| Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei Karl Marx (1848) | |||
| Downloading books is available only for authorized users | |||
| Downloading books is available only for authorized users | |||
| Manifesto of the Communist Party | 共產黨宣言 | ||
| II. Proletarians and Communists | 二、無產者和共產黨人 | ||
| In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole. 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 proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat. The theoretical 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. 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. 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 property. 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! Do you mean the property of 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. Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property? But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., 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. Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power. 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 its class character. 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 to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. 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. 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 bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality. 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. 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 bourgeois 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. 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 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. 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, 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, 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. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. 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. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. 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. 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. But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus. The bourgeois sees 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 that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at 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 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. The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. 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. National differences and antagonism 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 corresponding thereto. 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. In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be 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. The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination. Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, 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? 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. When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that 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 knowledge. “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.” 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. 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. 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. The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism. 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 class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, 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 productive forces as rapidly as possible. 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. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc, etc. 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. 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. | 共產黨人同一般無產者的關係是怎樣的呢？ 共產黨人不是同其他工人政黨相對立的特殊政黨。 他們沒有任何同整個無產階級的利益不同的利益。 他們不提出任何特殊的[21]原則，用以塑造無產階級的運動。 共產黨人同其他無產階級政黨不同的地方只是：一方面，在各國無產者的鬥爭中，共產黨人強調和堅持整個無產階級的不分民族的共同利益；另一方面，在無產階級和資產階級的鬥爭所經歷的各個發展階段上，共產黨人始終代表整個運動的利益。 因此，在實踐方面，共產黨人是各國工人政黨中最堅決的、始終推動運動前進的[22]部份；在理論方面，他們比其餘的無產階級群眾優越的地方在於他們了解無產階級運動的條件、進程和一般結果。 共產黨人的最近目的是和其他一切無產階級政黨的最近目的一樣的：使無產階級形成為階級，推翻資產階級的統治，由無產階級奪取政權。 共產黨人的理論原理，決不是以這個或那個世界改革家所發明或發現的思想、原則為根據的。 這些原理不過是現存的階級鬥爭、我們眼前的歷史運動的真實關係的一般表現。消滅先前存在的所有制關係，並不是共產主義所獨具的特徵。 一切所有制關係都經歷了經常的歷史更替、經常的歷史變更。 例如，法國革命廢除了封建的所有制，代之以資產階級的所有制。 共產主義的特徵並不是要廢除一般的所有制，而是要廢除資產階級的所有制。 但是，現代的資產階級私有制是建築在階級對立上面、建築在一些人對另一些人的剝削[23]上面的生產和產品占有的最後而又最完備的表現。 從這個意義上說，共產黨人可以用一句話把自己的理論概括起來：消滅私有制。 有人責備我們共產黨人，說我們要消滅個人掙得的、自己勞動得來的財產，要消滅構成個人的一切自由、活動和獨立的基礎的財產。 好一個勞動得來的、自己掙得的、自己賺來的財產！你們說的是資產階級所有制以前的那種小資產者的、小農的財產嗎？那種財產用不著我們去消滅，工業的發展已經把它消滅了，而且每天都在消滅它。 或者，你們說的是現代的資產階級的私有財產吧？ 但是，難道雇傭勞動，無產者的勞動，會給無產者創造出財產來嗎？沒有的事。這種勞動所創造的是資本，即剝削雇傭勞動的財產，只有在不斷產生出新的雇傭勞動來重新加以剝削的條件下才能增加起來的財產。現今的這種財產是在資本和雇傭勞動的對立中運動的。讓我們來看看這種對立的兩個方面吧。 做一個資本家，這就是說，他在生產中不僅占有一種純粹個人的地位，而且占有一種社會的地位。資本是集體的產物，它只有通過社會許多成員的共同活動，而且歸根到底只有通過社會全體成員的共同活動，才能被運用起來。 因此，資本不是一種個人力量，而是一種社會力量。 因此，把資本變為屬於社會全體成員的公共財產，這並不是把個人財產變為社會財產。這裡所改變的只是財產的社會性質。它將失掉它的階級性質。 現在，我們來看看雇傭勞動。 雇傭勞動的平均價格是最低限度的工資，即工人為維持其工人的生活所必需的生活資料的數額。因此，雇傭工人靠自己的勞動所占有的東西，只夠勉強維持他的生命的再生產。我們絕不打算消滅這種供直接生命再生產用的勞動產品的個人占有，這種占有並不會留下任何剩餘的東西使人們有可能支配別人的勞動。我們要消滅的只是這種占有的可怜的性質，在這種占有下，工人僅僅為增殖資本而生活，並且只有在統治階級的利益需要他生活的時候才能生活。 在資產階級社會裡，活的勞動只是增殖已經積累起來的勞動的一種手段。在共產主義社會裡，已經積累起來的勞動只是擴大、豐富和提高工人的生活的一種手段。 因此，在資產階級社會裡是過去支配現在，在共產主義社會裡是現在支配過去。在資產階級社會裡，資本具有獨立性和個性，而活動著的個人卻沒有獨立性和個性。 而資產階級卻把消滅這種關係說成是消滅個性和自由！它說對了。的確，正是要消滅資產者的個性、獨立性和自由。 在現今的資產階級生產關係的範圍內，所謂自由就是貿易自由，買賣自由。 但是，買賣一消失，自由的買賣也就會消失。我們的資產者關於自由買賣的空談，也像他們的其他一切關於自由的大話一樣，僅僅對於不自由的買賣來說，對於中世紀被奴役的市民來說，才是有意義的，而對於共產主義要消滅買賣、消滅資產階級生產關係和資產階級本身這一點來說，卻是毫無意義的。 你們一聽到我們要消滅私有制，就驚慌起來。但是，在你們的現存社會裡，私有財產對十分之九的成員來說已經被消滅了；這種私有制之所以存在，正是因為私有財產對十分之九的成員來說已經不存在。可見，你們責備我們，原來是說我們要消滅那種以社會上的絕大多數人沒有財產為必要條件的所有制。 總而言之，你們責備我們，原來是說我們要消滅你們的那種所有制。的確，我們是要這樣做的。 你們說，從勞動不再能變為資本、貨幣、地租，一句話，不再能變為可以壟斷的社會力量的時候起，就是說，從個人財產不再能變為資產階級財產[24]的時候起，個性就被消滅了。 由此可見，你們是承認，你們所理解的個性，不外是資產者、資產階級私有者。這樣的個性確實應當被消滅。 共產主義並不剝奪任何人占有社會產品的權力，它只剝奪利用這種占有去奴役他人勞動的權力。 有人反駁說，私有制一消滅，一切活動就會停止，懶惰之風就會興起。 這樣說來，資產階級社會早就應該因懶惰而滅亡了，因為在這個社會裡是勞者不獲，獲者不勞的。所有這些顧慮，都可以歸結為這樣一個同義反復：一旦沒有資本，也就不再有雇傭勞動了。 所有這些對共產主義的物質產品的占有方式和生產方式的責備，都同樣被推廣到精神產品的占有和生產方面。正如消滅階級的所有制在資產者看來是消滅生產本身一樣，消滅階級的教育在他們看來就等於消滅一切教育。 資產者唯恐其滅亡的那種教育，對絕大多數人來說不過是把人訓練成機器罷了。 但是，你們既然用你們資產階級關於自由、教育、法等等的觀念來衡量廢除資產階級所有制的主張，那就請你們不要同我們爭論了。你們的觀念本身是資產階級的生產關係和所有制關係的產物，正像你們的法不過是被奉為法律的你們這個階級的意志一樣，而這種意志的內容是由你們這個階級的物質生活條件來決定的。 你們的偏私觀念使你們把自己的生產關係和所有制關係從歷史的、在生產過程中是暫時的關係變成永恆的自然規律和理性規律，這種偏私觀念是你們和一切滅亡了的統治階級所共有的。你們談到古代所有制的時候所能理解的，你們談到封建所有制的時候所能理解的，一談到資產階級所有制你們就再也不能理解了。 消滅家庭！連極端的激進黨人也對共產黨人的這種可恥的意圖表示憤慨。 現代的、資產階級的家庭是建築在什麼基礎上的呢？是建築在資本上面，建築在私人發財上面的。這種家庭的充分發展的形式，只是在資產階級中才存在，而它的補充現象是無產者的被迫獨居和公開的賣淫。 資產者的家庭自然會隨著它的這種補充現象的消失而消失，兩者都要隨著資本的消失而消失。 也許你們是責備我們，說我們要消滅父母對子女的剝削吧？我們承認這種罪狀。 但是，你們說，我們用社會教育代替家庭教育，就是要消滅人們最親密的關係。 而你們的教育不也是由社會決定的嗎？不也是由你們借以進行教育的那種社會關係決定的嗎？不也是由社會通過學校等等進行的直接的或間接的干涉決定的嗎？共產黨人並沒有發明社會對教育的影響；他們僅僅是要改變這種影響的性質，要使教育擺脫統治階級的影響。 無產者的一切家庭聯係愈是由於大工業的發展而被破壞，他們的子女愈是由於這種發展而被變成單純的買賣對象和勞動工具，資產階級關於家庭和教育、關於父母和子女的親密關係的空話就愈是令人作嘔。 但是，你們共產黨人是要實行公妻制的啊，──整個資產階級異口同聲地向我們這樣叫喊。 資產者原來是把自己的妻子看做單純的生產工具的。他們聽說生產工具將要公共使用，自然就不能不想到婦女也會遭到同樣的命運。 他們想也沒有想到，問題正在於消滅婦女被當做單純生產工具看待的地位。 其實，我們的資產者裝得道貌岸然，對所謂的共產黨人的正式公妻制表示驚訝，那是再可笑不過了。公妻制無需共產黨人來實行，它差不多是一向就有的。 我們的資產者不以他們的無產者的妻子和女兒受他們支配為滿足，正式的娼妓更不必說了，他們還以互相誘奸妻子為最大的享樂。 資產階級的婚姻實際上是公妻制。人們至多只能責備共產黨人，說他們想用正式的、公開的公妻制來代替偽善地掩蔽著的公妻制。其實，不言而喻，隨著現在的生產關係的消滅，從這種關係中產生的公妻制，即正式的和非正式的賣淫，也就消失了。 還有人責備共產黨人，說他們要取消祖國，取消民族。 工人沒有祖國。絕不能剝奪他們所沒有的東西。因為無產階級首先必須取得政治統治，上升為民族的階級[25]，把自身組織成為民族，所以它本身暫時還是民族的，雖然這裡所說的「民族的」一詞和資產階級所理解的完全不同。 隨著資產階級的發展，隨著貿易自由的實現和世界市場的建立，隨著工業生產以及與之相適應的生活條件的趨於一致，各國人民之間的民族隔絕和對立日益消失了。 無產階級的統治將使它們更快地消失。聯合的行動，至少是各文明國家的聯合的行動，是無產階級獲得解放的首要條件之一。 人對人的剝削一消滅，民族對民族的剝削就會隨之消滅。 民族內部的階級對立一消失，民族之間的敵對關係就會隨之消失。 從宗教的、哲學的和一般意識形態的觀點對共產主義提出的種種責難，都不值得詳細討論了。 人們的觀念、觀點和概念，一句話，人們的意識，隨著人們的生活條件、人們的社會關係、人們的社會存在的改變而改變，這難道需要經過深思才能了解嗎？ 思想的歷史除了証明精神生產隨著物質生產的改造而改造，還証明了什麼呢？任何一個時代的統治思想始終都不過是統治階級的思想。 當人們談到使整個社會革命化的思想時，他們只是表明了一個事實：在舊社會內部已經形成了新社會的因素，舊思想的瓦解是同舊生活條件的瓦解步調一致的。 當古代世界走向滅亡的時候，古代的各種宗教就被基督教戰勝了。當基督教思想在十八世紀被啟蒙思想擊敗的時候，封建社會正在同當時革命的資產階級進行殊死的鬥爭。信仰自由和宗教自由的思想，不過表明自由競爭在信仰的領域裡[26]占統治地位罷了。 「誠然」，──有人會說，──「宗教的、道德的、哲學的、政治的、法的以及其他的觀念在歷史發展的進程中是不斷改變的。但是，宗教、道德、哲學、政治和法本身在這種變化中卻始終保存著。 此外，還存在著永恆的真理，如自由、正義等等，這些真理是社會發展的一切階段所共有的。但是共產主義要廢除永恆的真理，它要廢除宗教、道德，而不是加以革新，所以共產主義是同到目前為止的全部歷史發展進程相矛盾的。」 這種責難有什麼意思呢？到目前為止的一切社會的歷史都是在階級對立中運動的，而這種對立在各個不同的時代是各不相同的。 但是，不管這種對立具有什麼樣的形式，社會上一部分人對另一部分人的剝削卻是過去各個世紀所共有的事實。因此，毫不奇怪，各個世紀的社會意識，盡管形形色色、千差萬別，總是在某種共同的形式中運動的，這些形式[27]，這些意識形式，只有當階級對立完全消失的時候才會完全消失。 共產主義革命就是同傳統的所有制關係實行最徹底的決裂，毫不奇怪，它在自己的發展進程中要同傳統的觀念實行最徹底的決裂。 不過，我們還是把資產階級對共產主義的種種責難撇開吧。 前面我們已經看到，工人革命的第一步就是使無產階級上升為統治階級，爭得民主。 無產階級將利用自己的政治統治，一步一步地奪取資產階級的全部資本，把一切生產工具集中在國家即組織成為統治階級的無產階級手裡，並且盡可能快地增加生產力的總量。 要做到這一點，當然首先必須對所有權和資產階級生產關係實行強制性的干涉，採取這樣一些措施，這些措施在經濟上似乎是不夠充分的和沒有力量的，但是在運動進程中它們會越出本身，[28]而且作為變革全部生產方式的手段是必不可少的。 這些措施在不同的國家裡當然會是不同的。 但是，最先進的國家幾乎都可以採取下面的措施： 剝奪地產，把地租用於國家支出。 徵收高額累進稅。 廢除繼承權。 沒收一切流亡分子和叛亂分子的財產。 通過擁有國家資本和獨享壟斷權的國家銀行，把信貸集中在國家手裡。 把全部運輸業集中在國家手裡。 增加國營工廠和生產工具，按照總的計劃開墾荒地和改良土壤。 實行普遍勞動義務制，成立產業軍，特別是在農業方面。 把農業和工業結合起來，促使城鄉之間的對立[29]逐步消滅[30]。 對一切兒童實行公共的和免費的教育。取消現在這種形式的兒童的工廠勞動。把教育同物質生產結合起來，等等。 在發展進程中，當階級差別已經消失而全部生產集中在聯合起來的個人的手裡的時候，公眾的權力就失去政治性質。原來意義上的政治權力，是一個階級用以壓迫另一個階級的有組織的暴力。如果說無產階級在反對資產階級的鬥爭中一定要聯合為階級，如果說它通過革命使自己成為統治階級，並以統治階級的資格用暴力消滅舊的生產關係，那麼它在消滅這種生產關係的同時，也就消滅了階級對立和階級本身的存在條件[31]，從而消滅了它自己這個階級的統治。 代替那存在著階級和階級對立的資產階級舊社會的，將是這樣一個聯合體，在那裡，每個人的自由發展是一切人的自由發展的條件。 [21] 「特殊的」在1888年英文版中是：「宗派的，。──譯者註 [22] 「最堅決的、始終推動運動前進的」在1888年英文版中是：「最先進的和最堅決的」。──譯者註 [23] 「一些人對另一些人的剝削」在1888年英文版中是：「少數人對多數人的剝削」。──譯者註 [24] 在1888年英文版中這裡加上了：「變為資本」。──譯者註 [25] 「民族的階級，在1888年英文版中是：「民族的領導階級」。──譯者註 [26] 「在信仰的領域裡」在1872、1883和1890年德文版中是：「在知識的領域裡」。──譯者註 [27] 在1890年德文版中刪去了：「這些形式」。──譯者註 [28] 在1888年英文版中這裡加上了：「使進一步向舊的社會制度進攻成為必要。──譯者註 [29] 「對立」在1872、1883和1890年德文版中是：「差別」。──譯者註 [30] 在1888年英文版中這一條是：「把農業和工業結合起來，通過把人口更平均地分布於全國的辦法逐步消滅城鄉之間的差別」。──譯者註 [31] 「消滅了階級對立和階級本身的存在條件。在1872、1883和1890年德文版中是：「消滅了階級對立的存在條件，消滅了階級本身」。──譯者註 | ||
| Previous chapter | Next chapter | ||