THIS IS THE BALANCE OF “THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO WITHOUT NOUNS” BLOG POST

Our, the of the, shows, however, this distinctive: has simplified the class. As a is more and more splitting up into two great hostile, and into two great directly facing each: and.

From the of the Middle sprang the chartered of the earliest. From these the first of the were developed.

The of, the rounding of the, opened up fresh for the rising. The East-Indian and Chinese, the of, with the, the in the of and in generally, gave to, to, to, an never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary in the tottering feudal, a rapid.

The feudal of, under which industrial was monopolized by closed, now no longer sufficed for the growing of the new. The manufacturing took its. The were pushed on one by the manufacturing middle; of between the different corporate vanished in the of of in each single.

Meanwhile the kept on growing; went on rising. No longer was able to keep up with this. Then, and revolutionized industrial. The of was taken by the giant, modern; the of the industrial middle, by industrial, the of whole industrial, the modern.

Modern has established the world, for which the of paved the. This has given an immense to, to, to by. This has, in its, reacted on the of; and in as, , , extended, in the same the developed, increased its, and pushed into the every handed down from the Middle.

See, therefore, how the modern is the of a long of, of a of in the of and of.

Each in the of the was accompanied by a corresponding political of that. An oppressed under the of the feudal, an armed and self-governing in the medieval. And, an independent urban (as in and); taxable “third” of the (as in); afterward, in the of proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute as a against the, and, in, a of the great in general, the has at last, since the of modern and of the world, conquered for, in the modern representative, exclusive political. The of the modern is but a for managing the common of the whole.

The, historically, has played a most revolutionary.

The, wherever has got the upper, has put an to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic. Has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal that bound to his “natural,” and has left remaining no other between and than naked and callous “cash.” Has drowned the most heavenly of religious, of chivalrous, of philistine, in the icy of egotistical. Has resolved personal into exchange, and in of the numberless indefeasible chartered, has set up that single, unconscionable — free. In one, for, veiled by religious and political, has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal.

The has stripped of its every hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent Has converted the, the, the, the, the of, into its paid.

The has torn away from the its sentimental, and has reduced the family to a mere money.

The has disclosed how came to pass that the brutal of in the Middle, which so much admire, found its fitting in the laziest. Has been the to show what can bring about. Has accomplished far surpassing Egyptian, Roman, and Gothic; has conducted that put to all former of and.

The cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the of, and thereby the of, and with the whole of. Of the old of in unaltered, was, on the, the first of for all earlier industrial. Constant of, uninterrupted of all social, everlasting and distinguish the bourgeois from all earlier. All fixed, fast-frozen, with their of ancient and venerable and are swept away, all new-formed become antiquated before can ossify. That is solid melts into, all that is holy is profaned, and at last compelled to face his real of life, and his mutual with sober.

The of a constantly expanding for its chases the over the whole of the. Must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish everywhere.

The has through its of the world given a cosmopolitan to and in every. To the great of, has drawn from under the of the national on which stood. All old-established national have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. Are dislodged by new, whose becomes a life and death for all civilized, by that no longer work up indigenous raw, but raw drawn from the remotest; whose are consumed, not only at, but in every of the. In of the old, satisfied by the of the, we find new, requiring for their the of distant and. In of the old local and national and, we have in every, universal of. And as in, so also in intellectual. The intellectual of individual become common. National and become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local, there emerges a world.

The, by the rapid of all of, by the immensely facilitated of, draws all, even the most backward, into. The cheap of its are the heavy with which batters down all Chinese, with which forces the underdeveloped nations’ intensely obstinate hatred of to capitulate. Compels all, on pain of, to adopt the bourgeois of; compels to introduce what calls into their, i.e.,to become bourgeois. In one, creates a in its own.

The has subjected rural to the of. Has created enormous, has greatly increased the urban as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable of the from the of rural. Just as has made the dependent on the, so has made barbarian and semi-underdeveloped dependent on the civilized, of on of, the on the.

The keeps more and more doing away with the scattered of the, of the of, and of. Has agglomerated, centralized of, and has concentrated in a few . The necessary of this was political. Independent, or but loosely connected, with separate, , , and of became lumped together into one, with one, one of, one national, one, and one.

The, during its of scarcely one hundred, has created more massive and more colossal productive than have all preceding together. Of Nature’s to , , of to and, , , , of whole for cultivation, of , whole conjured out of the — what earlier had even a that such productive slumbered in the of social?

See then: the of and of, on whose the built up, were generated in feudal. At a certain in the of these of and of, the under which feudal produced and exchanged, the feudal of and manufacturing, in one, the feudal of became no longer compatible with the already developed productive; became so many. Had to be burst asunder; were burst asunder.

Into their stepped free, accompanied by a social and political adapted to, and by the economical and political of the bourgeois.

A similar is going on before our own. Modern bourgeois with its of, of and of, a that has conjured up such gigantic of and of, is like the, is no longer able to control the of the subterranean which has called up by his. For many now the of and has been but the of the of modern productive against modern of, against the property that are the for the of the and of its. Is to mention the commercial that by their periodical put on, each more threateningly, the of the entire bourgeois. In these a great not only of the existing, but also of the previously created productive, are periodically destroyed. In these there breaks out an that, in all earlier, would have seemed an — the of. Suddenly finds put back into a of momentary; appears as if a, a universal of had cut off the of every of; and seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much, too much of, too much, too much. The productive at the of no longer tend to further the of the of bourgeois; on the, have become too powerful for these, by which are fettered, and so soon as overcome these, bring into the of bourgeois, endanger the of bourgeois. The of bourgeois are too narrow to comprise the created by. And how does the get over these? On the one by enforced of a of productive; on the, by the of new, and by the more thorough of the old. Is to say, by paving the for more extensive and more destructive, and by diminishing the whereby are prevented.

The with the felled to the are now turned against the.

But not only has the forged the that bring to; has also called into the are to wield those — the modern working — the.

In as the, i.e., , is developed, in the same is the, the modern working, developed — a of, live only so long as find, and find only so long as their increases. These, must sell piecemeal, are a, like every other of, and are consequently exposed to all the of, to all the of the.

Owing to the extensive use of and to of, the of the has lost all individual, and, consequently, all for the. Becomes an of the, and is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired that is required of. Hence, the of of a is restricted, almost entirely, to the of that requires for his, and for the of his. But the of a, and therefore also of, is equal to its of. In, therefore, as the of the increases, the decreases. What is more, in as the of and of increases, in the same the of also increases, whether by of the working, by increase of the exacted in a given or by increased speed of the, etc. Modern has converted the little of the patriarchal into the great factory of the industrial. Of, crowded into the, are organized like. As of the industrial are placed under the of a perfect of and. Not only are of the bourgeois, and of the bourgeois; are daily and hourly enslaved by the, by the, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois. The more openly this proclaims to be its and, the more petty, the more hateful, and the more embittering is.

The the and of strength implied in manual, in other, the more modern becomes developed, the is the of superseded by of. In and have no longer any distinctive social for the working. Are of, more or less expensive to use, according to their and.

No sooner is the of the by the, so far, at an, that receives his in, than is set upon by the other of the, the, the, the, etc.

The lower of the middle — the small, , and retired generally, the, and —all these sink gradually into the, partly because their diminutive does not suffice for the on which modern is carried on, and is swamped in the with large, partly because their specialized is rendered worthless by new of. Thus the is recruited from all of the.

The goes through various of. With its begins its with the. At first the is carried on by individual, then by the of a, then by the of one, in one, against the individual directly exploits. Direct their not against the bourgeois of, but against the of; Destroy imported that compete with their, they smash to, set ablaze, seek to restore by force the vanished of the of the Middle.

At this the still form an incoherent scattered over the whole, and broken up by their mutual. If the unite at all this is not yet the of their own, but of the of the, which, in order to attain its own political, is compelled to set the whole in motion, and is moreover still able to do so. At this, therefore, the do not fight their, but the of their, the of absolute, the, the non-industrial, the petty. Thus the whole historical is concentrated in the of the; every so obtained is a for the.

But with the of the not only increases in; becomes concentrated in greater, its grows, and feels that more. The various and of within the of the are more and more equalized, in as obliterates all of , and nearly everywhere reduces to the same low. The growing among the, and the resulting commercial, make the of the ever more fluctuating. The unceasing of , ever more rapidly developing, makes their more and more precarious; the between individual and individual take more and more the of between two. Thereupon the begin to form (trade) against the; club together in order to keep up the of ; found permanent in order to make beforehand for these occasional. Here and there the breaks out into.

From to the are victorious, but only for a. The real of their lies not in the immediate , but in the ever-expanding of the . This is helped by the improved of that are created by modern and that place the of different in with. Was just this that was needed to centralize the numerous local, all of the same , into one national between. But every class is a political. And that, to attain which the of the Middle, with their miserable, required, the modern, thanks to, achieve in a few.

This of the into a, and consequently into a political, is continually being upset again by the among the themselves. But constantly rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. Compels legislative of particular of the, by taking of the among the itself. Thus was the ten-hours’ in carried.

Moreover, between the of the old advance, in many, the course of of the. The finds involved in a constant. At first with the; later on, with those of the itself, whose have become antagonistic to the of; at all, with the of foreign. In all these it sees itself compelled to appeal to the, to ask for its, and thus, to drag into the political. The itself, therefore, supplies the with its own of political and general, in other, it furnishes the with for the.

Further, as have already seen, entire of the ruling are, by the advance of, precipitated into the, or are at least threatened in their of. Also supply the with fresh of and.

Finally, in when the class nears the decisive, the of going on within the ruling, in fact within the whole of old, assumes such a violent, glaring, that a small of the ruling cuts adrift, and joins the revolutionary, the that holds the in its. Just as, therefore, at an earlier, a of the went over to the, so now a of the goes over to the, and in particular, a of the bourgeois, who have raised to the of theoretically the historical as a.

Of all the that stand to with the today, the alone is a really revolutionary. The other decay and finally disappear in the of modern; the is its special and essential.

The lower middle, the small, the, the, the, all fight against the, to save from their as of the middle. Are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Is, are reactionary, for try to roll back the of. If by are revolutionary, are so only in of their impending into the, thus defend not their present, but their future, desert their own to place at of the.

The “dangerous,” the social, that passively rotting thrown off by the lowest of old, may, and, be swept into the. The by a proletarian; its of, however, prepare far more for the of a bribed of reactionary.

The living of the old at large are already virtually swamped by the living of the. The is without; his to his and has no longer in with the bourgeois family; modern industrial, modern to, the in as in, in as in, has stripped of every of national. Are to so many bourgeois, behind lurk in just as many bourgeois.

All the preceding got the upper sought to fortify their already acquired by subjecting at large to their of. The cannot become of the productive of, except by abolishing their own previous of, and thereby also every other previous of. Have of their to secure and to fortify; their is to destroy all previous for, and of, individual.

All previous historical were of, or in the of. The proletarian is the self-conscious, independent of the immense, in the of the immense. The, the lowest of our present, cannot stir, cannot raise up, without the whole superincumbent of official being sprung into the.

Though not in, yet in, the of the with the is at first a national. The of each must, of course, first of all settle with its own.

In the most general of the of the, traced the more or less veiled civil, raging within existing, up to the where that breaks out into open, and where the violent of the lays the for the of the.

Hitherto, every of has been based, as have already seen, on the of oppressing and oppressed. But in order to oppress a, certain must be assured to under which can, at least, continue its slavish. The, in the of, raised to in the, just as the petty, under the of feudal, managed to develop into a. The modern, on the contrary, instead of rising with the of, sinks deeper and deeper below the of of his own. Becomes a, and develops more rapidly than and. And here becomes evident that the is unfit any longer to be the ruling in, and to impose its of upon as an overriding. Is unfit to rule because is incompetent to assure an to its within his, because cannot help letting sink into such a, that has to feed instead of being fed by. Can no longer live under this, in other, its is no longer compatible with.

The essential for the, and .for the of the bourgeois, is the and of; the for is wage. Wage rests exclusively on between the. The of , whose involuntary is the, replaces the of the, due to, by their revolutionary, due to. The of modern, therefore, cuts from under its the very on which the produces and appropriates. What the, therefore, produces, above all, is its own. Its and the of the are equally inevitable.

II

In what do the stand to the as a? The do not form a separate opposed to other working-class. Have no separate and apart from of the as a. Do not set up any sectarian of their, by to shape and mold the proletarian.

The are distinguished from the other working-class by only: 1. In the national of the of the different, point out and bring to the the common of the entire, independently of all. 2. In the various of that the of the working against the has to pass through, always and everywhere represent the of the as a.

The, therefore, are on the one, practically, the most advanced and resolute of the working-class of every, that pushes forward all; on the other theoretically, have over the great of the the of clearly understanding the of, the, and the ultimate general of the proletarian.

The immediate of the is the same as of all the other proletarian:
of the into a, of the bourgeois, of political by the.

The theoretical of the are in no based on or have been invented, or discovered, by or would-be universal.

Merely express, in general, actual springing from an existing class, from a historical going on under our very. The of existing property is not at all a distinctive of.

All property in the have continually been to historical consequent upon the in historical.

The French, for, abolished feudal in favor of bourgeois. The distinguishing of is not the of generally, but the of property. But modern bourgeois private is the final and most complete of the of producing and appropriating is based on class, on the of the by the.

In this, the of the may be summed up in the single: of private.

Have been reproached with the of the right of personally acquiring as the of a own, which is alleged to be the of all personal and.

Hard-won, self-acquired, sell-earned! Do mean the of the petty and of the small, a of pre­ceded the bourgeois? There is no to abolish; the of has to a great already destroyed, and is still destroying daily.

Or do mean modern bourgeois private?

But does wage create any for the? Not a. Creates, i.e., of that exploits wage, and cannot increase except upon of a new of wage for fresh. In its present, is based on the of and wage. Let examine both of this.

To be a, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social in. Is a collective, and only by the united of many, nay, in the last, only by the united action of all of, can be set in motion.

Is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social.

When, therefore, is converted into common, into the of all of, personal is not thereby transformed into social. Is only the social of the that is changed. Loses its class.

Let now take wage.

The average of wage is the minimum, i.e., that of the of, is absolutely requisite to keep the in bare as a. Therefore, the wage appropriates by of his, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare. By no intend to abolish this personal of the of, an that is made for the and of human, and leaves no wherewith to command the of. That want to do away with is the miserable of this, under the lives merely to increase, and is allowed to live only in so far as the of the ruling requires.

In bourgeois, living is but a to increase accumulated. In communist, accumulated is but a to widen, to enrich, to promote the of the.

In bourgeois, therefore, the dominates the; in communist, the dominates the. In bourgeois society is independent and has, while the living is dependent and has no.

And the of this of is called by the, of and! And rightly so. The of bourgeois, bourgeois, and bourgeois is undoubtedly aimed at.

By is meant, under the present bourgeois of, free, free and.

But if and disappears, free and disappears also. This about free and, and all the other “brave” of our about in general, have a, if any, only in with restricted and, with the fettered of the Middle, but have no when opposed to the communistic of and, of the bourgeois of, and of the itself.

Are horrified at our to do away with private. But in your existing, private is already done away with for nine-tenths of the; its for the is solely due to its in the of those nine-tenths. Reproach, therefore, with to do away with a of, the necessary for whose is the of any for the immense of.

In one, reproach with to do away with your. Precisely so; is just we intend.

From the when can no longer be converted into or, into a social capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the when individual can no longer be transformed into bourgeois, into, from that, say, vanishes.

Must, therefore, confess that by “individual” mean no other than the, than the middle-class of. Must, indeed, be swept out of the, and made impossible.

Deprives no of the to appropriate the of; all it does is to deprive of the to subjugate the of by of such.

Has been objected that upon the of private all will cease, and universal will overtake.

According to, bourgeois ought long ago to have gone to the through sheer; for of its work, acquire, and acquire, do not work. The of this is but another of the: that can no longer be any wage when is no longer any.

All urged against the communistic of producing and appropriating material, have, in the same, been urged against the communistic of producing and appropriating intellectual. Just as, to the, the of class is the of itself, so the of class is to identical with the of all.

That, the of which laments, is, for the enormous, a mere to act as a.

But don’t wrangle with so long as apply, to our intended of bourgeois, the of your bourgeois of, etc. Your very are but the of the of your bourgeois and bourgeois, just as your is but the of your made into a for, a essential and are determined by the economical of of your.

The selfish that induces to transform into eternal of and of the social springing from your present of and of—historical that rise and disappear in the of—this share with every ruling that has preceded. See clearly in the of ancient, admit in the case of feudal, are of course forbidden to admit in the of your own bourgeois of.

Of the! Even the most radical up at this infamous of the.

On what is the present, the bourgeois, based? On, on private. In its completely developed this exists only among the. But this of finds its in the practical of the among the, and in public.

The bourgeois will vanish as a of when its vanishes, and will vanish with the of.

Do charge with to stop the of by their? To this plead guilty.

But, will say, destroy the most hallowed of, when replace home by social.

And your! Is not also social, and determined by the social under educate, by the, direct or indirect, of, by of, etc.? The have not invented the of in; merely seek to alter the of that, and to rescue from the of the ruling.

The bourgeois about the and, about the hallowed of and, becomes all the more disgusting; the more, by the of modern, all family among the are torn asunder, and their transformed into simple of and of.

But would introduce free, screams the whole in.

The sees in his a mere of. Hears that the of are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other than that the of being common to will likewise fall to the.

Has not even a that the real aimed at is to do away with the of as mere of.

For the, is more ridiculous than the virtuous of our at free, pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the. The have no to introduce free; has existed almost from immemorial.

Our, not content with having the and of their at their, not to speak of common, take supreme in seducing each other’s.

Bourgeois is in a of in common and thus, at the, what the might possibly be reproached with, is that desire to introduce, in for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized of free love. Moreover, is self-evident that the of the present of must bring with the of free springing from that, i.e., of both public and private.

The are further reproached with desiring to abolish and.

The have no. Cannot take from what have not got. Since the must first of all acquire political, must rise to be the leading of the, must constitute the, is, so far, national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the.

National and between are daily vanishing, owing to the of the, to of, to the world, to in the of and in the of corresponding thereto.

The of the will cause to vanish still faster. United, of the leading civilized at, is one of the first for the of the.

In as the of one by is put to an, the of one by will also be put to an. In as the between with in the vanishes, the of one to will come to an.

The against made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological are not deserving of serious.

Does require deep to comprehend that man’s, and, in one, man’s, changes with every in the of his material, in his social and in his social?

What does the of prove, than that intellectual changes its in as material is changed? The ruling of each have ever been the of its ruling.

When speak of that revolutionize, do but express the that within the old the of a new have been created, and that the of the old keeps even with the of the old of.

When the ancient was in its last, the ancient were overcome by. When Christian succumbed in the eighteenth to rationalist, feudal fought its death with the then revolutionary. The of religious and of merely gave to the of free within the of .

Undoubtedly, will be said, religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical have been modified in the of historical. But, political, and constantly survived this.

There are, besides, eternal, such as, etc., that are common to all of. But abolishes eternal, abolishes all, and all, instead of constituting them on a new; therefore acts in to all past historical.

Does this reduce to? The of all past has consisted in the of class, that assumed different at different.

But whatever may have taken, one is common to all past, viz., the of one of by the. No, then, that the social of past, despite all the and displays, moves within certain common, or general, cannot completely vanish except with the total of class.

The communist is the most radical with traditional property; no that its involves the most radical with traditional.

But let have done with the bourgeois to.

Have seen above that the first in the by the working is to raise the to the of ruling to win the of.

The will use its political to wrest, by degrees, all from the, to centralize all of in the of the, i.e., of the organized as the ruling; and to increase the of productive as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the, this cannot be effected except by of despotic on the of, and on the of bourgeois; by of, therefore, appear economically insufficient and untenable, but, in the of the, outstrip, necessitate further upon the old social, and are unavoidable as a of entirely revolutionizing the of.

These will of course be different in different.

Nevertheless in the most advanced, the will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Of in and of all of to public.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income.
3. Of all of.
4. Of the of all and.
5. Of in the of the, by of a national with state and an exclusive.
6. Of the of and in the of the.
7. Of and of owned by the; the into cultivation of , and the of the generally in with a common.
8. Equal of to labor. Of industrial, especially for.
9. Of with manufacturing; gradual of the between and, by a more equable of the over the.
10. Free for all in public. Of children’s factory in its present. Of with industrial, etc., etc.

When, in the of , class have disappeared, and all has been concentrated in the of a vast of the whole, the public will lose its political. Political, properly so called, is merely the organized of one for oppressing. If the during its with the is compelled, by the of, to organize as a, if, by of a, it makes the ruling, and, as such, sweeps away by the old of, then will, along with these, have swept away the for the of class and of generally, and will thereby have abolished its own as a.

In of the old bourgeois, with its and class, shall have an in which the free of is the for the free of all.

III

Socialist and Communist

1. Reactionary

A. FEUDAL

Owing to their historical, became the of the of and to write against modern bourgeois. In the French of and in the English reform these again succumbed to the hateful. Thenceforth, a serious political was altogether out of the. A literary alone remained possible. But even in the of the old of the restoration had become impossible.

In order to arouse the were obliged to lose, apparently, of their own, and to formulate their against the in the interest of the exploited working alone. Thus the took their by singing on their new, and whispering in his sinister of coming.

In this way feudal arose: half, half; half of the, half of the; at, by its bitter, witty and incisive, striking the to the very; but always ludicrous in its, through total to comprehend the of modern.

The, in order to rally the to, waved the proletarian in for a. But the, so often as joined, saw on their the old feudal of, and deserted with loud and irreverent.

One of the French and “Young” exhibited this. In pointing out that their of was different from of the, the forget that exploited under and that were quite different, and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under their, the modern never existed, forget that the modern is the necessary of their own form of.

For the, so little do conceal the reactionary of their that their chief against the amounts to, that under the bourgeois a is being developed, is destined to cut up and the old of.

Upbraid the with is not so much that creates a, as that creates a revolutionary.

In political, therefore, join in all coercive against the working; and in ordinary, despite their highfalutin, stoop to pick up the golden dropped from the of, and to barter, , and for in, , and potato.

Applies chiefly to where the landed and have large of their cultivated for their own by, and are, moreover, extensive beet-root and of potato. The wealthier British are, as yet, rather above; but, too, know how to.

As the has ever gone in with the, so has clerical with feudal.

Is easier than to give Christian a socialist. Has not declaimed against private, against, against the? Has not preached in the of these, and, and of the, monastic and Mother? Christian is but the holy with the consecrates the of the.

B. PETTY-BOURGEOIS

The feudal was not the only that was ruined by the, not the only whose of pined and perished in the of modern bourgeois. The medieval and the small farmer were the of the modern. In those that are but little developed, industrially and commercially, these two still vegetate by with the rising.

In where modern has become fully developed, a new of petty has been formed; fluctuating between and and ever renewing as a supplementary of bourgeois. The individual of this, however, are being constantly hurled down into the by the of, and, as modern develops, even see the approaching when will completely disappear as an independent of modern, to be replaced in, , and by, , and.

In like, where the constitute far more than of the, was natural that who sided with the against the, should use, in their of the bourgeois, the of the and petty, and from the of these intermediate should take up the for the working. Thus arose petty-bourgeois. Was the of this, not only in but also in.

This of dissected with great the in the of modern. Laid bare the hypocritical of. Proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous of and of, the of and in a few, and; pointed out the inevitable of the petty and, the of the, the in, the crying in the of, the industrial of between, the of old moral, of the old family, of the old.

In its positive, however, this of aspires either to restoring the old of and of, and with the old property and the old, or to the modern of and of within the of the old property that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those. In either, it is both reactionary and Utopian. Its last are: corporate for; patriarchal in.

Ultimately, when stubborn historical had dispersed all intoxicating of, this of ended in a miserable.

C. GERMAN OR “TRUE”

The socialist and communist of, a that originated under the of a in, and that was the of the against this, was introduced into at a when the in that had just begun its contest with feudal.

German, would-be, beaux eagerly seized on this, only forgetting that when these immigrated from into, French social had not immigrated along with. In with German social this French lost all its immediate practical and assumed a purely literary. Thus, to the German of the eighteenth, the of the first French were nothing more than the of “Practical” in general, and the of the of the revolutionary French signified in their the of pure, of as was bound to be, of true human generally.

The of the German consisted solely in bringing the new French into with their ancient philosophical, or rather, in annexing the French without deserting their own philosophic of.

Took in the same in which a foreign is appropriated, namely, by. Is well known how the wrote silly of Catholic over the on the classical of ancient pagan had been written. The German reversed this with the profane French. Wrote their philosophical beneath the French. For, beneath the French of the economic of, wrote “of,” and beneath the French of the bourgeois wrote, “of the of the,” and so forth.

The of these philosophical at the of the French historical dubbed “of,” “True,” “German of,” “Philosophical of,” and so on.

The French socialist and communist was thus completely emasculated. And, since ceased in the of a to express the of one with the, felt conscious of having overcome “French” and of representing not true, but the of; not the of the, but the of Human, of in general, belongs to no, has no, exists only in the misty of philosophical. This German, took its schoolboy so seriously and solemnly and extolled its poor in such mountebank Meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic.

The of the German, and, especially, of the Prussian, against feudal and absolute, in other, the liberal, became more earnest.

Thus, the long wished-for was offered to “True” of confronting the political with the socialist, of hurling the traditional against, against representative, against bourgeois, bourgeois of the, bourgeois, bourgeois and, and of preaching to the that had to gain and to lose by this bourgeois. German forgot, in the of, that the French, whose silly was, presupposed the of modern bourgeois, with its corresponding economic of and the political adapted thereto, the very was the of the pending in.

To the absolute, with their of, , country and, served as a welcome against the threatening. Was a sweet after the bitter of and with these same, just at that, dosed the German working-class.

While this “True” thus served the as a for fighting the German, , at the same, directly represented a reactionary, the of the German. In the petty-bourgeois, a of the sixteenth, and since constantly cropping up again under various, is the real social of the existing of.

To preserve this is to preserve the existing of in. The industrial and political of the threatens with certain, on the one from the of, on the other from the of a revolutionary. “True” appeared to kill these two with one. Spread like an.

The of speculative, embroidered with of, steeped in the of sickly, this transcendental in the German wrapped their sorry “eternal,” all and, served to wonderfully increase the of their amongst such a. And on its, German recognized, more and more, its own as the bombastic of the petty-bourgeois.

Proclaimed the German to be the model, and the German petty to be the typical. To every villainous of this model gave a hidden, higher, socialistic, the exact of its real. Went to the extreme of directly opposing the “brutally destructive” of, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial of all class. With very few, all the so-called socialist and communist that now (1847) circulate in belong to the of this foul and enervating.

2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism

A of the is desirous of redressing social, in order to secure the continued of bourgeois.

To this belong, , , of the of the working, of, of for the prevention of cruelty to, , hole-and-corner of every imaginable. This of has, moreover, been worked out into complete. May cite Proudhon’s de la as an of this.

The socialistic want all the of modern social without the and necessarily resulting therefrom. Desire the existing of minus its revolutionary and disintegrating. Wish for a without a. The naturally conceives the in is supreme to be the; and bourgeois develops this comfortable into various more or less complete. In requiring the to carry out such a, and thereby to march straightway into the social New, but requires in that the should remain within the of existing, but should cast away all its hateful concerning the.

A second and more practical, but less systematic, of this sought to depreciate every revolutionary in the of the working by showing that no mere political, but only a in the material of, in economical, could be of any to. By in the material of, this of, however, by no understands of the bourgeois of, an that can be effected only by a, but administrative based on the continued of these; , therefore, in no affect the between and, but, at the, lessen the and simplify the administrative of bourgeois. Bourgeois attains adequate, when, and only when, becomes a mere of.

Free: for the of the working. Protective: for the of the working. : for the of the working. Is the last and the only seriously meant of bourgeois. Is summed up in the: the is a – for the of the working.

3. Critical-Utopian and

Do not refer to that, in every great modern, has always given to the of the, such as the of and.

The first direct of the to attain its own, made in of universal when feudal was being overthrown, necessarily failed, owing to the then undeveloped of the, as well as to the of the economic for its, had yet to be produced, and could be produced by the impending bourgeois alone. The revolutionary that accompanied these first of the had necessarily a reactionary. Inculcated universal and social in its crudest.

The socialist and communist properly so called, of , , , and spring into in the early undeveloped, described above, of the between and (see I. “and”).

The of these see, indeed, the class, as well as the of the decomposing in the prevailing of. But the, as yet in its, offers to the of a without any historical or any independent political.

Since the of class keeps even with the of, the economic, as find, does not as yet offer to the material for the of the. Therefore search after a new social, after new social are to create these.

Historical is to yield to their personal inventive, historically created of to fantastic; and the gradual, spontaneous of the to an of specially contrived by these. Future resolves, in their, into the and the practical of their social.

In the of their are conscious of caring chiefly for the of the working as being the most suffering. Only from the of of being the most suffering does the exist for.

The undeveloped of the class, as well as their own, causes of this to consider far superior to all class. Want to improve the of every of, even of the most favoured. Hence, habitually appeal to at large, without of; nay, by, to the ruling. For how can, when once understand their, fail to see in the best possible of the best possible of?

Hence, reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, ; wish to attain their by peaceful, and endeavor, by small necessarily doomed to, and by the of, to pave the for the new socialg.

Such fantastic of future, painted at a when the is still in a very undeveloped and has but a fantastic of its own, correspond with the first instinctive of that for a general of.

But these socialist and communist contain also a critical. Attack every of existing. Hence are full of the most valuable for the of the working. The practical proposed in -such as the of the between and, of the, of the of for the of private, and of the wage, the of social, the of the of the into a mere of – all these point solely to the of class were, at that, only just cropping up, and, in these, are recognized in their earliest indistinct and undefined only. These, therefore, are of a purely Utopian.

The of Critical-Utopian and bears an inverse to historical. In as the modern class develops and takes definite, this fantastic apart from the, these fantastic on, lose all practical and all theoretical. Therefore, although the of these were, in many, revolutionary, their have, in every, formed mere reactionary. Hold fast by the original of their, in to the progressive historical of the. Therefore, endeavour, and consistently, to deaden the class and to reconcile the class. Still dream of experimental of their social, of found-big isolated of establishing “Home,” of setting up a “Little” – duo-decimo of the New – and to realize all these in the, are compelled to appeal to the and of the. By sink into the of the reactionary conservative depicted above, differing from only by more systematic, and by their fanatical and superstitious in the miraculous of their social.

Therefore, violently oppose all political on the of the working; such, according to, can only result from blind in the new. The in, and the in, respectively oppose the and the.

IV

of the in to the Various Existing Opposition

II has made clear the of the to the existing working-class, such as the in and the Agrarian in. Traditionally handed down from the great.

In support the, without losing of the that this consists of antagonistic, partly of Democratic, in the French, partly of radical.

In support the that insists on an agrarian as the prime for national, that fomented the of in.

In fight with the whenever acts in a revolutionary, against the absolute, the feudal, and the petty.

But never cease, for a single, to instill into the working the clearest possible of the hostile between and, in that the German may straightway use, as so many against the, the social and political that the must necessarily introduce along with its, and in order that, after the of the reactionary in, the against the may immediately.

The turn their chiefly to, because that is on the of a bourgeois is bound to be carried out under more advanced of European, and with a much more developed, than that of was in the seventeenth, and of in the eighteenth, and because the bourgeois in will be but the to an immediately following proletarian. In, the everywhere support every revolutionary against the existing social and political of.

In all these bring to the, as the leading in, the property, no what its of at the. Finally, labour everywhere for the and of the democratic of all.

The disdain to conceal their and. Openly declare that their can be attained only by the forcible of all existing social. Let the ruling tremble at a Communistic. The have to lose but their. Have a to win. OF ALL, UNITE!