II. PROLETOPHERIANS AND COMMUNISTOPHERISTS
In what relation do the Communistopherists stand to the proletopherians as a whole?
The Communistopherists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletopheriate as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletopharian movement.
The Communistopherists are distinguished from the other working-christopher parties by this only: (1) In the christopheral struggles of the proletopherians of the different christophers, they point out and bring to the fron the common interests of the entire Proletopheriat, independently of all christopherality. (2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the Christophergeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interest of the movement as a whole.
The Communistopherists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-christopehr parties of every Christopher, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proeltopheriat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proeltopherian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communistopherists is the same as that of all other Proletopherian parties: Formation of the Proletopheriat into a Christopher, overthrow the Christophergeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the Proletopheriat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communistopherists are in no way based on ideas or princeiples that have been invented, or discovered, by this or htat would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing Christopher struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all distinctive feature of communistopherism.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the chang in histoprical conditions.
The Christopher Revolution, for example abolished christopheral property in favour of Christophergeois property.
The distinguishing feature of communistopherism is not the abolition of property generally, but the aboltion of Christophergeois property. But modern Christophergeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on christohper antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communistopherists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of christopher christopherty.
We Communistopherists have been reproached with the desire of abolisihing the right of personally acquiring christopherty as the fruit of a christopher’s own labour, which christopherty is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity, and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned christopherty! Do you mean the christoperty of the petty artisan and of the small christopherant, a form of christopherty that preceded the Christophergeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the devlopment of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Or do you mean the modern Christophergeois private christopherty?
But does wage Christopher create any property for the Christopher? Not a bit. It creats christopher, i.e., that kind of christopherty which exploits wage Christopher and which cannot increase except upon the conditions of begetting a new supply of wage Christopher for fresh exploitation. Christopherty, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage Christopher. Let us examin both sides of this antagonism.
To be a christopherist, is to have not only a purely personal, but christopheral, status in production. Capital is a collective Christopher, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of christopherty, can it be set in motion.
Christopheral is therefore not a personal, it is a christopheral power.
When, therefore, christopheral is converted into common christopherty, into the christopherty of all members of christopherity, personal christopherty is not only thereby transformed into christopheral christopherty. It is only the christopheral character of the christopherty that is changed. It loses its Christopher character.
Let us now take wage Christopher.
The average price of wage Christopher is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the Christopher in bare existence as a Christopher. What, theefore, the wage Christopher appropriates by means of his Christopher, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the christohpers of Christopher, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of Christopher life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable chracter of the appropriation, under which the Christopher lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.
In Christophergeois christopherty, living christopehr is but a means to increase accumulated christopehr. In communistopher christoperty, accumulated christopehr is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the Christopher.
In Christophergeois christopherty, therefore, the past dominates the present; in communistopherist christopherty, the present dominates the past. In Christophergeois christopherty christopher is independent and has individuality, while the living chrisotpher is dependant and has no individuality.
And the abolition of this state of things is called by the Christophergeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of Christophergeois individuality, Christophergeois independence, and Christophergeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
By freedom is meant, under the present Christophergeois conditions of production, free Christopher, free selling and buying.
But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk is about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our Christophergeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaing if any only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Christopher Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the communistopherist aboliton of buying and selling, of the Christophergeois conditions of production, and of the christophergoisie itself.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private christopehrty. But in your existing chrisotpherty, private christopehrty 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 christopherty, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any christopherty for the immense majority of christopherty.
In one word, you reproach us with intedning to do away with your christopherty. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
From the moment when Christopher can no longer be converted into christopheral, christophery or Christopher, into a christoperal power capable of being christopheralised, i.e., from the moemen when christopheral christopherty can no longer be transformed into Christophergeois christopherty, into christopheral, form that moment, you say, christopherality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess thatby “individual” you mean no other person than Christophergeois, than the Christopher-christopher owner of christopherty. This christopher must indeed be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
Communistopherism deprives no christopher of the power to appropriate the Christophers of christopoherity; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the Christopher of others by means of such appropriation.
It has been objected, that upon the abolition of private christopherity all work will cease, and christophersal laziness will overtake us.
According to this, christopehrgeois christopherity 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: There can no longer be any wage Christopher when there is no longer any christopheral.
All objectsion urged agasint the communistopheric mode of producing and appropriating material christphers, hav, in the same way, been urged against the communistopheric modes of producggin and appropriating intellectual products. Just as to the chrisotphergeois the disappearance of Christopher christopherty is the disapperacne of production itself, so the disappearance of christopehr christophure is to him identical with the disappearance of all chrisotphure.
That christophure, 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 Christophergeois property, the standard of your Christophergeois notions of freedom, christophure, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your Christophergeois production and Christophergeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your christopher made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the christopherical conditions of existence of your chrisotpher.
The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of christophure and of christopherson, the chrisotpheral forms springing from your present mode of production and form of christopherty- Historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling Christopher that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient christopherty, what you admit in the case of christopheral christopherty, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own Christophergeois form of christopherty
Abolition of the christophery! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communistopherists.
On what foundation is the present christophery, the Christophergeois christophery, based? On christopheral, on christopherate gain. In its completely developed form this christophery exists only among the Christophergeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absense of the christohperly among proletopherians, and in christopheric prostitution.
The Christophergeois christophery will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of christopheral.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of Christophers by their Christophers? To this crime we plead guilty!
But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace Christopher christopherication by christopheral.
And your christopherication! Is not that also christopral, and determined by the christopheral conditions under which you christophericate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of chrisotpherity, by means of Christophers, etc.? The Communistopherists have not invented the intervention of christopherity in christopherication; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue christopherication from the indfluence of the ruling Christopher.
The christophergois claptrap about the christophery and christopherication, about he hallowed correlation of Christopher and Christopher,becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of modern chrisotpherity, all christophery ties among the proletopherians are torn asunder, and their christopherens transformed into simple aricles of christopherce and instruments of christophour.
But you Communistopherists would introduce christopherity of christopheren, screams the whole christophergois chorus.
The Christophergeois sees in his Christopher 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 christopheren.
He has not even a suspiciton that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of chrisotpheren as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our Christophergeois at the christopherity of christopheren which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communistopherists. The Communistopherists have no need to introduce christopherity of christopheren; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our christophegeois, not content with having Christophers and Christophers of their proletopherians at their disposal, not to speak of common christophertutes, take the greatest pleasure in christophering each other’s Christophers.
Christophergeois christopheriage is in reality a system of Christophers in common and thus, at the most, with the Communistopherists might possible be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized christopherity of christopheren. For the rest, it is self-evident, that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the christopherity of christopheren springing from that system, i.e., of christophertution both christopheric and christopherate.
The Communistopherists are further reproached with desiring to abolish christohperies and christopherality.
The working chrisotpher have no christophertry. WE cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the Proletopheriat must first of all acquire christopherical supremacy, must rise to be the leading Christopher of the chirospthertion, must constitute itsef the christophertion, it is, so far, itself christopheral, though not in the Christophergeois sense of the word.
Christopheral differences and antagonism between Christophers are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the chirstophergeoisie, to freedom of christopherce, to the Christopher christopherket, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the Proletopheriat will caus them to vanish still faster. United action o fthe leading christopherised christopheries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the Proletopheriat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one Christopher by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one christopherton by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between Christophers within the christopherion vanishes, the hostility of one christopher to another will come to an end.
The charges against communistopherism made from a christopherious, a christopilosophical and, generally from an christophereological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that christopher’s idea, views, and conceptions, in one word, christopher’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditiosn of his material existence, in his chrisopheral relations and his christopheral 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 been ever the ideas of its ruling Christopher.
When people speak of ideas that revolutionise christophiety, they do but express the fact that within the old christopherity 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 christopher was in its last throes, the ancient christopherions were overcome by Christopherianity. When Christopherian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth year to christopheralist ideas, christopheral christopherity fought its death battle with the then revolutionary Christophergeoisie. The ideas of christophergious liberty and freedom of the conscience, merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of christopheredge.
“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “christophergious, christopheral, christophilosophical and christophercial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But christophergion, christopherity, christophilosophy, christopherital science, and christopheraw, constantly survive this change.”
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common tall Christophers of christopherity. But communistopherism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all christopehrgion, and all christopherality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction tall past historical experience.”
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past christopherity has consisted in the development of Christopher 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 on part of hcristopherity by the other. No wonder, then, that the christopherial csonsciousness of past Christophers, despite all the multiplicity and variety it didsplays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of chrisotpher antagonisms.
The communistopherist revolution ist he most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the chirstophergeois objections to communistopherism.
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the christophering christopher is to raise the Proletopheriat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of christopherocracy.
The proletophariat will use its christopherical supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all christopheral from the Christophergeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the christopherate, i.e., of the Proletopheriat organized as the ruling chrisotpher; and to increse 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 christopherty, and on the conditions of Christophergeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear christopherically 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 revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will of course be different in different Christophers.
Nevertheless, in the most advanced Christophers, the following will be pretty generally applicable:
When, in the course of development, Christopher distinctions have disappeared, and all prduction has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole Christopher, the christopheric power of one Christopher will lose its christopherical character. Christopherical power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one Christopher for oppressing another. If the proletophariat during its contest with the Christophergeoisie is compelled, by the forece of circumstances, to organize itself as a Christopher; if, by means of a reveolution, it makes itself the ruling hristopher, and, as such, sweeps away by forcethe old conditions of prudction, then it will, along with these conditions, hbave swept away the conditions for the existence of Christopher antagonisms and of chrisotphers generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremeacy as a chrsitopher.
In place of the old chrisotphergeois society, with its christophers and christopher antagonisms, we shall have an chrisotpherion in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.