点击播放王筱涵朗读片段
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.
无产者和共产党人
共产党人同全体无产者的关系是怎样的呢？
共产党人不是同其他工人政党相对立的特殊政党。
他们没有任何同整个无产阶级的利益不同的利益。
他们不提出任何特殊的原则，用以塑造无产阶级的运动。
共产党人同其他无产阶级政党不同的地方只是：一方面，在无产者不同的民族的斗争中，共产党人强调和坚持整个无产阶级共同的不分民族的利益；另一方面，在无产阶级和资产阶级的斗争所经历的各个发展阶段上，共产党人始终代表整个运动的利益。
因此，在实践方面，共产党人是各国工人政党中最坚决的、始终起推动作用的部分；在理论方面，他们胜过其余无产阶级群众的地方在于他们了解无产阶级运动的条件、进程和一般结果。
共产党人的最近目的是和其他一切无产阶级政党的最近目的一样的：使无产阶级形成为阶级，推翻资产阶级的统治，由无产阶级夺取政权。
共产党人的理论原理，决不是以这个或那个世界改革家所发明或发现的思想、原则为根据的。
这些原理 不过是现存的阶级斗争、我们眼前的历史运动的真实关系的一般表述。废除先前存在的所有制关系，并不是共产主义所独具的特征。
一切所有制关系都经历了经常的历史更替、经常的历史变更。
例如，法国革命废除了封建的所有制，代之以资产阶级的所有制。
共产主义的特征并不是要废除一般的所有制，而是要废除资产阶级的所有制。
但是，现代的资产阶级私有制是建立在阶级对立上面、建立在一些人对另一些人的剥削上面的产品生产和占有的最后而又完备的表现。
从这个意义上说，共产党人可以把自己的理论概括为一句话：消灭私有制。
有人责备我们共产党人，说我们消灭个人挣得的、自己劳动得来的财产，要消灭构成个人的一切自由、活动和独立的基础的财产。
点击播放党政办公室吴苏哲老师朗读片段
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.
好一个劳动得来的、自己挣得的、自己赚来的财产！你们说的是资产阶级财产出现以前的那种小资产阶级、小农的财产吗？那种财产用不着我们去消灭，工业的发展已经把它消灭了，而且每天都在消灭它。
或者，你们说的是现代的资产阶级的私有财产吧？
但是，难道雇佣劳动，无产者的劳动，会给无产者创造出财产来吗？没有的事。这种劳动所创造的资本，即剥削雇佣劳动的财产，只有在不断产生出新的雇佣劳动来重新加以剥削的条件下才能增殖的财产。现今的这种财产是在资本和雇佣劳动的对立中运动的。让我们来看看这种对立的两个方面吧。
做一个资本家，这就是说，他在生产中不仅占有一种纯粹个人的地位，而且占有一种社会地位。资本是集体的产物，它只有通过社会许多成员的共同活动，而且归根到底只有通过社会全体成员的共同活动，才能运动起来。
因此，资本不是一种个人力量，而是一种社会力量。
因此，把资本变为公共的、属于社会全体成员的财产，这并不是把个人财产变为社会财产。这里所改变的只是财产的社会性质。它将失掉它的阶级性质。
现在，我们来看看雇佣劳动。
雇佣劳动的平均价格是最低限度的工资，即工人为维持其工人的生活所必需的生活资料的数额。因此，雇佣工人靠自己的劳动所占有的东西，只够勉强维持他的生命的再生产。我们决不打算消灭这种供直接生命再生产用的劳动产品的个人占有，这种占有并不会留下任何剩余的东西使人们有可能支配别人的劳动。我们要消灭的只是这种占有的可怜的性质，在这种占有下，工人仅仅为增殖资本而活着，只有在统治阶级的利益需要他活着的时候才能活着。
在资产阶级社会里，活的劳动只是增殖已经积累起来的劳动的一种手段。在共产主义社会里，已经积累起来的劳动只是扩大、丰富和提高工人的生活的一种手段。
点击播放帅胤朗读片段
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.
因此，在资产阶级社会里是过去支配现在，在共产主义社会里是现在支配过去。在资产阶级社会里，资本具有独立性和个性，而活动着的个人却没有独立性和个性。
而资产阶级却把消灭这种关系说成是消灭个性和自由！说对了。的确，正是要消灭资产者的个性、独立性和自由。
在现今的资产阶级生产关系的范围内，所谓自由就是自由贸易，自由买卖。
但是，买卖一消失，自由买卖也就会消失。关于自由买卖的言论，也像我们的资产阶级的其他一切关于自由的大话一样，仅仅对于不自由的买卖来说，对于中世纪被奴役的市民来说，才是有意义的，而对于共产主义要消灭买卖、消灭资产阶级生产关系和资产阶级本身这一点来说，却是毫无意义的。
我们要消灭私有制，你们就惊慌起来。但是，在你们的现存社会里，私有财产对十分之九的成员来说已经被消灭了；这种私有制这所以存在，正是因为私有财产对十分之九的成员来说已经不存在。可见，你们责备我们，是说我们要消灭那种以社会上的绝大多数人没有财产为必要条件的所有制。
总而言之，你们责备我们，是说我们要消灭你们的那种所有制。的确，我们是要这样做的。
从劳动不再能变为资本、货币、地租，一句话，不再能变为可以垄断的社会力量的时候起，就是说，从个人财产不再能变为资产阶级财产的时候起，你们说，个性被消灭了。
由此可见，你们是承认，你们所理解的个性，不外是资产者、资产阶级私有者。这样的个性确实应当被消灭。
共产主义并不剥夺任何人占有社会产品的权力，它只剥夺利用这种占有去奴役他人劳动的权力。
有人反驳说，私有制一消灭，一切活动就会停止，懒惰之风就会兴起。
这样说来，资产阶级社会早就应该因懒惰而灭亡了，因为在这个社会里劳者不获，获者不劳。所有这些顾虑，都可以归结为这样一个同义反复：一旦没有资本，也就不再有雇佣劳动了。
所有这些对共产主义的物质产品的占有方式和生产方式的责备，也被扩及到精神产品的占有和生产方面。正如阶级的所有制的终止在资产者看来是生产本身的终止一样，阶级的教育的终止在他们看来就等于一切教育的终止。
点击播放马云可朗读片段
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.
资产者唯恐失去的那种教育，绝大多数人来说是把人训练成机器。
但是，你们既然用你们资产阶级关于自由、教育、法等等的观念来衡量废除资产阶级所有制的主张，那就请你们不要同我们争论了。你们的观念本身是资产阶级的生产关系和所有制关系的产物，正像你们的法不过是被奉为法律的你们这个阶级的意志一样，而这种意志的内容是由你们这个阶级的物质生活条件决定的。
你们的利己观念使你们把自己的生产关系和所有制关系从历史的、在生产过程中是暂时的关系变成永恒的自然规律和理性规律，这种利己观念是你们和一切灭亡了的统治阶级所共有的。谈到古代所有制的时候你们所能理解的，谈到封建所有制的时候你们所能理解的，一谈到资产阶级所有制你们就再也不能理解了。
消灭家庭！连极端的激进派也对共产党人的这种可耻的意图表示愤慨。
现代的、资产阶级的家庭是建立在什么基础上的呢？是建立在资本上面，建立在私人发财上面的。这种家庭只是在资产阶级那里才以充分发展的形式存在着，而无产者的被迫独居和公开的卖淫则是它的补充。
资产者的家庭自然会随着它的这种补充的消失而消失，两者都要随着资本的消失而消失。
你们是责备我们要消灭父母对子女的剥削吗？我们承认这种罪状。
但是，你们说，我们用社会教育代替家庭教育，就是要消灭人们最亲密的关系。
而你们的教育不也是由社会决定的吗？不也是由你们进行教育时所处的那种社会关系决定的吗？不也是由社会通过学校等等进行的直接的或间接的干涉决定的吗？共产党人并没有发明社会对教育的作用；他们仅仅是要改变这种作用的性质，要使教育摆脱统治阶级的影响。
无产者的一切家庭联系越是由于大工业的发展而被破坏，他们的子女越是由于这种发展而被变成单纯的商品和劳动工具，资产阶级关于家庭和教育、关于父母和子女的亲密关系的空话就越是令人作呕。
但是，你们共产党人是要实行公妻制的啊，——整个资产阶级异口同声地向我们这样叫喊。
资产者是把自己的妻子看作单纯的生产工具的。他们听说生产工具将要公共使用，自然就不能不想到妇女也会遭到同样的命运。
