As if this only includes those employed)
against modern conditions
(as if this only includes the employer), against the property
relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and
of its rule
(in other words, against “reality”).
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.
That entire paragraph is just
dumb. What happens is that people miscalculate in their estimations of
supply and demand. What happens is that the “bourgeoisie” are actually human
beings too, and sometimes the property and money they acquire are in
proportion to the risk they take with their own finances. Sometimes those
risks don’t pay off, or some other person- perhaps even a former member of
the proletariat- comes up with a better way or a better product and we’re
off to the races again.
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.
Note Marx tries to legitimize
threats to private property, by implying the behavior has precedent.
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.
Destruction of a mass of
productive forces must mean “layoffs”, and the next two are of course an
attempt to decrease layoffs or even to increase hiring. So the F what?
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 means” that he fails to define just yet is “control” of your life )
The weapons with which the
bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the
This is just a simple lie. Marx is inciting class warfare, and giving the
“warriors” their scapegoat. This is hardly original.
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.
What a manipulative prick.
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.
Wow. What a myopic piece of
crap, this Marx.
The first sentence is a
reversal of cause and effect, followed by a colossal insult to the human
species, followed by a statement of the obvious. Then he calls us a bunch of
Human beings are not a
commodity in a capitalist society, because human beings have what
commodities cannot have- freedom of choice and the ability to increase our
intrinsic worth. How is it that humanity wasn’t snuffed out all these many
thousands of years without Marx’s big hairy tit to suck on? Human beings
literally become commodities- and less- when you try to define and
homogenize their circumstance; when you attempt to disconnect the effects
that are caused by their existences. Not only do they become commodities,
but everyone starts selling short.
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.
Nobody invented the machines?
Nobody is required to service or repair all of that machinery? Nobody has to
coordinate and manage the worthless proletarians? There aren’t any people
who like doing easy work? The proletarians can’t do something they like when
they’re not working? Marx’s descriptions seem a bit simplistic to reflect
reality post enlightenment.
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.
So, if he chose to not
propagate just yet, for example, he might be able to allocate that money
toward improving his position, and then maybe procreate later?
But the price of a
commodity, and therefore also of labour , is equal to its cost of
(The price of a commodity is –to quote my father- “what someone will pay for
it”, regardless of its cost of production.)
In proportion therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the
Actually, what is repulsive is
in the eye of the repulsed. Some people don’t like to work with people, and
feel better doing physical labor. Some people love plumbing, some are drawn
to meeting new people, and some just like doing easy stuff so their mind can
be free to dream about whatever the F they want. Einstein was a patent
clerk- ugh- while he was getting ready to displace barbarian systems with
his new theories of relativity. Are we sure this isn’t Harpo Marx?
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,
Yeah, as most of us have said
from time to time- work sucks. But that’s when you start opening books or
thinking about alternative means of earning money. And then you do something
better according to your own definition of that. “Feel the world expand”.
Modern industry has
converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great
factory of the industrial capitalist.
(Wow, he must have made a packet!)
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.
This seems a bit
pie-in-the-sky. I bet their organizations could have used some improvement.
Not only are they slaves of the
bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State;
Whoa- now he’s gone and said
it: Slavery. That has meaning, and so far I haven’t recognized his
descriptions to justify the term. I don’t recall him saying that workers did
not have the choice of not working for a particular employer.
they are daily and hourly
enslaved by the machine
(the timeclock?), by the over-looker, and, above all, by the
individual bourgeois manufacturer himself.
(Insert evil maniacal laughter
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.
(What’s he talking about? So far, we’re talking about a guy who built a
factory to make some stuff, and hired some people to do the jobs required to
make the stuff, and suddenly he’s in the red jumpsuit with the pitchfork? I
just can’t believe anyone wouldn’t see through this)
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.
nonsense. He simply states that women are more suited to work that takes
less skill. By “social validity”, he of course means the power to fix an
individual into a limited role. For the Taliban, thus, the concept “female
as thing under sheet” has social validity.
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 landlord may have a
mortgage, the shopkeeper has to pay the rent, and the pawnbroker lent
somebody good money.)
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.
And so is the bourgeoisie.
Each individual has a set of circumstances, and of opportunities.
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.
They seek in vain.
At this stage the
labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country,
and broken up by their mutual competition.
(But mainly confusion) 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.
Won’t you join me in hating them for providing jobs?
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.
(Or so you keep saying)
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.
“Here and there” is where a
peaceful negotiation has turned into a crime. If a union cannot exert power
based on the value of its combined pool of skill sufficient to justify its
demands, then it does not deserve the object of those demands. There is only
so much profit, and so much money to go around. If other people who aren’t
part of the Union will work in your place, then get out of the way or adjust
your view. Neither side is justified in using force, and such uses of
intimidation and force are not examples of capitalism, but of
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
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.
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.
Duh- Everybody likes to take
advantage of opportunities; and everybody benefits from an innovation, and
everyone wants a voice in their own determination. The question is not
whether a body has the means to fight, or even to win. The question is
whether winning will produce a stated aim, and I suspect as we read we’ll
determine it can’t.
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.
Note how every advance
attributed to the proletariat by Marx is a result of an inadvertent gift
from the ruling class. The Communists agree for their proletariat that
they’ll always be beggars, and provides the only alternative as becoming
thieves. The individual mighty can fall, but there is no individual in the
proletariat and therefore no chance for one to rise.
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
Blah, Blah, Blah.
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.
Has he no mind of his own?
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 can never become masters
of the productive forces of society, because they don’t understand them.
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.
It’s easier to just call it
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.
It all settles back the same,
like a cat landing on its feet.
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.
Yeah; he’s getting to the
pecking-order among the pecked.
In depicting the most
general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or
less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where
that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of
the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Hitherto, every form of
society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of
oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain
conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its
slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to
membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of
feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer,
on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks
deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He
becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and
wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any
longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of
existence upon society as an over-riding law.
Except that it’s
and those are the ones you
It is unfit to rule because it is
incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because
it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him,
instead of being fed by him.
But Marx pretends to assure an
existence to us as slaves within our slavery, and therefore becomes fit to
rule. Wow. Remind me to spit upon his grave when I visit London next.
Society can no longer live
under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer
compatible with society.
The essential condition
for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation
and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour
rests exclusively on competition between the laborers.
The formation and augmentation
of human ideas, in the effort of meeting human needs, is the underlying
condition for capital. The entire production effort, including those who
invested and those who earn a wage, produce both the capital earned by the
owner and the capital earned as the wage of the laborer.
The advance of industry, whose
involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the
labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to
association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under
its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and
appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all,
is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are
But as you’ve already defined,
the proletariat isn’t smart enough to innovate, and victory is a form of
innovation, so I deduce the victory of which you speak must be for some
special subset of the proletariat.
II. Proletarians and Communists
In what relation do the
Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form
a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.
They have no interests
separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any
sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the
The Communists are
distinguished from the other working-class parties is 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 entire proletariat, independently
(2) In the various stages
of development which the struggle of the working class against the
bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the
interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore,
are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of
the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes
forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the
great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the
line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the
In other words, the communists
are the “bourgeoisie” of the proletariat.
The immediate aim of the
Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties:
formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois
supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles
that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal
reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing
from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under
our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a
distinctive feature of Communism.
Oh, no. All the kids are doin’
All property relations in
the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon
the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for
example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature
of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition
of bourgeois property.
(the property of people we don’t like) But modern bourgeois
private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of
producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on
the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the
Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private
Oh good. For a minute there I
thought you were referring to something major.
Do we get to keep a TV, or a
We Communists have been
reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring
property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be
the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of
the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form?
There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great
extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Yeah, each of the factory
workers previously owned a factory before the Bourgeois bulldozed them all.
Or do you mean modern
bourgeois private property?
But does wage-labour
create any property for the labourer? Not a bit.
Not a bit? What about the wage
and what it buys?
It creates capital, i.e.,
that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase
except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh
exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of
capital and wage-labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.
To be a capitalist, is to
have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital
is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay,
in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can
it be set in motion.
Major Flaw alert: “united” and
“collective” imply that the individuals producing capital each have an equal
investment, risk, and stake in the production of that capital. A wage-earner
has no capital invested, takes no risk as such, and agrees his stake is his
wage. Other “members” have other relationships to the capital produced.
Capital is, therefore, not
a personal, it is a social power.
Capital is a social power
because the individuals who produce it (not the wage earner) invest it
further, giving wage earners additional opportunities.
When, therefore, capital
is converted into common property, into the property of all members of
society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property.
It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses
This is another switcheroo: In
the previous paragraph property is a social power. Now, when you take that
social power and give it ostensibly to the society that produced it, it is
not transformed into what it already was, it merely loses that which it did
not have. Brilliant.
Let us now take wage-labour.
The average price of wage-labour
is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence, which
is absolutely requisite in bare existence as a labourer.
(Earlier he included the family also)
What, therefore, the wage-labourer
appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and
reproduce a bare existence.
(OK, there’s the family)
We by no means intend to abolish this personal
appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for
the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus
wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with,
is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer
lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as
the interest of the ruling class requires it.
How cathartic- We want to
assure you that your life as “bare existence” will not be interrupted by our
takeover, we’ll just make sure any surpluses wherewith you might have
affected a change in that circumstance will be eliminated.
I just can’t imagine someone
presenting this to a group of people without being tarred and feathered.
In bourgeois society,
living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist
society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote
the existence of the labourer.
In communist society,
accumulated labour is, as you just stated prior, but a means of fixing the
condition of the labourer. Logic will not allow even that paltry goal,
however, as humankind must innovate to survive.
In bourgeois society,
therefore, the past dominates the present
(Actually, the future dominates the present); in Communist society,
the present dominates the past.
(Actually, the past dominates the present) In bourgeois society
capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is
dependent and has no individuality.
In capitalist society, capital is a reflection if independence and
individuality; it’s a reflection of the nature of the living. In the society
Marx describes, each person is dependent on a fictitious
provider-of-the-bare-necessities, and has no more worth than anyone else.
And the abolition of this
state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and
freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois
independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
(That reminds me, I’m thinking about putting a pool in this spring)
By freedom is meant, under
the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and
buying. But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying
disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other
"brave words" of our bourgeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaning,
if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the
fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the
Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of
production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.
You are horrified at our
intending to do away with private property.
No more so than at any other
common thief, though you are much more amusing.
But in your existing
society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the
population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in
the hands of those nine-tenths.
This is poor cause and effect
again, followed by something that simply doesn’t follow. If I have a tennis
ball, is it because you don’t have it?
You reproach us, therefore, with
intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for
whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense
majority of society.
That’s a reversal of logic. The point Marx makes is that the condition for
the property for the immense majority of society is the removal of it from
those who have it now. But you’ve already stated that the laborer will have
no more than he has now. Nay, you guarantee him less. The true capitalist
relation is that capital generated into the hands of individual A, means
that some portion of the capital that went into increasing that capital went
into the pockets of the laborers who earned a wage helping to create it.
Therefore, a necessary condition of capital production for the minority is
capital distribution to the majority: The exact opposite of what you
In one word, you reproach
us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just
what we intend.
And you’ll find my bourgeois boot in your ass.
From the moment when
labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a
social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when
individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property,
into capital, from that moment, you say individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore,
confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois,
than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept
out of the way, and made impossible.
I have to confess no such
thing. You have divided; you have classified, and the premise is obviously
false. Both the wage-earner and the innovator depend on the innovator, and
each is free to be that innovator.
Communism deprives no man
of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to
deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such
Oh, is that all?
He’s free to buy stuff from
the state, but he’ll no longer be able to leverage the skills and talents of
other human beings to achieve something greater than he can with his own
hands alone, along with, of course, the bare means of sustenance uncle Marx
provides. He’ll just never, therefore, be “human” again.
It has been objected that
upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal
laziness will overtake us.
Indeed. Why work harder than
the laziest among us? - The wage is the same.
According to this,
bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer
idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who
acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another
expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour
when there is no longer any capital.
Here I sense Marx is aware of
the weakness of his own argument. Those who invent, build and implement the
machines of modern production don’t work? The profit just magically
accumulates at their baby-soft feet?
All objections urged
against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material
products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic modes of
producing and appropriating intellectual products.
That’s right- and the main
objection to each of these scenarios is that they don’t exist.
Just as, to the bourgeois,
the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production
itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the
disappearance of all culture.
That culture, the loss of
which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a
Or, they could do something
less machine like if they choose. How about being a park ranger? Why not
paint brilliant paintings that people want to buy? Train for something you
don’t hate that will earn you enough income to have a chance at doing
something you like. That’s life, folks.
But don't wrangle with us
so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the
standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very
ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production
and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your
class made into a law for all
(The laws of nature), a will, whose essential character and
direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your
Yeah- the nature of living
conditions for an individual is determined by the success of his
investments, if that’s what you mean by “culture”.
The selfish misconception
that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the
social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of
property-historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of
production -- this misconception you share with every ruling class that has
preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you
admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit
in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.
Human beings don’t have the
power to transform social forms into laws of nature and reason. The social
forms related to the means of production within a certain scope of technical
advancement are a reflection of the laws of nature and reason. It was the
laws of nature and reason which allowed these advancements and it will be a
greater understanding of nature that will improve and replace the
opportunities that allow human beings to continue to adapt and survive.
Abolition of the family!
Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the
present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain.
(On freedom and reality) In its completely developed form this family
exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its
complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians,
and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will
vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will
vanish with the vanishing of capital.
(And so will everything else)
Do you charge us with
wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime
we plead guilty.
I charge you with being
illogical and dangerous to the freedom of individuals, and, therefore, to
the survival of the human species.
But, you will say, we
destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by
And your education! Is not
that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you
educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of
schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society
in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention,
and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
Both manipulations of freedom
are detrimental to society.
The bourgeois clap-trap
about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and
child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern
Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their
children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of
But you Communists would
introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees in his
wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of
production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no
other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall
to the women.
He has not even a
suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere
instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is
more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the
community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially
established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce
community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content
with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal,
not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing
each other's wives.
Bourgeois marriage is in
reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the
Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to
introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly
legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the
abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the
abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of
prostitution both public and private.
Wow, do women take it in the
ass in that segment. First, I guess Marx assumes all workers wives will do
the boss. Further, if she did decide to do the boss, that it wouldn’t be
because she chose to, but because the boss owned her. Rich people just swap
wives, again- with no will on the part of the wives- and then have their way
with hookers and proletarians wives and kids. In fact women are all a bunch
of prostitutes unless and until we can take all of your stuff.
The Communists are further
reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no
(Maybe they have one that guarantees them the freedom to create their own
We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must
first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class
of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself
national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
(It’s national in the “evil”
sense of the word.)
National differences and
antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the
development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world-market,
to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life
Yeah, that’s what I’ve been
The supremacy of the
proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the
leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the
emancipation of the proletariat.
(Or for a mob)
In proportion as the
exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation
of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the
antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one
nation to another will come to an end.
Unless the “exploitation” is
actually “free interaction”, in which case you put an end to the
opportunities this provides. And didn’t you just state that Bourgeois
development had caused the vanishing of national antagonisms? And now that
hostility is decreasing along with bourgeois development. Marx was right the
first time. Opportunities for free interaction reduce hostility. Crazy
notions about taking peoples’ stuff increase antagonisms and reduce trust
among any subset of human beings, be it individuals or nations.
The charges against
Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an
ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Oh, ok. Thanks for clearing up
that small point. He’s the form of that argument: “My argument is, generally
speaking, from any point of view, not deserving of examination”. That’s
refreshing. Before being enlightened on this point, I was under the
impression that communism as you’ve defined it here needed very little
examination before being exposed as rank pussyism.
Does it require deep
intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one
word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of
his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?
I don’t have a problem with
What else does the history
of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in
proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age
have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
Cause and effect again- The
ideas of successful people are what have made them successful, not the other
way around. That’s why anyone can be successful in a free society, with
protection of private property.
When people speak of ideas
that revolutionise society, they do but express the fact, that within the
old society, the elements of a new one have been created, and that the
dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old
conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was
in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity.
When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas,
feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary
bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely
gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of
"Undoubtedly," it will be
said, "religious, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been
modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality
philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides,
eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states
of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all
religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it
therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
Pure nonsense. Why don’t you
refute the actual arguments of your enemies, rather than ones you make up
What does this accusation
reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the
development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms
at different epochs.
The history of all past
society has consisted of some form of the same ideology you attempt to
inspire: Individual’s lives and property were in constant danger of unjust
takeover by some invading collective.
But whatever form they may
have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of
one part of society by the other.
(Like, for example, the Bourgeois by the Proletariat?)
No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the
multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or
general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total
disappearance of class antagonisms.
Actually, the disappearance of
antagonisms between human beings and nations is- as you’ve already stated a
few times- positively correlated with increases in technology and industry.
The Communist revolution
is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder
that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional
It’s a radical rupture of
brain tissue, and collective suicide.
But let us have done with
the bourgeois objections to Communism.
You’ll never achieve that.
We have seen above, that
the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the
proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy.
This is why democracy is a
horrible form of government.
The proletariat will use
its political supremacy top wrest, by degrees, all capital from the
bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the
State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to
increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
You might be able to
accomplish the first three objectives in a democracy, because that only
requires manipulating fools. However, since productive forces are driven by
productive individuals, whom you seek to displace, you’re just blowing hot
Of course, in the
beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on
the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by
means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and
untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves,
necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable
as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
In other words: We don’t know
what the fuck we’re doin’, but we know it’s going to require forcing people
to give us their stuff, and it’s going to seem dumb at first, but after a
while it’ll be proven so, and it will therefore require more of the same
which is unavoidable as the fictitional end justifies our means. Wow, a
committee signed off on this?
These measures will of
course be different in different countries.
Yeah, I guess you’d have to
use the metric system in Europe while you’re a plunderin’.
Nevertheless in the most
(The ones with stuff to steal), the following will be
pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property
in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Ooh- since we’re all getting
government housing, I’ll take one of the nice ones preferably with a good
view. And I’d still like that pool. Or do we just tear everything down to
make sure we’re all living in the same conditions?
2. A heavy progressive or
graduated income tax.
Let’s see- you’ve abolished
the bourgeoisie, so they’re not making any money, and you’ve guaranteed your
workers that they’ll only make enough money for bare sustenance, so they
can’t pay any tax. Who’s paying the tax again?
3. Abolition of all right
Except, of course, the right
of your collective to “inherit” and distribute a person’s labor for society.
4. Confiscation of the
property of all emigrants and rebels.
That pretty much covers
5. Centralisation of
credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State
capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Why would someone need to
borrow money when there’s not reward for successful investment? Let me see:
“I’d like to borrow a couple of million dollars to open an amusement park
dedicated to fat hairy despots. I know I’ll not be able to pay you back
because my sustenance-only wage won’t allow for it.”
6. Centralisation of the
means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Doesn’t this really just mean
“sit down and shut up”?
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.
Common plans suck. Individual
plans are unique and valuable. You can’t extend something when you don’t
understand it. The moment someone has the idea they’ve risen above those
around them in class stature.
8. Equal liability of all
to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
“Just go out and grab an
industrial army or two, especially to grow some stuff we can eat. And we’ll
be waitin’ here at the dinner table for you to get back”. “Equal liability
of labour”- or else what: Deny bare sustenance?
Then the entire premise of this lame manifesto has been defeated. I
thought it was all about preventing people from having to work for barely
more than sustenance.
9. Combination of
agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the
distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the
population over the country.
Note Marx would sprinkle
enough people around in the right distribution. If you like it better here
than there, well, you’re just selfish. Remember, you’re not human any more.
You’re just a piece on Marx’s game board.
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, &c., &c.
All kids need to know is that
your ideas are lame.
When, in the course of
development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has
been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation,
the public power will lose its political character. Political power,
properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for
oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the
bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself
as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class,
and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it
will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the
existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby
have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
It will have swept away the
conditions for existence in general.
In place of the old
bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an
association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the
free development of all.
So a group is going to control
everyone else, to make sure that no one is controlling anyone else, which
will make no one want to control anyone else, after which time they will all
forget that the original group is controlling everyone. Everyone is
guaranteed to have no surplus beyond subsistence, and so they’re free to
develop themselves to their little heart’s content as long as that
development doesn’t require any goods or services.
III. Socialist and Communist Literature
In the following few sections, Marx attempts to show the differences between
the various versions (as he defines them) of Socialism, and why they have
been ineffective. As this is extremely boring, I comment very little until
the last section. Read Marx if you can stomach it, and pick up with my
comments as I wake up from his drudgery.
1. REACTIONARY SOCIALISM
A. Feudal Socialism
Owing to their historical
position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England
to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French
revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these
aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious
political contest was altogether out of the question. A literary battle
alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries
of the restoration period had become impossible.
In order to arouse
sympathy, the aristocracy were obliged to lose sight, apparently, of their
own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in
the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus the aristocracy took
their revenge by singing lampoons on their new master, and whispering in his
ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe.
In this way arose Feudal
Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half echo of the past, half
menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism,
striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart's core; but always ludicrous in
its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern
The aristocracy, in order
to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a
banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their
hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and
One section of the French
Legitimists and "Young England" exhibited this spectacle.
In pointing out that their
mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the
feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and conditions
that were quite different, and that are now antiquated. In showing that,
under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the
modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.
For the rest, so little do
they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief
accusation against the bourgeoisie amounts to this, that under the bourgeois
regime a class is being developed, which is destined to cut up root and
branch the old order of society.
What they upbraid the
bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat, as that it
creates a revolutionary proletariat.
In political practice,
therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the working class; and
in ordinary life, despite their high falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up
the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth,
love, and honour for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.
As the parson has ever
gone band in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal
Nothing is easier than to
give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed
against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not
preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and
mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian
Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the
heart-burnings of the aristocrat.
B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism
The feudal aristocracy was
not the only class that has ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class
whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern
bourgeois society. The mediaeval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors
were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are
but little developed, industrially and commercially, these two classes still
vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie.
In countries where modern
civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has
been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie and ever
renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual
members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the
proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops,
they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as
an independent section of modern society, to be replaced, in manufactures,
agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.
In countries like France,
where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was
natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie,
should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois regime, the standard of the
peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate
classes should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose
petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in
France but also in England.
This school of Socialism
dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of
modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It
proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division
of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands;
overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty
bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in
production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the
industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old
moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.
In its positive aims,
however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of
production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and
the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of
exchange, within the framework of the old property relations that have been,
and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both
reactionary and Utopian.
Its last words are:
corporate guilds for manufacture, patriarchal relations in agriculture.
Ultimately, when stubborn
historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception,
this form of Socialism ended in a miserable fit of the blues.
I heard the blues started in
C. German, or "True," Socialism
The Socialist and
Communist literature of France, a literature that originated under the
pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that was the expression of the
struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time when the
bourgeoisie, in that country, had just begun its contest with feudal
would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits, eagerly seized on this literature,
only forgetting, that when these writings immigrated from France into
Germany, French social conditions had not immigrated along with them. In
contact with German social conditions, this French literature lost all its
immediate practical significance, and assumed a purely literary aspect.
Thus, to the German philosophers of the eighteenth century, the demands of
the first French Revolution were nothing more than the demands of "Practical
Reason" in general, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary
French bourgeoisie signified in their eyes the law of pure Will, of Will as
it was bound to be, of true human Will generally.
The world of the German
literate consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with
their ancient philosophical conscience, or rather, in annexing the French
ideas without deserting their own philosophic point of view.
This annexation took place
in the same way in which a foreign language is appropriated, namely, by
It is well known how the
monks wrote silly lives of Catholic Saints over the manuscripts on which the
classical works of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literate
reversed this process with the profane French literature. They wrote their
philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath
the French criticism of the economic functions of money, they wrote
"Alienation of Humanity," and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois
State they wrote "dethronement of the Category of the General," and so
The introduction of these
philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms they
dubbed "Philosophy of Action," "True Socialism," "German Science of
Socialism," "Philosophical Foundation of Socialism," and so on.
The French Socialist and
Communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased
in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the
other, he felt conscious of having overcome "French one-sidedness" and of
representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of truth; not the
interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in
general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the
misty realm of philosophical fantasy.
This German Socialism,
which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled its
poor stock-in-trade in such mountebank fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its
The fight of the German,
and especially, of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and
absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more
By this, the long
wished-for opportunity was offered to "True" Socialism of confronting the
political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional
anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against
bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois
legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses
that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois
movement. German Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French
criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern
bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence,
and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things whose
attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.
To the absolute
governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires
and officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening
It was a sweet finish
after the bitter pills of floggings and bullets with which these same
governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings.
While this "True"
Socialism thus served the governments as a weapon for fighting the German
bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary
interest, the interest of the German Philistines. In Germany the
petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then
constantly cropping up again under various forms, is the real social basis
of the existing state of things.
To preserve this class is
to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and
political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain
destruction; on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the
other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. "True" Socialism
appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.
The robe of speculative
cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly
sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped
their sorry "eternal truths," all skin and bone, served to wonderfully
increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public.
And on its part, German
Socialism recognised, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic
representative of the petty- bourgeois Philistine.
It proclaimed the German
nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the
typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man it gave a
hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real
character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the "brutally
destructive" tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and
impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the
so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in
Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.
2. CONSERVATIVE, OR BOURGEOIS,
A part of the bourgeoisie
is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the
continued existence of bourgeois society.
To this section belong
economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of
the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the
prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner
reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of Socialism has, moreover,
been worked out into complete systems.
We may site Proudhon's
Philosophie de la Misere as an example of this form.
The Socialistic bourgeois
want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles
and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state
of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements.
They want to keep what they
earned, without petty thieves stealing it.
They wish for a
bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the
world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism
develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete
systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and
thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires
in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing
society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the
A second and more
practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate
every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class, by showing
that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions
of existence, in economic relations, could be of any advantage to them. By
changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism,
however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of
production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution, but
administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations;
reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital
and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the
administrative work, of bourgeois government.
attains adequate expression, when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure
Free trade: for the
benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the
working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is
the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism.
It is summed up in the
phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois -- for the benefit of the working
3. CRITICAL-UTOPIAN SOCIALISM
We do not here refer to
that literature which, in every great modern revolution, has always given
voice to the demands of the proletariat, such as the writings of Babeuf and
The first direct attempts
of the proletariat to attain its own ends, made in times of universal
excitement, when feudal society was being overthrown, these attempts
necessarily failed, owing to the then undeveloped state of the proletariat,
as well as to the absence of the economic conditions for its emancipation,
conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be produced by the
impending bourgeois epoch alone. The revolutionary literature that
accompanied these first movements of the proletariat had necessarily a
reactionary character. It inculcated universal asceticism and social
levelling in its crudest form.
“Social levelling in its
crudest form” There are refined
ways, apparently, of forcibly stealing the work of others. Damn this is a
The Socialist and
Communist systems properly so called, those of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen
and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, described
above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie (see Section 1.
Bourgeois and Proletarians).
The founders of these
systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action of the
decomposing elements, in the prevailing form of society. But the
proletariat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a class
without any historical initiative or any independent political movement.
Since the development of
class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the
economic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the
material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore
search after a new social science, after new social laws, that are to create
Couldn’t they just devote that
effort to inventing something worth money or working smarter?
Historical action is to
yield to their personal inventive action, historically created conditions of
emancipation to fantastic ones, and the gradual, spontaneous class-organisation
of the proletariat to the organisation of society specially contrived by
they’re so creative! They’ve invented stealing from others!)
Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the
practical carrying out of their social plans.
(But mainly just the propaganda)
In the formation of their
plans they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working
class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of
being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.
Precisely- Note the “interests” of the working class cannot include becoming
something other than “Suffering”, and that everyone will now be proletariat
(except for those doing the “thinking”).
The undeveloped state of
the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of
this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They
want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the
most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without
distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can
people, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best
possible plan of the best possible state of society?
Because they didn’t understand
Hence, they reject all
political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain
their ends by peaceful means, and endeavour, by small experiments,
necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way
for the new social Gospel.
All “systems” based on plunder
are doomed to fail.
Such fantastic pictures of
future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very
undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position
correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general
reconstruction of society.
But these Socialist and
Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every
principle of existing society. Hence they are full of the most valuable
materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures
proposed in them -- -such as the abolition of the distinction between town
and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industries for the account
of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social
harmony, the conversion of the functions of the State into a mere
superintendence of production, all these proposals, point solely to the
disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just
cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognised in their
earliest, indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore,
are of a purely Utopian character.
There’s nothing antagonistic
about destroying the creative forces behind human survival. Everyone will
hold hands and sing praises to Marx as they starve to death.
The significance of
Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism bears an inverse relation to
historical development. In proportion as the modern class struggle develops
and takes definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest,
these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all theoretical
justification. Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in
many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed
mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their
masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the
proletariat. They, therefore, endeavour, and that consistently, to deaden
the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream
of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated "phalansteres,"
of establishing "Home Colonies," of setting up a "Little Icaria" --
duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem -- and to realise all these castles
in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the
bourgeois. By degrees they sink into the category of the reactionary
conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more
systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the
miraculous effects of their social science.
In other words, they’re just
like Marx except don’t advocate
They, therefore, violently
oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action,
according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.
The Owenites in England,
and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and the
IV. Position of the Communists in Relation to
the Various Existing Opposition Parties
Section II has made clear
the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such
as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.
(And don’t you question it.)
The Communists fight for
the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary
interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they
also represent and take care of the future of that movement.
(Like only they can)
In France the Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats, against
the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to
take up a critical position in regard to phrases and illusions traditionally
handed down from the great Revolution.
They’re a fickle bunch, those
Marxists. And they’ll stab you in the back, too, so just be warned.
In Switzerland they
support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party
consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the
French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.
In Poland they support the
party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for
national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow
In Germany they fight with
the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the
absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.
But they never cease, for
a single instant, to instil into the working class the clearest possible
recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat,
in order that the German workers may straightaway use, as so many weapons
against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the
bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in
order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight
against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.
Marx seems to be engaged in
wishful thinking here. He mainly just hopes this is happening. The problem
is that Marxists can’t fight, because that takes creativity and production.
Even when they’re shining shoes they’re not doing it right.
The Communists turn their
attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a
bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced
conditions of European civilisation, and with a much more developed
proletariat, than that of England was in the seventeenth, and of France in
the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will
be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.
Yeah, how’s that workin’ out?
In short, the Communists
everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social
and political order of things.
They should form a band, and
call it “rage against the existing social and political order of things”.
In all these movements
they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property
question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
The property question:
You have stuff, we want it, what are we going to do about it? Well,
here’s what we’re not going to do:
Attempt to trade something of value for it.
Ask nicely if you wouldn’t mind sparing some of it
Accept no for an answer
Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the
democratic parties of all countries.
They’re just busy little bees.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare
that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all
existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic
revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They
have a world to win.
bad they don’t know what to do with one.
WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!
Wow. Even though I knew this
document was dumb, I had never read it until 2008. What I’m most surprised
about is how poorly the logical flaws are concealed.. One would think a
document of which so many are aware would at least be good on some level, no
matter how wrong it is. This is just a grade-school (public) piece of trash.
And it’s evil on top of that.
Next time I visit London, I’ll
make a point to spit on Marx’s grave.