Workmen's advocate., 1890-06-28


 The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different coun- tries, they point out and bring to the front the common inter rests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nation. ah,. ?. In the various stages of devel' opment winch the struggle of the work. ing class against the bourgeolsle has to pass through, they always and every where represent the interests of the movement as 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 ad- vantage Of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement,
 The immediate aim of the Commun- ists 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 proetariat.
 The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been in. vented, or discovered by this or that would be universal reformer.
 They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an exist ing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property rela- tions is not at all 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 favor of bourgeois property.
 The distinguishing feature of Con- munism 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 exploita tion of the many by the few.
 In this sense. the theory of the Con- munists 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 mans own labor, which prop erty is alleged to be the ground work of all personal freedom, activity and in dependence.
 Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small pea sant. form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that the development of indus try has to great extent already de- stroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property!
 But does wage labor create any prop erty for the laborer? Not bit. It creates capital, .. e., that kind of prop erty which exploits wage-labor, and which cannot increase except upon con- dition of hegetting a new supply of wage. labor for fresh exploitation. Prop erty, in it's present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.
 To be capitalist, is to have not only purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital Is a collective pro- duct, 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 personal, it is social power.
 When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal prop erty is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses it's class character
 Let us now take wage-labor.
 The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, !. e., that quantum of the means of subsistence, which is absolutely requisite to keep the lahore, in bare existence as laborer. What therefore, the wage.laborer appropriates by means of his labor, merely sutfices tc prolong and reproduce bare existence We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that les.ge no sur plus wherewith to command the labol of others. All that we want to do away with, is the miserable character of thi. appropriation, under which the laborel lives merely to increase capital, and il allowed to live only in so far as tht interest of the ruling class requires it.
 In bourgeois society, living labor ii but a means to increase accumulated labor. In Communist society, accumul