Translator’s Introduction (Max Bedacht, 1925)

The years immediately preceding the revolutionary period of 1848 were years of indescribable political misery in Germany. Its several dozens of miniature monarchs were just that many bulwarks of reaction, so much so, that even thinking of a political change was regarded as a major crime and prosecuted as such. It is true there existed a budding capitalist class which dreamt of a unified nation and that possessed aspirations toward acquiring the political rule over this nation. But the behavior of the German bourgeoisie towards its hereditary parasitical princelings has ever been characterized by cowardice, and this cowardice enhanced by fear of the independent revolutionary ambitions of the newly developing proletariat, resulted in the bourgeoisie never permitting its dreams to become inspirations to action. And even when in an unguarded moment they were drawn into the turmoil of the revolutionary struggles in the days of March, 1848, the bourgeois quickly became frightened by their own courage and repaid in decades of slavish servility for the moments of insubordination.

In this stifling atmosphere of pre-revolutionary Germany it was impossible for men with spirit and intelligence to live. For the privilege of thinking, speaking or writing, the best men of the nation paid the price of exile in this period. One need only mention the names of Karl Marx and Heinrich Heine as examples.

During this epoch when the old semi-feudal order in Germany was pregnant with the new, capitalist order, revolutionary thinking was not confined solely to the proletarian elements. The revolutionary circles of German refugees in the large cities of Europe, in Brussels, Paris, London, were therefore by no means heterogeneous groups. Alongside of the proletarian elements, the revolutionary bourgeois intellectuals were quite numerous. Among the proletarian it was the most intelligent and most advanced itinerary journeymen (Handwerksburschen), that dominated. This class, not yet fully proletarianized, had developed its own ideology which found its clearest expression in the theories of one of their number, Wilhelm Weitling, a journeyman tailor.

Thus these groups of emigrant revolutionists developed the queerest ideas and programs for their circles. The Socialist ideas of the ingenious journeyman tailor, Weitling, the teachings and preachings of the revolutionary bourgeois intellectuals in their midst, the influence of the labor movement in the countries in which they lived, like that of the Chartist movement in England and of the Proudhonists or the Blanquists in France—all these together resulted in a theoretical mess extremely conducive to fruitless squabbles that were barren of all practical results and revolutionary activity.

Such were the conditions that prevailed in the circles of revolutionary proletarian emigrants from Germany in Brussels, in Paris and in London in 1847. Repeated attempts were made to unite these groups organizationally, these efforts culminating finally in the organization of the “League of Communists” in 1846. In converting these clubs of philosophizing, debating and quarrelling emigrants into active revolutionary organizations with proletarian predominance, Marx and Engels were tirelessly active. Marx later wrote about these activities as follows “We published simultaneously a number of partly printed and partly lithographed pamphlets, in which we subjected the mixture of French-English Socialism, Communism and German philosophy which at that time represented the secret principles of the League to a merciless criticism; in place of this we tried to spread a scientific understanding of the economic structure of bourgeois society as the only firm theoretical basis, and finally we explained in a popular manner that the question is not the establishment of some Utopian system, but the conscious participation in the historic process of change of society that takes place before our very eyes.”

This positive criticism found a ready echo in the League. In January, 1847, its central bureau, in London, dispatched some representatives to Brussels to invite Marx and Engels to join the League. With the development of a more lucid understanding by the members and the clarification of the purpose of the League itself, the need for a unifying program became daily more obvious. Marx’s indefatigable efforts in Brussels soon succeeded in transforming the Brussels organization into a proletarian revolutionary club. Engels, meanwhile, had gone to Paris, where old revolutionary illusions and new illusionary theories had created a most disastrous ideological chaos in the heads of the members of the League. Engels did his best to disentangle the prevailing confusion.

In an attempt to give the League of Communists a clear program, the London committee prepared a draft entitled, “Confession of Faith,” and sent it to the affiliated clubs for discussion. This draft also reached Paris, where Moses Hess, a “philosophical” Socialist, made what he thought were improvements and prevailed upon the Paris Club to accept this document. But in a later meeting the decision was reversed. Engels writes about the incident in a letter to Marx, dated November, 10, 1847: “I have played an infernal trick on Mosi (Moses Hess). He had forced through a ludicrously improved ‘Confession of Faith.’ Last Friday I took it up in our circle and criticized question after question. Before I had gone through half of them our people declared themselves satisfied. Without opposition I then had a motion passed instructing me to draft a new one.”

Meantime a congress had been called of the League of the Communists to meet in London on November 30, 1847. The purposes of the gathering were to work out a constitution for the League and to adopt a program. In preparation for this, Marx who came to London for this congress from Brussels, and Engels, who represented the group of Paris, had written separate drafts of such a program. Engels evidently had used as a basis for this draft the one that he had prepared in compliance with the instructions given by the Paris League. On November 24, 1847, Engels wrote to Marx: “You had better consider this ‘Confession of Faith’ somewhat. I think we had better drop that catechism form and call the thing ‘Communist Manifesto’; for inasmuch as it must deal more or less with history, the previously accepted style does not fit at all. I’ll bring with me the one that I made here. . . I begin: What is Communism? And then right after the proletariat, origin, difference from former workers, development of antagonisms between proletariat and bourgeoisie, crises, conclusions. In between a number of minor points and finally the policies of the Communists. This one from here has not yet been submitted for adoption; but I think nothing is contained in it against our views.”

This last sentence seems to indicate that Engels’ draft made for the London conference is the same one prepared by him for the Parisian League, while the first part of the letter suggests that there was an understanding between the two friends to make individual drafts for the London gathering and that the form of a catechism should be followed by both.

The “Principles of Communism” herewith published for the first time in English evidently represents the draft of Engels. The manuscript written in German was found among Engels’ posthumous papers.

We know now the final and classical form which the program of the Communists took when it was published ultimately as the “Communist Manifesto.” However, the world fame that this document has achieved does not in the least lessen the value of the Engels’ draft.

The Communist Manifesto is a carefully prepared document. Each one of its sentences stands out like a work of art hewn in granite. Although a document prepared for the political struggles of the hour of its publication and though dealing with problems characteristic of a period long past, the manifesto is not only an historic document, but also a timely source of inspiration for the struggles of today.

The draft of Engels is a manuscript written on the spur of the moment and was never put into final form for publication. Yet we find in it a clear outline of the ideas and gems of historical analysis in which the manifesto excells. The Engels’ draft is proof that the Communist Manifesto is truly the result of the combined efforts of the great intellectual heroes of scientific Communism: Marx and Engels.

The draft, as contained in the discovered manuscript, is not complete. Question No. 9 is unanswered. Questions twenty-two and twenty-three are answered with a remark referring to an earlier manuscript, and as no such manuscript could be found, these questions remain unanswered. For the sake of completeness we will supply, in an appendix, answers to these questions based upon the writings of Frederich Engels or from the Communist Manifesto.

For the convenience of the readers, and to make possible a clear understanding, a number of explanatory notes have been prepared and printed in the appendix.

Clarifying interjections in the text, set in parenthesis, are supplied by the translator.

Chicago, April, 1925. Max Bedacht.