‘The pervading thought of the manifesto: that the economic production with the social organisation of each historical epoch necessarily resulting therefrom forms the basis for the political and intellectual history of this epoch; that accordingly (since the dissolution of the primitive common property in land) the entire history is a history of class struggles—struggles between exploited and exploiting, ruled and ruling, classes at different stages of social development; but that this struggle has now reached a stage when the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no more free itself from the exploiting and oppressing class (the _bourgeoisie_) without at the same time delivering the whole of society for ever from exploitation, oppression, and class struggles—this pervading thought belongs exclusively and alone to Marx.’ ‘The history of all society hitherto has been the history of class struggles’; such is the keynote of the manifesto. ‘But it is a distinguishing feature of the present time that it has simplified class antagonisms; the entire human society more and more divides itself into two great hostile camps, into two great conflicting classes, _bourgeoisie_ and proletariat.’ The manifesto is for the most part an exposition and discussion of these two classes, the historical conditions under which they have grown up, their mutual relations, past, present, and future. It would not be easy to give a brief analysis of the manifesto, nor is it necessary, as we have, in our chapter on Marx, already given an account of the same views in their maturer and more philosophic expression. The manifesto is a treatise instinct with the fiery energy and enthusiasm of a young revolutionary party, and its doctrines are the doctrines of Marx in a crude, exaggerated, and violent form. In such a pamphlet, written for propaganda, we must not expect the self-restraining moderation of statement, the clear perspective, or the high judicial charity which should characterise a sober historical exposition. The Iron Law of Wages is stated in its hardest and most exaggerated form. To the charge that they desire to abolish private property, its authors reply that individual property, the produce of a man’s own labour, is already abolished. What they desire to abolish is the appropriation of other men’s labour by the capitalist. To the charge that they wish to abolish the family, they reply to the _bourgeoisie_ with a _tu quoque_: ye have already abolished it by the exploitation of women and children in the factories, which has broken up the family ties, through the prevalence of prostitution and the common practice of adultery. The charge of abolishing patriotism they repudiate in the same manner: the workman has no country.