With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of Nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face to face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating, him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man"s own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history, pa.s.s under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history--only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.
Let us briefly sum up our sketch of historical evolution.
I. _Mediaeval Society._--Individual production on a small scale. Means of production adapted for individual use; hence primitive, ungainly, petty, dwarfed in action. Production for immediate consumption, either of the producer himself or of his feudal lord. Only where an excess of production over this consumption occurs is such excess offered for sale, enters into exchange. Production of commodities, therefore, only in its infancy. But already it contains within itself, in embryo, _anarchy in the production of society at large_.
II. _Capitalist Revolution._--Transformation of industry, at first by means of simple co-operation and manufacture. Concentration of the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social means of production--a transformation which does not, on the whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropriation remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the products and turns them into commodities. Production has become a _social_ act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be _individual_ acts, the acts of individuals. _The social product is appropriated by the individual capitalist._ Fundamental contradiction, whence arise all the contradictions in which our present day society moves, and which modern industry brings to light.
A. Severance of the producer from the means of production.
Condemnation of the worker to wage-labor for life. _Antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie._
B. Growing predominance and increasing effectiveness of the laws governing the production of commodities. Unbridled compet.i.tion.
_Contradiction between socialized organization in the individual factory and social anarchy in production as a whole._
C. On the one hand, perfecting of machinery, made by compet.i.tion compulsory for each individual manufacturer, and complemented by a constantly growing displacement of laborers. _Industrial reserve-army._ On the other hand, unlimited extension of production, also compulsory under compet.i.tion, for every manufacturer. On both sides, unheard of development of productive forces, excess of supply over demand, over-production, glutting of the markets, crises every ten years, the vicious circle: excess here, of means of production and products--excess there, of laborers, without employment and without means of existence.
But these two levers of production and of social well-being are unable to work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents the productive forces from working and the products from circulating, unless they are first turned into capital--which their very superabundance prevents. The contradiction has grown into an absurdity. _The mode of production rises in rebellion against the form of exchange._ The bourgeoisie are convicted of incapacity further to manage their own social productive forces.
D. Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great inst.i.tutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later on by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous cla.s.s. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.
III. _Proletarian Revolution._--Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different cla.s.ses of society thenceforth an anachronism.
In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master--free.
To accomplish this act of universal emanc.i.p.ation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian cla.s.s a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.
FOOTNOTES:
[4] It is hardly necessary in this connection to point out, that, even if the form of appropriation remains the same, the _character_ of the appropriation is just as much revolutionized as production is by the changes described above. It is, of course, a very different matter whether I appropriate to myself my own product or that of another.
Note in pa.s.sing that wage-labor, which contains the whole capitalistic mode of production in embryo, is very ancient; in a sporadic, scattered form it existed for centuries alongside of slave-labor. But the embryo could duly develop into the capitalistic mode of production only when the necessary historical preconditions had been furnished.
[5] _See Appendix._
[6] "The Condition of the Working-Cla.s.s in England" (Sonnenschein & Co.), p. 84.
[7] I say "have to." For only when the means of production and distribution have _actually_ outgrown the form of management by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore, the taking them over by the State has become _economically_ inevitable, only then--even if it is the State of to-day that effects this--is there an economic advance, the attainment of another step preliminary to the taking over of all productive forces by society itself. But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares _all_ State-ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic.
Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism. If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the State the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the Government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes--this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic inst.i.tutions, or even, as was seriously proposed by a sly dog in Frederick William III."s reign, the taking over by the State of the brothels.
[8] A few figures may serve to give an approximate idea of the enormous expansive force of the modern means of production, even under capitalist pressure. According to Mr. Giffen, the total wealth of Great Britain and Ireland amounted, in round numbers, in
1814 to 2,200,000,000.
1865 to 6,100,000,000.
1875 to 8,500,000,000.
As an instance of the squandering of means of production and of products during a crisis, the total loss in the German iron industry alone, in the crisis of 1873-78, was given at the second German Industrial Congress (Berlin, February 21, 1878) as 22,750,000.