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.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! The abolition of this
state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality
and freedom!

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property.
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. 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.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your
property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

>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.

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 appropriations.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all
work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

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 everything 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.

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and
appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged
against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating
intellectual products. 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 machine.
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, &c. 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, a will whose essential character and
direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of
your class.

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.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this
infamous proposal of the Communists.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the
hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more
disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family
ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children
transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of
labour.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to