truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis, its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas."

The measures recommended to bring about the social transformation are mainly (1) abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes; (2) heavy income tax; (3) abolition of all right of inheritance; (4) monopoly of credit by a single national bank; (5) means of transportation nationalized; (6) nationalization of means of production; (7) obligation of all to labor and establishment of industrial armies; (8) combination of agricultural and industrial interests; (9) free education of all children.

There will result the abolition of any political power or organization. Eventually class antagonism will cease because only one class will exist the proletariat.

Reactionary and feudal socialism are ludicrous or deceptive. So-called "Christian Socialism is but the Holy water with which the priest consecrates the heartburnings of the aristocrat."

Then came petty bourgeois socialism, which, while recognizing clearly present industrial evils was, in its proposed remedies, "both reactionary and Utopian.”

Based on Utopias, came a silly school-boy mountebank German school of so-called intellectuals, which became the bombastic representative of the petty bourgeois Philistine, which proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation. Far more serious was the conservative bourgeois socialism, worked out by economists and philanthropists in more or less complete systems of improvement; the critical-utopian and the communistutopian schemes.

The attitude of the Communist Party itself is to everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things, always bringing to the front the property question and working for unity in all countries.

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Working men of all countries, unite!"

An interesting summary of the situation is given by Marx's

partner Engels in a preface to the English translation of the Communist Manifesto written in 1888, the year before the founding of the Second International. It is here given almost entire. It includes a clear comparison of Communism with the early Utopian Socialism.

"The 'Manifesto' was published as the platform of the Communist League, a workingmen's association, first exclusively German, later on international, and, under the political conditions of the Continent before 1848, unavoidably a secret society. At a Congress of the League, held in London in November, 1847, Marx and Engels were commissioned to prepare for publication a complete theoretical and practical party programme. Drawn up in German, in January, 1848, the manuscript was sent to the printer in London a few weeks before the French revolution of February 24th. A French translation was brought out in Paris shortly before the insurrection of June, 1848. The first English translation, by Miss Helen Macfarlane, appeared in George Julian Harney's 'Red Republican,' London, 1850. A Danish and Polish edition had also been published.

"The defeat of the Parisian insurrection of June, 1848the first great battle between proletariat and bourgeoisie drove again into the background, for the time, the social and political aspirations of the European working class. Thenceforth the struggle for supremacy was again, as it had been before the revolution of February, solely between different sections of the propertied class; the working class was reduced to a fight for political elbow-room, and to the position of extreme wing of the middle-class Radicals. Wherever independent proletarian movements continued to show signs of life they were ruthlessly hunted down. As to the 'Manifesto,' it seemed to be thenceforth doomed to oblivion.

"When the European working class had recovered sufficient strength for another attack on the ruling classes, the International Workingmen's Association sprang up. But this association, formed with the express aim of welding into one body the whole militant proletariat of Europe and America, could not at once proclaim the principles laid down in the Manifesto.' The International was bound to have a programme broad enough to be acceptable to the English Trades' Union, to the followers of Proudhon in France,

Belgium, Italy and Spain, and to the Lassalleans in Germany. Marx, who drew up this programme to the satisfaction of all parties, trusted entirely to the intellectual developmont of the working-class, which was sure to result from combined action and mutual discussion. The very events. and vicissitudes of the struggle against capital, the defeats even more than victories, could not help bringing home to men's minds the insufficiency of their various favorite nostrums, and preparing the way for a more complete insight into the true conditions of working-class emancipation. And Marx was right. The International on its breaking up in 1874 left the workers quite different men from what it had found them in 1864. Proudhonism in France, Lassalleanism in Germany, were dying out, and even the conservative English Trades' Unions, though most of them had long since severed their connection with the International, were gradually advancing towards that point at which in the year 1887 at Swansea, their President could say in their name, 'Continental Socialism has lost its terrors for us.' In fact, the principles of the 'Manifesto' had made considerable headway among the workingmen of all countries.

"The Manifesto' itself thus came to the front again. The German text has been, since 1850, reprinted several times in Switzerland, England and America. In 1872 it was translated into English in New York, where the translation was published in Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly.' From this English version a French one was made in 'Le Socialiste' of New York. Since then at least two more English translations, more or less mutilated, have been brought out in America, and one of them has been reprinted in England. The first Russian translation, made by Bakunin, was published at Hertzen's 'Kolokol' office in Geneva, about 1863; a second one, by the heroic Vera Zasulitch, also in Geneva, 1882. A new Danish edition is to be found in 'Socialdemokratisk Bibliothek,' Copenhagen, 1855; a fresh French translation in 'Le Socialiste,' Paris, 1886. From this latter a Spanish version was prepared and published in Madrid, 1886. The German reprints are not to be counted; there have been twelve altogether, at the least Thus the history of the 'Manifesto' reflects, to a great extent, the history of the modern working-class movement; at present

it is undoubtedly the most widespread, the most international production of all Socialist literature, the common platform, acknowledged by millions of working men from Siberia to California.

"Yet, when it was written we could not have called it a Socialist Manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand, the adherents of the various Utopian systems (Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out); on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks, who, by all manners of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances; in both cases men outside the working class movement, and looking rather to the 'educated' classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of a total social change, that portion, then called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn purely instinctive sort of Communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough among the working class to produce the Utopian Communism, in France, of Cabet, and in Germany, of Weitling. Thus, Socialism was, in 1847, a middle-class movement, Communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, respectable'; Communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself,' there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have ever since been far from repudiating it.

"The 'Manifesto' being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition which forms its nucleus belongs to Marx. That proposition is: that in every historical epoch the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following it, form the basis upon which is built up and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and

exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles forms a series of evolutions in which, now-a-days, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class (the bourgeoisie) without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class-distinction and class-struggles.

"This proposition which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology we, both of us, had been gradually approaching for some years before 1845. From our joint preface to the German edition of 1872, I quote the following:

"However much the state of things may have altered during the last 25 years, the general principles laid down in this 'Manifesto' are, on the whole, as correct to-day as ever. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February revolution, 1848, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details become antiquated. But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have no longer any right to alter."

LONDON, 30th January, 1888.

FRIEDERICK ENGELS.

SECOND INTERNATIONAL

After the dissolution of the First International in which Marx had not dared, as yet, to embody the radical ideas of his Manifesto, came a decade of intense and unifying education of workers for the cause of Communism, a marshalling of phalanxes of trained and educated leaders to direct the revolutionary movement of the working class and to eliminate the confusion of doctrines, the vagueness of unpractical doctrinaires, the irresponsible violence of anarchists, the sentimentalities of upper class socialists who knew nothing of the conditions and problems of the working classes.