Who invented private property

Karl Marx on property, upbringing, family, wife and fatherland

You are appalled that we want to abolish private property. But in your existing society private property is abolished for nine tenths of its members; it exists precisely because it does not exist for nine tenths. So you reproach us for wanting to abolish property which presupposes the lack of property of the vast majority of society as a necessary condition.

You accuse us with one word of wanting to keep your property. Yes, we want that.

From the moment when labor can no longer be transformed into capital, money, rent, in short, into a social power that can be monopolized, that is, from the moment when personal property can no longer turn into bourgeois, you explain , the person is canceled.

So you confess that by the person you do not understand anyone other than the bourgeois, the bourgeois owner. And this person is supposed to be canceled.

Communism does not take away from anyone the power to appropriate social products, it only takes away the power to subjugate themselves through this appropriation to foreign labor.

It has been objected that with the abolition of private property all activity will cease and a general laziness will break down.

According to this, bourgeois society must long ago have perished from indolence; for those who work in it do not earn, and those who earn in it do not work. The whole concern boils down to the tautology that there is no more wage labor as soon as there is no more capital.

All objections directed against the communist mode of appropriation and production of material products have also been extended to the appropriation and production of intellectual products. Just as the cessation of class property is the cessation of production itself for the bourgeois, so for him the cessation of class formation is identical with the cessation of formation in general. The education, the loss of which he regrets, is for the vast majority of training to become a machine.

But do not argue with us by measuring the abolition of civil property against your bourgeois ideas of freedom, education, law, etc. Your ideas themselves are products of bourgeois production and property relations, just as your right is only the will of your class raised to law, a will whose content is given in the material living conditions of your class.

You share the interested notion in which you transform your relations of production and property from historical relations, which are temporary in the course of production, into eternal laws of nature and reason, with all the ruling classes that have vanished. What you understand for ancient property, what you understand for feudal property, you must no longer understand for bourgeois property.

Lifting the family! Even the most radical ones get excited about this shameful intention of the communists.

What is the present, bourgeois family based on? On capital, on private gain. It exists fully developed only for the bourgeoisie; but it is complemented by the forced lack of family of the proletarians and by public prostitution.

The bourgeois family, of course, disappears with the disappearance of this complement, and both disappear with the disappearance of capital.

Are you accusing us of wanting to end the exploitation of children by their parents? We admit this crime.

But, you say, we abolish the most intimate relationships by replacing domestic education with social education.

And isn't your upbringing also determined by society? Through the social conditions within which you educate, through the more direct or indirect interference of society, through the school, etc.? The communists do not invent the influence of society on education; they only change their character, they wrest education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois sayings about family and upbringing, about the intimate relationship between parents and children, become all the more disgusting the more, as a result of large-scale industry, all family ties for the proletarians are torn and the children are transformed into simple articles of commerce and work tools.

But you communists want to introduce the community of women, the whole bourgeoisie yells at us in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife as a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited collectively and, of course, can only think of anything other than that the fate of communality will also affect women.

Little did he suspect that it was a question of abolishing the position of women as mere instruments of production.

Incidentally, nothing is more ridiculous than the high moral horror of our bourgeoisie at the alleged official communist women’s community. The communists do not need to introduce the community of women, it has almost always existed.

Our bourgeoisie, not satisfied with the fact that the wives and daughters of their proletarians are at their disposal, not to mention official prostitution, find a major pleasure in seducing each other's wives.

Civil marriage is actually the community of wives. At most one could reproach the communists for wanting to establish an official, open-hearted community of women instead of a hypocritically hidden one. Incidentally, it goes without saying that with the abolition of the current relations of production, the community of women emerging from them, i.e. official and unofficial prostitution, will also disappear.

The communists have also been accused of wanting to abolish the fatherland and nationality. The workers have no fatherland. You can't take from them what they don't have. Since the proletariat first has to conquer political rule, rise to a national class, and constitute itself as a nation, it is still national itself, even if by no means in the sense of the bourgeoisie.

The national segregation and antagonisms of peoples are disappearing more and more with the development of the bourgeoisie, with freedom of trade, the world market, the uniformity of industrial production and the living conditions corresponding to it.