共产党人不分割与其它工人阶级政党之外，没有兴趣脱离全体无产阶级，没有规定无产阶级运动的派别规定。

共产主义者是这样的区别于其它的工人阶级政党：

在各个国家的无产阶级的斗争中，指出全体无产阶级的共同的利益；

在无产阶级针对资产阶级进行必要的斗争中，始终都代表运动整体的利益。

共产党人一方面是各个国家的工人政党的最先进和坚定的部分；在另一方面，他们使无产阶级巨大的群体得到清楚地懂得无产阶级运动的前进路线、条件和最后总的结果等这些因素所带来的好处。

共产党人现在的目标和其他的工人阶级政党是一样的，使无产阶级形成阶级，去推翻资产阶级的最高统治。

所有过去的财产关系都屈从于历史条件的变迁所带来的历史转变的结果，如，法国革命废除封建财产，造福于资产阶级的财产。共产党人的理论概括起来就是一句话：取消私有财产。

资本是集体的产物，必须由社会的全体成员的行为所掌控，因此，资本不是个人的，而是社会的力量。资本转成共有财产成为社会的全体成员的财产，个人财产因此不转变成社会的财产，只是个人财产的社会属性发生变化，失去了阶级性。

我们绝不反对个人对劳动成果的挪用以用作生活中的维持和再生产，我们反对对生产成果的挪用只是为了让劳工活着以增加资本，让劳工只是为了统治集团的利益需求而活着。

在资产阶级的社会里，活着的劳工只是增加累积的劳动的工具；在共产党人的社会里，累积的劳动是扩大、丰富、促进劳工生存的手段

共产主义不剥夺人对社会成果的占用，而是反对用这占用的成果去奴役他人。工人阶级革命的第一步就是将无产阶级上升为统治地位以赢得民主斗争的胜利。无产阶级从资产阶级那里夺取资本，将所有生产工具集中在国有手里。

我们将有个社会，在其中，每个人的自由的发展是全体成员的自由发展的条件。

我的总结：

这一章介绍了 共产主义者的主张。共产党认可资本主义的经济体制，但是，共产党人要求这整个经济的运作要造福于整个的社会，而不是只有利于少数人。资本能带来滚滚财富，共产党人也向往这财富，但是，共产党人希望这财富让整体社会成员都能享受到，每个人都不能占用这成果去奴役别人。广义上讲，美国的枪支泛滥，让军火商们获益，但，整个社会却因此饱受其害，就是个反面的例子。而当前中共的脱贫攻坚就是个正面的例子。改革开放，建设中国特色的社会主义，最后，实现全民的富裕，这就是公有制全面的实现。当中共让中国成为世界第一大经济体时，那时的中国社会就是马克思眼中的共产主义社会。

正像文中介绍的那样，共产党是工人阶级的政党，如今在美国的各大工会都属于工人阶级的团体或政党。川普把美国工人阶级的利益放在第一位，他因此和共产党人或工人政党是同路人。

消灭私有制不是要抢夺个人财产，而是指个人手中的财产不能用来奴役别人，换句话说，不能朱门酒肉臭，若有冻死骨。当私有产业为大众创造广泛的就业机会，还如，微软吸入大量的股民来投资，让大众受益，那么这些企业的属性就是社会化，而不是具有私有化特征。中国的民企的职工待遇都普遍好于国企，这就说明了民企有着社会化的性质，虽然还是私人企业，归个人所有，但是，企业的社会属性不再是私有，而是变得有公有制的特征。

马克思还强调，在共产党人的社会里，每个人都要自由地发展，而不是要看别人的脸色，即，任何人的脸色。在这一点上，无论是中国或美国，都需要不断的改进和进步。目前的西方各国出于联盟间的面子，不得不都去惹恼中方，其实，它们都不情愿去做这些。他们的丑行让主张自由发展的马克思见笑了。马克思的自由发展的理念也包含言论自由，这就是马克思主义与马列主义的本质区别之一。马克思的自由的理念会比资产阶级的自由理念高尚得多，至少没有充满廉耻的自由。

到此，我们一定要明白，按照马克思主义的原理，改革开放前的中国社会都是反马克思主义的，那时的全体人民都在受苦，而那些共党高官却吃着特供，那都是人民的血汗在供养他们，却反过来让他们再奴役人民。凡是整天都纠缠于“姓资、姓社”问题的人都是不懂马克思主义之徒，可能还是反马克思主义者。积极大力发展资本主义才是自封建制度破灭以后的硬道理。中国的走资派还在走，走向永远，走向马克思所主张的和谐社会。

邓小平视察大庆，深入工人中间，问工人有什么要求，要求讲真话。工人们反映说，常加班，但没任何加班费，另外，住的条件也不好。小平现场立即做出批示。以后，大庆工人都有了丰厚的加班费，住的条件获得很大的改善，大大提高了生产的积极性。因此，我在此说，尽管当年的共党喊着反对剥削，可是它们自己却干着剥削人的勾当，加班不给加班费，这正是马克思要痛骂的。口头上的谎言真的不能相信，不能有人或运动喊民主口号，就认为此人或运动是进步的。邓小平不愧是马克思主义者，懂得关心劳动者的福利和疾苦。至今，大庆工人们人都很怀念小平。

马克思是个自由主义者。自由价更高，自由万岁！

原文【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 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 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.

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 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.

Or do you mean 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 a 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 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 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.  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

appropriation.

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 modes 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 will 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 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 labour.

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.

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 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 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

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.

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 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?

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 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 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

involves 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 as to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to 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.

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 the 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 right 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 labour.  Establishment of

   industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

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.

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.

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.】