A ghost is frightening Europe—the ghost of Communism. All the old leaders of Europe have joined forces to chase this ghost away: the Pope and the Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French radicals and German spies.

Where's the opposing party that hasn't been accused of being communist by those in power? Where's the opposition that hasn't thrown the same accusation back at more progressive parties, as well as their conservative rivals?

"Here are two things that happen because of this."

Communism is now recognized by all European countries as a major force.

It's about time Communists openly share their views, goals, and beliefs with the world. They should publish a manifesto to counter the scary stories about them.

Communists from different countries met in London and wrote this Manifesto. They'll publish it in English, French, German, Italian, Flemish, and Danish.

"Chapter 1: Middle Class and Working Class"

All societies throughout history have been shaped by conflicts between different social classes.

Oppressors and oppressed have always been at odds, fighting openly or secretly. Their battles often ended in major social changes or the downfall of both sides.

In the past, societies were often divided into many groups with different ranks. In ancient Rome, there were patricians, knights, common people, and slaves. In the Middle Ages, there were nobles, vassals, guild leaders, skilled workers, apprentices, and serfs. Most of these groups had even more levels within them.

Modern society, born from the wreckage of feudalism, hasn't erased class conflicts. Instead, it's created new classes, new ways of being oppressed, and new ways to fight back. But here's what's different about our time: it's made class conflicts simpler. Society is increasingly dividing into two massive, opposing groups: the wealthy (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat).

From the serfs of the Middle Ages came the first townspeople. These townspeople, known as burghers, were the start of the middle class, or bourgeoisie.

The discovery of America and sailing around the Cape of Good Hope created new opportunities for the growing middle class. The East Indian and Chinese markets, along with colonizing America and trading with colonies, boosted commerce, navigation, and industry like never before. This, in turn, quickly strengthened the forces that were challenging the old feudal society.

The old system of industry, where certain groups controlled production, couldn't keep up with the increasing demands of new markets. A new system, manufacturing, took over. The original group in charge, guild-masters, were replaced by a new middle class. The division of labor between different groups disappeared, and instead, each workshop divided tasks among its workers.

Markets kept expanding, demand kept increasing. Even making things by hand wasn't enough anymore. Then, steam power and machines changed how things were made. Factories took over, and rich business owners, like the modern bourgeois, became the leaders of huge workforces.

Modern industry created a global market, which the discovery of America helped start. This market greatly boosted trade, travel by sea, and land transportation. As these grew, so did industry, and with it, the middle class (bourgeoisie) grew richer and more powerful, pushing aside older classes from the Middle Ages.

The modern middle class, or bourgeoisie, didn't just appear overnight. It's the result of many changes in how things are made and traded over time.

The growth of the middle class (bourgeoisie) was marked by its increasing political power. At first, they were oppressed by the nobility. Then, they formed self-governing communities in medieval towns. Later, they became influential in monarchies, balancing power with the nobility. Finally, with the rise of modern industry and global trade, they gained complete political control, running the government like a board of directors.

The middle class has historically been a major force for change.

The middle class, wherever it gained power, ended all old-fashioned, family-based relationships. It ruthlessly broke the old ties that connected people to their "natural leaders," leaving only cold self-interest and money as the bond between people. It killed the most passionate feelings, like religious excitement, chivalry, and sentiment, replacing them with cold, calculating thinking. It turned personal value into how much something is worth, and instead of many freedoms, it created one big freedom: free trade. In simple terms, it brought out clear, harsh, direct exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has taken away the special respect given to every job once considered noble and sacred. It has turned the doctor, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, and the scientist into its hired workers.

The middle class has stripped the family of its emotional cover, turning family ties into just a financial matter.

The middle class has revealed how it happened that the intense energy of the Middle Ages, which some people admire, was balanced by extreme laziness. It's the first to show what humans can do. It's achieved amazing things, even better than the Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals. Its explorations have outshone all past migrations of people and crusades.

The bourgeoisie must always change the tools and methods of production, which also changes the relationships between people. Previous societies needed to keep their old ways of working. But the capitalist era is different. It's all about constant change, uncertainty, and upheaval. Old traditions and beliefs are swept away, and new ones become outdated quickly. Everything that seems stable disappears, and people are forced to face reality and their relationships with others.

The bourgeoisie, always needing new markets for its goods, spreads across the entire globe. It has to settle everywhere, make connections everywhere.

The middle class, by exploiting the global market, has made production and consumption worldwide. This upsets those who want to keep things the same, as it removes the local foundation of industries. Traditional industries are being replaced by new ones that rely on resources from all over the world and sell products globally. Instead of meeting local needs, we now want things from far away. Instead of being self-sufficient, countries are connected and dependent on each other. This is true for both physical products and ideas. National ideas and literature are shared worldwide, making it harder to be narrow-minded or focused only on one's own country.

The middle class, thanks to quick advances in production tools and easier communication, brings all nations, even the most isolated, into modern society. They sell their goods cheaply, breaking down barriers and making other countries adopt their way of life. If a country doesn't, it risks disappearing. In short, they shape the world in their own image.

The middle class has put the countryside under the control of cities. It has built huge cities, greatly increased the number of city dwellers compared to rural residents, and thus saved many people from the ignorance of country life. Just as it has made the countryside rely on cities, it has also made less developed countries rely on more advanced ones, countries of farmers on countries of businesspeople, and the East on the West.

The middle class is constantly bringing people, resources, and property together. It's combined production and put most of the wealth in a few hands. This led to a central government. Before, there were separate regions with their own interests, laws, and taxes. Now, they're all united under one government, one set of laws, one shared goal, one border, and one trade policy. In just over a century, the middle class has created more powerful tools for making things than all the generations before it. It's made machines, used science in industry and farming, built trains and telegraphs, and even changed the landscape. Who would have thought all this was possible?

The tools and systems used for making and trading goods, which the middle class relied on, were created in feudal society. Once these tools and systems grew and changed, the ways feudal society made and traded things, like how they farmed and made products, couldn't keep up. These old ways held back the progress of the tools and systems, so they had to be changed, and they were.

Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political system suited to it, and by the economic and political power of the middle class.

Modern society, with its systems of production, trade, and ownership, has created massive tools for making and exchanging goods. But it's like summoning spirits - we can't control them. For years, the story of industry and business has been about these powerful tools rebelling against the rules set by the wealthy. Just look at the regular economic crashes that threaten society's very existence. During these crashes, many products and even some of the tools used to make them are destroyed. It's like an epidemic of having too much - too much stuff, too much food, too much industry, too much trade. Society suddenly seems primitive, like a famine or war has struck. Why? Because there's too much progress, too much stuff, too much industry, too much trade. The tools we have created are too powerful for the rules of the wealthy, and when they break free, they cause chaos and threaten the wealthy's power. The wealthy respond by destroying some of these tools and finding new places to sell their goods, making the next crash even worse.

The tools the middle class used to knock down feudalism are now being used against the middle class itself.

The bourgeoisie has created both the tools that could destroy it, and the people who will use them—the modern working class, the proletariat.

As capitalism grows, so does the working class, or proletariat. These are people who only have jobs when there's work, and they only get work when their labor makes money for others. They sell their labor bit by bit, like any other product, so they face all the ups and downs of competition and market changes.

Machines and dividing work into simple tasks make the proletarians' jobs boring and repetitive. Workers become like parts of the machines, only needing simple skills. This makes workers cheaper to hire. But as jobs become more unpleasant, wages go down. And as machines and divided tasks increase, so does the amount of work, either by working longer hours, doing more in the same time, or making machines faster.

Modern industry has turned the small workshop of the old-style boss into a huge factory run by business owners. Lots of workers are packed into these factories, organized like soldiers. They're like privates in an army, with a clear chain of command, from top bosses to supervisors. These workers aren't just slaves to the wealthy class and the government; they're also enslaved by the machines, the supervisors, and especially the factory owners themselves. The more these owners brag about making money, the more annoying, hateful, and bitter their control feels.

The more advanced industry gets, the less it needs strong, skilled workers. So, it uses more women, who are often seen as cheaper to hire. For the working class, age and sex don't matter much. Everyone's just a tool for work, valued based on how old and what sex they are.

As soon as a worker gets paid by the boss, other rich people like landlords, store owners, and loan sharks start taking their money.

The lower middle class—like small business owners, shopkeepers, and skilled workers—slowly become part of the working class. This happens because their small businesses can't compete with larger companies, and new ways of making things make their skills less valuable. So, people from all walks of life join the working class.

The working class goes through different phases of growth. From the start, it fights against the wealthy class. Initially, individual workers clash with their bosses. Then, workers from one factory or trade in a specific area unite. They target the bosses who directly exploit them. At first, they don't challenge the system that makes the bosses rich. Instead, they destroy goods that compete with their labor, damage machines, and burn down factories. They try to forcefully bring back the old times when workers had more power.

At this point, workers are scattered everywhere, competing with each other. If they do come together, it's because the wealthy class, the bourgeoisie, needs them to achieve its goals. The workers aren't fighting their real enemies yet; they're fighting the enemies of their enemies, like the old monarchy, landowners, and small business owners. So, the wealthy class leads the fight, and every win belongs to them.

As industries grow, so does the number of workers, who start to gather in larger groups and realize their collective power. Workers' jobs and lives become more similar as machines make all tasks the same and lower wages. Competition among business owners causes frequent economic crises, making workers' pay unstable. As machines get better faster, workers' jobs become less secure. Conflicts between workers and bosses turn into fights between two big groups. Workers then join together in unions to keep their wages high and plan for future struggles. Sometimes, these fights turn into riots.

Workers sometimes win battles, but these victories are temporary. The true benefit of their fights is the growing bond among workers. Modern industry's improved communication tools help this bond by connecting workers across different areas. This connection allows many local struggles, all similar, to unite into one big national fight between social classes. Every class fight is also a political one. While medieval city dwellers needed centuries to unite due to poor roads, modern workers achieve this in just a few years thanks to trains.

The workers organizing into a class and a political party keeps getting disrupted by competition among themselves. But it keeps coming back, stronger each time. It forces laws to protect workers' interests by exploiting divisions among the rich. That's how the ten-hour workday law was passed in England.

The constant fights among the classes of old society help the working class develop. The wealthy class, called the bourgeoisie, is always in conflict. First, with the nobles; later, with some of its own members who oppose industrial growth; and always, with wealthy people from other countries. In these fights, the bourgeoisie needs the working class's help and brings them into politics. This way, the bourgeoisie provides the working class with tools for political and general education, giving them weapons to fight back.

As we've seen, many people from the upper classes are losing their jobs and becoming part of the working class due to industrial growth. These people bring new ideas and help the working class progress.

"When the fight between social classes gets intense, the ruling class starts to fall apart. Some of its members leave and join the side that's going to shape the future. This has happened before, like when some nobles joined the middle class. Now, some middle-class people are joining the working class, especially those who understand how society changes."

The proletariat is the only class that truly opposes the bourgeoisie today. Other classes fade away as modern industry grows, but the proletariat is its main product. The lower middle class, small business owners, shopkeepers, artisans, and peasants all fight the bourgeoisie to protect their middle-class lives. They're not revolutionary, but conservative, even reactionary, trying to stop history's progress. If they seem revolutionary, it's because they're worried about becoming part of the proletariat, so they're really defending their future, not their present. They're leaving their own position to stand with the proletariat.

The "dangerous class," the social outcasts, that passive, decaying group left behind by the lowest levels of old society, might sometimes get pulled into a revolution by the working class; but their living conditions usually make them more likely to be used as paid puppets by those who want to stir up trouble and go against the revolution.

The proletariat's life is like old society's, but worse. Proletarians have no property. Their families aren't like the middle class's. Modern work and being under capital's control, whether in England, France, America, or Germany, has taken away their unique national identity. To them, laws, morals, and religion are just middle class beliefs hiding their own interests.

All past ruling classes kept their power by making everyone else live by their rules of ownership. The working class can only take control of society's resources by getting rid of their current system of ownership and every other system before it. They don't have anything to protect or strengthen; their job is to dismantle all protections and guarantees for private property.

The proletarian movement is the first time a huge majority is moving on its own, for its own benefit. The proletariat, society's lowest class, can't budge without shaking up the entire system above it.

The initial fight between the working class and the wealthy is, in its early stages, a local battle. Each country's working class must first deal with its own wealthy class.

In showing the main stages of the working class's growth, we followed the more or less hidden conflict happening inside society, until it bursts into a full-blown revolution. This revolution leads to the working class taking power and overthrowing the wealthy class.

Every society so far has been built on the conflict between those who have power and those who don't. But to keep a group oppressed, certain conditions must be provided to let them survive, at least a little. In the past, serfs became part of a community, and small business owners grew into big ones under feudal rule. However, as industry advances, workers don't improve their lives; instead, they become poorer. Poverty grows faster than the population and wealth. It's clear that the wealthy class can no longer lead society because they can't ensure their workers' basic needs. They can't even keep their workers from becoming so poor that they need help instead of providing it. Society can't continue like this; it's no longer possible to live under these conditions.

The key to the bourgeois class's existence and power is the creation and growth of capital; capital relies on workers being paid wages. This system is based on competition among workers. As industry advances, driven by the bourgeoisie, it replaces workers' isolation, caused by competition, with their combination and unity, achieved through association. However, this progress in industry undermines the very basis on which the bourgeoisie produces and keeps its wealth. In essence, the bourgeoisie creates its own downfall. The fall of the bourgeoisie and the rise of the working class are both inevitable.

"Workers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of all countries, unite!"

The Communists are like the most vocal and active members of the working class.

Communists aren't a special group against other worker parties.

They only care about what's best for the working class as a whole, not their own personal interests.

They don't create their own special rules to control the workers' movement.

The Communists stand out from other working-class parties in two ways: (1) When workers from different countries fight for their rights, Communists highlight the shared goals of all workers, regardless of their nationality. (2) As the workers' struggle against the wealthy evolves, Communists consistently support the overall movement's best interests.

Communists are, in action, the most progressive and determined part of the workers' parties in every country. They're the ones who lead the way. In terms of ideas, they understand better than most workers where the movement is going, what it needs, and what the final outcome will be.

The immediate goal of Communists is the same as other working-class parties: unite the workers as a group, end the rule of the wealthy, and gain political power for the workers.

Communists' ideas aren't new or invented by one person. They're based on real-life class struggles happening now. Communism isn't about ending all property, just the current system's property relations.

Property rules have always changed throughout history as society changes.

The French Revolution, for instance, got rid of feudal property, replacing it with property owned by the middle class.

Communism isn't about getting rid of all property, just the kind owned by wealthy people. Modern private property, owned by the rich, is the ultimate result of a system where a few people exploit many others.

"In short, the Communists' main idea is: Get rid of private property."

We've been criticized for wanting to get rid of the right to own property earned through hard work, which some say is the basis for personal freedom, action, and independence.

"Hard-earned, personal property! You're talking about what the small shop owners and farmers have, right? That's been around since before big businesses. We don't need to get rid of it; big industry has already mostly done that, and it's still happening every day."

Do you mean today's business owners' personal property?

Does working for a wage create any wealth for the worker? No way. It creates capital, which is the kind of wealth that exploits workers and can only grow if there are more workers to exploit. Today's property system is based on the conflict between capital and workers. Let's look at both sides of this conflict.

To be a capitalist, it's not just about your personal role, but also your social position in production. Capital is something made by everyone working together, and only when many, or even all, members of society work together can it be put to use.

Capital is not an individual's power, it's a collective force.

When capital becomes the shared property of everyone in society, personal property doesn't automatically become social property. Only the way we view and use the property changes. It's no longer tied to a specific class.

"Let's consider wage labor."

The average wage is the least amount needed to survive as a worker. This amount only allows a worker to live and work again. We don't want to stop workers from keeping what they earn. We just want to change the situation where workers only live to make bosses richer, and can only live if bosses allow it.

In capitalist society, our work is just a way to make more stuff that's already been made. In a communist society, stuff that's already been made is just a way to make our lives better and richer.

In modern society, the past greatly influences the present; in a communist society, the present has a stronger impact on the past. In modern society, money has power and independence, while people are dependent and lack independence.

The abolition of this situation is called by the wealthy, the end of individuality and freedom! And rightfully so. The goal is indeed to end wealthy individuality, wealthy independence, and wealthy freedom.

Freedom, in today's society, means the ability to buy and sell things freely.

"But if selling and buying stop, free selling and buying also disappear. All the talk about 'free' selling and buying, and other 'brave words' our business leaders use about freedom, only make sense when compared to the restricted selling and buying of the past, like in the Middle Ages. But these words have no meaning when compared to a society where there's no buying or selling, no 'business as usual', and no business leaders at all."

You're shocked that we want to get rid of private property. But in your society, most people already don't have it. The few who do only have it because the rest don't. So, you're really just upset that we want to end a system where most people have nothing.

We think you're saying we want to take your stuff. You're right, that's our plan.

"Once workers can't turn their labor into money, rent, or power that a few can control, and individual property can't be turned into capital, you claim that individuality disappears."

You must admit that when you say "individual," you're really talking about the middle-class person who owns property. This type of person needs to be removed and made obsolete.

Communism doesn't take away anyone's right to keep what they've made. It just stops people from using what they have to make others work for them.

"Some people argue that if we get rid of private property, everyone will stop working and become lazy."

"Society driven by wealth should have collapsed from laziness long ago. Those who work don't gain anything, and those who gain anything don't work. This argument just says that when there's no more capital, there can't be any paid work."

All arguments made against Communism's way of making and sharing physical things are also used against its way of making and sharing ideas. To capitalists, if classes stop owning property, that means no one will produce anything. Similarly, they think if classes stop having their own culture, there will be no culture at all.

"Most people only use that culture to act like robots."

"But stop arguing with us if you're still using your ideas about freedom, culture, and law that come from being part of the middle class. Those ideas are just a result of the conditions you live in because of your middle-class property and jobs. Your laws are just what your class wants, and they're shaped by the economic situation of your class."

You, like every ruling class before you, mistakenly believe that the rules and systems created by your society's way of producing and owning things are eternal laws of nature and reason. You think the social structures you have now are permanent, but they're actually just temporary results of your current production methods and property ownership. You can see this clearly in past societies, like ancient times or feudalism, but you refuse to admit it when it comes to your own society's property system.

"Get rid of families? Even the most extreme people freak out about this crazy idea from the Communists."

The modern family, the one we see in wealthy societies, is built on money and personal profit. This type of family is mainly found among the rich. However, this situation is balanced by the lack of stable families among the working class, and the presence of public prostitution.

The middle-class family will disappear naturally when its needs disappear, and both will disappear when capitalism ends.

We admit that we want to end the abuse of children by their parents.

"But you might argue, we're ruining the most sacred family bonds when we replace home schooling with social education."

"Your education, too, is shaped by society, right? It's influenced by the conditions around you, and how society, through schools and such, gets involved. Communists didn't start this; they just want to change how it happens and free education from the control of the powerful."

Modern industry makes the idea of family and education seem even more fake and gross. The more it tears apart families among workers, turning their kids into just products and tools for work.

"But you Communists want to share women equally, the entire middle class shouts together."

The boss views his wife as just a tool for work. When he hears that tools should be shared, he thinks that women will also have to be shared.

He doesn't even realize that the main goal is to end the idea of women being just tools for making things.

"Besides, it's laughable how upset our middle-class people get about the idea of communists officially allowing women to share partners. Communists didn't start this; it's been happening for ages."

Modern-day business owners, they're not satisfied with just having the wives and daughters of their workers at their disposal, not to mention regular sex workers. They even enjoy seducing each other's wives.

"In truth, marriage among the middle class is like a shared wife system. So, if Communists are criticized, it's only for wanting to replace hidden wife-sharing with legal, open wife-sharing. But obviously, ending the current production system will also end the wife-sharing it causes, including both public and private prostitution."

The Communists are also criticized for wanting to get rid of countries and national identities.

The workers have no country. They can't give up something they don't have. First, the working class must gain political power, become the nation's leading class, and become the nation itself. So, they're national, but not in the way the wealthy see it.

As people become more connected through trade and technology, differences between countries and cultures are slowly disappearing. This is because businesses are becoming more global, and people are living and working in similar ways all over the world.

The working class's power will make these issues disappear even quicker. At least the most developed countries need to work together to free the working class.

As people stop exploiting each other, nations will stop exploiting each other too. As the conflict between different groups in a country disappears, so will the conflict between different countries.

Communism's critics, from religious, philosophical, and general ideological viewpoints, don't have arguments strong enough to warrant a deep look.

Does it take strong intuition to understand that people's thoughts, beliefs, and ideas - in other words, their awareness - change whenever their life circumstances, social relationships, or way of life change?

Modern ideas shift as our world changes. The most popular beliefs in any time are usually those of the people in power.

When people talk about ideas that change society, they're just saying that the building blocks of a new society have already been made within the old one. The old ideas are breaking down at the same speed as the old ways of living.

In the final days of the old world, Christianity replaced ancient religions. In the 18th century, rationalist ideas overthrew Christianity, and feudal societies struggled against the rising power of the middle class. The ideas of religious freedom and freedom of thought simply reflected the growing influence of free competition in the world of ideas.

"Sure, it's obvious that religious, moral, philosophical, and legal ideas have changed over time. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law have always stuck around through all that change."

"Additionally, there are timeless truths like freedom and justice that apply to all societies. But communism gets rid of these truths, it eliminates all religion and morality, rather than building new ones. So, it goes against all past experiences."

This accusation boils down to: Throughout history, societies have been shaped by conflicts between social classes, which have taken various forms at different times.

"Regardless of how societies were structured in the past, one thing remained constant: one group exploiting another. So, it's no surprise that the collective awareness of society in those times, despite its many differences, follows certain shared patterns or ideas. These can only truly disappear when class conflicts end."

The Communist revolution is the most dramatic break from traditional ways of owning things; no surprise that its progress also breaks with traditional ideas.

"But let's stop talking about the complaints the middle class has about Communism."

The first step for the working class to start a revolution is to help the proletariat (working people) become the rulers, so they can win the fight for democracy.

The working class will gradually take all power and wealth from the rich, put all tools for making things under government control, which means the working class will be in charge. They'll also try to make production grow as fast as possible.

In the start, this can't happen without harshly invading the rights of property owners and the rules of business. It might seem like these steps are bad for the economy and won't work, but as things change, they'll need to go even further. These steps are necessary to completely change how things are produced.

In different countries, these steps will naturally vary.

"Even in the most developed countries, this will still be pretty much true."

All land should be owned by everyone together, and the money made from it should be used for the good of all.

A tax where the more you earn, the higher the percentage you pay.

All inheritance rights are hereby abolished.

All stuff belonging to people who leave or rebel will be taken away.

"Create a national bank owned by the government, giving it the sole power to manage credit."

The government should control communication and transportation systems.

"Grow factories and tools owned by the government; turn unused lands into farms, and improve soil with a shared plan."

All people should share the responsibility of work equally. We should create teams, especially for farming, to work together in an organized way.

"Mixing farming with factories; slowly ending the difference between cities and countryside by spreading people out more evenly across the land."

"Free education for all kids in public schools. End child labor in factories as it is now. Mix education with work in factories, and so on."

When societies progress, class differences fade away, and everyone works together as a big national team, the government's power will no longer be political. Real political power is just the organized strength of one group used to dominate another. If the working class, or proletariat, has to form a group to fight the wealthy class, or bourgeoisie, and eventually wins and takes over, it will also get rid of the reasons for class conflicts and classes themselves. This means the working class will no longer be the ruling class.

In place of the old society divided by wealth and power, we'll have a community where everyone's freedom helps everyone else be free.

"Socialist and Communist writers have different views on how society should be. Socialists believe in a fair system where everyone shares equally in work and its rewards. Communists, on the other hand, want a society where the government owns everything and people work for the common good, not personal gain."

"Backward-looking socialism."

"Feudal Socialism is like a system where the government controls everything, just like how a king ruled his kingdom in the Middle Ages. Instead of lords and serfs, you have the state making all the decisions and owning all the resources. People work for the state, and the state decides what everyone gets."

"Because of their past roles, the French and English aristocracies felt it was their job to write pamphlets against modern society. During the French Revolution in 1830 and the English reform movement, they lost again to the hated newcomers. After that, serious political fights were no longer an option. Only a literary battle was left. But even in literature, the old complaints from the past were no longer acceptable."

To gain sympathy, the nobles had to seem to ignore their own interests and blame the middle class for exploiting workers. So, they made fun of their new boss and warned about future disasters.

Feudal Socialism was born: half complaint, half joke; half echo of the past, half threat of the future. Sometimes, with its sharp, funny criticism, it really hit the bourgeoisie. But it always seemed silly because it couldn't understand how the world was changing.

The rich, to get the common people on their side, waved a symbol of charity. But when people joined them, they saw the old, fancy family crests on the rich's behinds, and left laughing loudly and disrespectfully.

"Some French Legitimists and 'Young England' members put on this show."

"Feudalists claim their way of exploiting people was different from the bourgeoisie. But they ignore that they did this under outdated conditions. They also forget that the modern working class only exists because of their old society."

They openly show that their main complaint about the bourgeoisie is that it's creating a group of people who want to completely change society.

They criticize the bourgeoisie not just for creating a working class, but for creating a revolutionary working class.

In politics, they always support harsh actions against workers. In everyday life, despite their fancy talk, they'll do anything for money, even if it means lying, cheating, or betraying others to sell wool, sugar, or alcohol.

As the pastor has always been close with the landowner, so has Religious Socialism been linked with Feudal Socialism.

"Making Christian asceticism seem socialist is simple. Didn't Christianity speak out against private property, marriage, and the state? Instead, it promoted charity, poverty, celibacy, and the church. Christian Socialism is just the blessing that makes the aristocrat's struggles seem holy."

"Middle-class Socialism"

The aristocracy wasn't the only class hurt by the rise of the middle class. Medieval townspeople and small farmers also suffered. In less developed countries, these groups still coexist with the growing middle class.

In advanced societies, a new group called the petty bourgeoisie has emerged. They're stuck between the working class (proletariat) and the wealthy class (bourgeoisie). They keep reappearing as part of society, but competition pushes many of them down into the working class. As industries grow, they might even vanish, replaced by supervisors, managers, and store clerks.

In countries like France, where farmers make up more than half the population, it's no surprise that writers who supported the working class against the wealthy used the standards of farmers and small business owners to criticize the system. They argued from the perspective of these middle classes to support the working class. This led to the rise of a type of socialism focused on these middle classes. Sismondi was the main figure of this group, not just in France but also in England.

This school of socialism analyzed modern production's issues sharply. It exposed economists' fake explanations. It clearly showed how machines and dividing work into tasks cause problems. It proved how wealth and land end up with a few people, leading to too much stuff being made and economic crashes. It showed how small business owners and farmers suffer, how workers live in poverty, how production is chaotic, and how wealth is unfairly distributed. It also showed how countries fight each other for industry, and how old social rules and families change.

This type of socialism wants to bring back old ways of making and trading things, and with them, old rules about who owns what. Or, it tries to squeeze modern ways of making and trading into old ownership rules that these modern ways have already outgrown. Either way, it's stuck in the past and not realistic.

"In the end, it's all about: business groups for making stuff, family-based farming."

Eventually, once stubborn historical facts had cleared up all the confusing ideas, this type of Socialism ended in a sad, depressed state.

"Real Socialism, or German Socialism"

In France, socialist and communist writings started when the middle class was in charge. These writings were a way to fight against this power. This kind of writing was brought to Germany when the middle class there was just starting to challenge feudal power.

German thinkers, wannabe thinkers, and intellectuals quickly embraced this literature, but they overlooked that when these writings moved from France to Germany, French society's conditions didn't come along. When this French literature met German society, it lost its immediate practical meaning and became purely about literature. So, to 18th-century German philosophers, the French Revolution's demands were just general "Practical Reason" ideas, and the French bourgeoisie's will seemed like the law of pure will, or what human will should truly be.

The German intellectuals focused on blending new French ideas with their old philosophical beliefs, or simply adopting these ideas while still holding onto their own philosophical views.

This annexation happened like learning a new language, by translating it.

Monks scribbled made-up stories about Catholic saints on top of old pagan texts. German intellectuals did the opposite with French literature. They added their own philosophical ideas underneath the French text. For example, under French criticism of money's role in the economy, they wrote "Alienation of Humanity," and under French criticism of the government, they wrote "dethronement of the Category of the General."

They called these ideas "Philosophy of Action," "True Socialism," "German Science of Socialism," and "Philosophical Foundation of Socialism," among other things.

The French Socialist and Communist writings were completely neutered. And, because they no longer represented the fight between different classes in Germany, he believed he had beaten "French bias" and was speaking for what's truly right, not just what one group wants. He thought he was representing all people, not just workers, but everyone, even though that's not really possible.

This German Socialism, which took its simple task so seriously and proudly, and praised its limited ideas in such exaggerated way, slowly lost its naive innocence.

The struggle of German and especially Prussian middle-class people against the power of nobles and absolute kings, or the liberal movement, grew more serious.

"Here was the chance 'True' Socialism had long wanted: to challenge the political movement with its own demands. It could now shout its usual insults at liberalism, representative government, and all things 'bourgeois' like competition, free press, laws, and freedoms. It could tell the people they'd gain nothing and lose everything by joining this 'bourgeois' movement. But German Socialism conveniently forgot that the French ideas it copied only made sense in a society with modern businesses, certain economic conditions, and a suitable political system - exactly what Germany was fighting for."

To authoritarian governments, with their support from religious leaders, academics, local nobles, and bureaucrats, it acted as a handy deterrent against the rising middle class.

"After the harsh crackdowns of whippings and shootings by these same governments, which had just happened, it was a welcome relief when the German workers finally saw some progress."

"Meanwhile, this 'True' Socialism was used by governments to fight the German middle class, but it also represented the backwards interests of the German average people. In Germany, the small business owners, a group that's been around since the 1500s and keeps popping up, are the real foundation of the current system."

To keep this group alive means to keep things as they are in Germany. The rich and powerful business owners and politicians are a big threat to them. This is because the rich are getting richer, and the working class is getting stronger and might rebel. "True" Socialism seemed like a great solution to both problems. It spread quickly, like a disease.

German Socialists dressed up their weak ideas in fancy, flowery language, making them seem deep and meaningful. This trick worked well on people who didn't think too deeply. Meanwhile, German Socialism saw itself as the loud, proud voice of average, middle-class people.

It declared Germany the ideal nation, and its average citizen the standard man. It twisted every nasty trait of this model man into something noble and socialist, which was the opposite of the truth. It even claimed to be against the violent nature of communism and said it was above all class fights. Almost all socialist and communist books in Germany at that time (1847) were part of this harmful and weak literature.

"Conservative Socialism, also known as Bourgeois Socialism, is a type of socialism that's not too extreme. It's like a middle ground between full-on socialism and capitalism. Instead of the government owning everything, it just regulates businesses to make sure they treat workers fairly. It's like having a safety net for workers, but not completely changing the way businesses work."

Some members of the middle class want to fix social problems to keep their society going.

This section includes economists, people who want to help others, animal welfare advocates, and various types of reformers. These ideas have been fully developed into detailed plans.

Proudhon's "Philosophy of Poverty" is an example of this.

Socialist middle-class people want all the good things about modern society without dealing with the problems and risks that come with it. They want the current society without the parts that are changing and causing trouble. They want a middle class without a working class. The middle class naturally thinks that the world where it's in charge is the best, so socialist middle-class ideas turn this idea into different plans. When they ask the working class to follow these plans and quickly reach a perfect society, they're really just asking the working class to stay in the current society and stop being angry with the middle class.

This type of socialism tries to make workers think that political changes aren't important. It says that only changes in how people work and live can help workers. But it doesn't mean getting rid of the current system. Instead, it suggests minor changes that keep the system going, like making government work better. These changes don't really help workers and bosses, they just make the government's job easier.

"Bourgeois Socialism really makes sense only when it's just a way of talking."

Free trade: good for workers. Protective tariffs: good for workers. Prison reform: good for workers. That's all the rich want to say about socialism.

"The middle class is middle class—for the benefit of the working class."

"Some people think we should change society drastically to make it fairer. They want everyone to share equally in work and its rewards. They call this 'critical-utopian socialism' or 'communism'."

We're not talking about the books that, during every big modern revolution, have always spoken for the working class, like those by Babeuf and others.

The first efforts by workers to achieve their goals, during times of great excitement when societies based on feudalism were collapsing, naturally failed. This was because workers were not yet organized and the economy wasn't ready for their liberation. Only the upcoming capitalist era could create those conditions. The literature from these early worker movements was mostly negative and promoted extreme equality and self-denial.

The Socialist and Communist ideas, like those of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, and others, start to appear during the early, less developed stage of the fight between the working class and the wealthy class.

The founders of these systems notice class conflicts and society's decay. However, they see the working class, still young, as lacking leadership or independent political action.

"As class conflicts grow with industrial development, the current economic state doesn't provide the resources needed for the working class to free itself. So, they're looking for new ways to understand society and new rules to create these resources."

"History should make way for personal creativity, real-world emancipation for imaginative solutions, and natural class unity for society designed by innovators. Their future vision boils down to promoting and implementing their social ideas."

They mainly focus on helping the working class, as they believe this group faces the most struggles. To them, the proletariat exists only because of these struggles.

"These socialists, because they're new to the class struggle and their surroundings, think they're better than everyone else and above class conflicts. They want to make life better for everyone, even the richest. So, they usually talk to everyone, regardless of class, and even prefer talking to the rich. They believe that once people understand their ideas, everyone will think it's the perfect plan for the perfect society."

They refuse all political and especially revolutionary action; they want to achieve their goals peacefully, trying small experiments that will likely fail, and setting a good example to prepare for the new social message.

"These amazing visions of future society, drawn when the working class is still quite unformed and has only a vague idea of its own role, match the first stirrings of that class's desire for a total overhaul of society."

But these socialist and communist writings also have a critical side. They challenge every rule of the current society. So, they're packed with useful info to educate workers. The ideas they suggest, like ending differences between cities and countryside, families, private businesses, and wages, and declaring social peace, turning the government into just a watch over production—all these aim to get rid of class conflicts that were just starting to show. So, these ideas are more like dreams than real plans.

As the fight between social classes gets more real, ideas like Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism become less useful. The more history unfolds, the less these ideas make sense. So, even though the people who started these ideas were often revolutionary, their followers just become stuck in the past. They cling to the old ideas, even as the working class moves forward. They try to stop the class struggle and make the two sides get along. They still dream of creating perfect societies, like building little communities or colonies, but to do this, they have to ask rich people for help. In the end, they become like the conservative socialists we talked about earlier, just more strict and believing too much in their ideas.

They strongly resist any political moves by workers. They believe such actions only come from a lack of faith in their new message.

The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and the "Reformists."

"Here's how communists see other political parties:

Section II has shown how Communists relate to current working-class parties, like the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.

Communists work to achieve immediate goals and protect current interests of workers. But they also think about the future of their movement. In France, they team up with Social Democrats against conservative and radical business owners. However, they keep the right to criticize old ideas from the French Revolution.

In Switzerland, people back the Radicals, keeping in mind that this group has conflicting parts. Some are Democratic Socialists, like in France, while others are wealthy business supporters.

In Poland, people back the party that demands an agricultural revolution as the main way to gain national freedom. This is the party that started the uprising in Cracow in 1846.

In Germany, they clash with the middle class whenever it acts in a rebellious way, against absolute monarchs, feudal lords, and the lower middle class.

But they never stop, not even for a moment, from teaching the working class to clearly see the strong opposition between the wealthy class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat). They want German workers to use the social and political changes that the wealthy class brings, as tools to fight against them. After the fall of the powerful classes in Germany, the fight against the wealthy class should start right away.

Communists focus mainly on Germany because it's about to have a middle-class revolution under more advanced European conditions and with a more developed working class than England had in the 1700s or France in the 1800s. This middle-class revolution in Germany will likely be followed right away by a working-class revolution.

Communists worldwide back every uprising against the current social and political systems.

In every one of these actions, they put the issue of property at the forefront, regardless of how much it's been discussed at that moment.

"Lastly, they work hard everywhere to unite and align the democratic parties from all countries."

Communists don't hide their beliefs or goals. They clearly say that their goals can only be reached by ending all current social systems. Let the powerful worry about a communist revolution. Workers have nothing to lose but their struggles. They have a whole new world to gain.

"Workers of all countries, come together!"