發表評論-魯迅九-萬維博客-萬維讀者網（電腦版）

這一章介紹了共產主義者的主張。共產黨認可資本主義的經濟體制，但是，共產黨人要求這整個經濟的運作要造福於整個的社會，而不是只有利於少數人。資本能帶來滾滾財富，共產黨人也嚮往這財富，但是，共產黨人希望這財富讓整體社會成員都能享受到，每個人都不能占用這成果去奴役別人。廣義上講，美國的槍支泛濫，讓軍火商們獲益，但，整個社會卻因此飽受其害，就是個反面的例子。而當前中共的脫貧攻堅就是個正面的例子。改革開放，建設中國特色的社會主義，最後，實現全民的富裕，這就是公有制全面的實現。當中共讓中國成為世界第一大經濟體時，那時的中國社會就是馬克思眼中的共產主義社會。

正像文中介紹的那樣，共產黨是工人階級的政黨，如今在美國的各大工會都屬於工人階級的團體或政黨。川普把美國工人階級的利益放在第一位，他因此和共產黨人或工人政黨是同路人。

消滅私有制不是要搶奪個人財產，而是指個人手中的財產不能用來奴役別人，換句話說，不能朱門酒肉臭，若有凍死骨。當私有產業為大眾創造廣泛的就業機會，還如，微軟吸入大量的股民來投資，讓大眾受益，那麼這些企業的屬性就是社會化，而不是具有私有化特徵。中國的民企的職工待遇都普遍好於國企，這就說明了民企有着社會化的性質，雖然還是私人企業，歸個人所有，但是，企業的社會屬性不再是私有，而是變得有公有制的特徵。

馬克思還強調，在共產黨人的社會裡，每個人都要自由地發展，而不是要看別人的臉色，即，任何人的臉色。在這一點上，無論是中國或美國，都需要不斷的改進和進步。目前的西方各國出於聯盟間的面子，不得不都去惹惱中方，其實，它們都不情願去做這些。他們的醜行讓主張自由發展的馬克思見笑了。馬克思的自由發展的理念也包含言論自由，這就是馬克思主義與馬列主義的本質區別之一。馬克思的自由的理念會比資產階級的自由理念高尚得多，至少沒有充滿廉恥的自由。

到此，我們一定要明白，按照馬克思主義的原理，改革開放前的中國社會都是反馬克思主義的，那時的全體人民都在受苦，而那些共黨高官卻吃着特供，那都是人民的血汗在供養他們，卻反過來讓他們再奴役人民。凡是整天都糾纏於“姓資、姓社”問題的人都是不懂馬克思主義之徒，可能還是反馬克思主義者。積極大力發展資本主義才是自封建制度破滅以後的硬道理。中國的走資派還在走，走向永遠，走向馬克思所主張的和諧社會。

鄧小平視察大慶，深入工人中間，問工人有什麼要求，要求講真話。工人們反映說，常加班，但沒任何加班費，另外，住的條件也不好。小平現場立即做出批示。以後，大慶工人都有了豐厚的加班費，住的條件獲得很大的改善，大大提高了生產的積極性。因此，我在此說，儘管當年的共黨喊着反對剝削，可是它們自己卻干着剝削人的勾當，加班不給加班費，這正是馬克思要痛罵的。口頭上的謊言真的不能相信，不能有人或運動喊民主口號，就認為此人或運動是進步的。鄧小平不愧是馬克思主義者，懂得關心勞動者的福利和疾苦。至今，大慶工人們人都很懷念小平。

馬克思是個自由主義者。自由價更高，自由萬歲！

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.】