《英國工人階級狀況》1892年 英文版序言

Engels. The Condition of the Working Class in England Preface to the English Edition Source: Marx Engels On Britain, Progress Publishers 1953; Written: by Frederick Engels, London, January 11th, 1892; First Published: in the English edition of The Condition of the Working-Class in England, New York, 1892; Transcribed: by Andy Blunden.

《英國工人階級狀況》

Preface to the English Edition 1892    The book, an English translation of which is here republished, was first issued in Germany in 1845. The author, at that time, was young, twenty-four years of age, and his production bears the stamp of his youth with its good and its faulty features, of neither of which he feels ashamed. It was translated into English, in 1885, by an American lady, Mrs. F. Kelley Wischnewetzky, and published in the following year in New York. The American edition being as good as exhausted, and having never been extensively circulated on this side of the Atlantic, the present English copyright edition is brought out with the full consent of all parties interested. For the American edition, a new Preface and an Appendix were written in English by the author. The first had little to do with the book itself; it discussed the American Working-Class Movement of the day, and is, therefore, here omitted as irrelevant; the second — the original preface — is largely made use of in the present introductory remarks. The state of things described in this book belongs to-day, in many respects, to the past, as far as England is concerned. Though not expressly stated in our recognised treatises, it is still a law of modern Political Economy that the larger the scale on which capitalistic production is carried on, the less can it support the petty devices of swindling and pilfering which characterise its early stages. The pettifogging business tricks of the Polish Jew, the representative in Europe of commerce in its lowest stage, those tricks that serve him so well in his own country, and are generally practised there, he finds to be out of date and out of place when he comes to Hamburg or Berlin; and, again, the commission agent who hails from Berlin or Hamburg, Jew or Christian, after frequenting the Manchester Exchange for a few months, finds out that in order to buy cotton yarn or cloth cheap, he, too, had better drop those slightly more refined but still miserable wiles and subterfuges which are considered the acme of cleverness in his native country. The fact is, those tricks do not pay any longer in a large market, where time is money, and where a certain standard of commercial morality is unavoidably developed, purely as a means of saving time and trouble. And it is the same with the relation between the manufacturer and his “hands.” The revival of trade, after the crisis of 1847, was the dawn of a new industrial epoch. The repeal of the Corn Laws[1] and the financial reforms subsequent thereon gave to English industry and commerce all the elbow-room they had asked for. The discovery of the Californian and Australian gold-fields followed in rapid succession. The colonial markets developed at an increasing rate their capacity for absorbing English manufactured goods. In India millions of hand-weavers were finally crushed out by the Lancashire power-loom. China was more and more being opened up. Above all, the United States — then, commercially speaking, a mere colonial market, but by far the biggest of them all — underwent an economic development astounding even for that rapidly progressive country. And, finally, the new means of communication introduced at the close of the preceding period — railways and ocean steamers — were now worked out on an international scale; they realised actually what had hitherto existed only potentially, a world-market. This world-market, at first, was composed of a number of chiefly or entirely agricultural countries grouped around one manufacturing centre — England which consumed the greater part of their surplus raw produce, and supplied them in return with the greater part of their requirements in manufactured articles. No wonder England’s industrial progress was colossal and unparalleled, and such that the status of 1844 now appears to us as comparatively primitive and insignificant. And in proportion as this increase took place, in the same proportion did manufacturing industry become apparently moralised. The competition of manufacturer against manufacturer by means of petty thefts upon the workpeople did no longer pay. Trade had outgrown such low means of making money; they were not worth while practising for the manufacturing millionaire, and served merely to keep alive the competition of smaller traders, thankful to pick up a penny wherever they could. Thus the truck system was suppressed, the Ten Hours’ Bill [2] was enacted, and a number of other secondary reforms introduced — much against the spirit of Free Trade and unbridled competition, but quite as much in favour of the giant-capitalist in his competition with his less favoured brother. Moreover, the larger the concern, and with it the number of hands, the greater the loss and inconvenience caused by every conflict between master and men; and thus a new spirit came over the masters, especially the large ones, which taught them to avoid unnecessary squabbles, to acquiesce in the existence and power of Trades’ Unions, and finally even to discover in strikes — at opportune times — a powerful means to serve their own ends. The largest manufacturers, formerly the leaders of the war against the working-class, were now the foremost to preach peace and harmony. And for a very good reason. The fact is that all these concessions to justice and philanthropy were nothing else but means to accelerate the concentration of capital in the hands of the few, for whom the niggardly extra extortions of former years had lost all importance and had become actual nuisances; and to crush all the quicker and all the safer their smaller competitors, who could not make both ends meet without such perquisites. Thus the development of production on the basis of the capitalistic system has of itself sufficed — at least in the leading industries, for in the more unimportant branches this is far from being the case — to do away with all those minor grievances which aggravated the workman’s fate during its earlier stages. And thus it renders more and more evident the great central fact that the cause of the miserable condition of the working-class is to be sought, not in these minor grievances, but in the capitalistic system itself. The wage-worker sells to the capitalist his labour-power for a certain daily sum. After a few hours’ work he has reproduced the value of that sum; but the substance of his contract is, that he has to work another series of hours to complete his working-day; and the value he produces during these additional hours of surplus labour is surplus value, which costs the capitalist nothing, but yet goes into his pocket. That is the basis of the system which tends more and more to split up civilised society into a few Rothschilds and Vanderbilts, the owners of all the means of production and subsistence, on the one hand, and an immense number of wage-workers, the owners of nothing but their labour-power, on the other. And that this result is caused, not by this or that secondary grievance, but by the system itself — this fact has been brought out in bold relief by the development of Capitalism in England since 1847. Again, the repeated visitations of cholera, typhus, small-pox, and other epidemics have shown the British bourgeois the urgent necessity of sanitation in his towns and cities, if he wishes to save himself and family from falling victims to such diseases. Accordingly, the most crying abuses described in this book have either disappeared or have been made less conspicuous. Drainage has been introduced or improved, wide avenues have been opened out athwart many of the worst “slums” I had to describe. “Little Ireland” [3] had disappeared, and the “Seven Dials” [4] are next on the list for sweeping away. But what of that? Whole districts which in 1844 I could describe as almost idyllic have now, with the growth of the towns, fallen into the same state of dilapidation, discomfort, and misery. Only the pigs and the heaps of refuse are no longer tolerated. The bourgeoisie have made further progress in the art of hiding the distress of the working-class. But that, in regard to their dwellings, no substantial improvement has taken place is amply proved by the Report of the Royal Commission “on the Housing of the Poor,” 1885. And this is the case, too, in other respects. Police regulations have been plentiful as blackberries; but they can only hedge in the distress of the workers, they cannot remove it. But while England has thus outgrown the juvenile state of capitalist exploitation described by me, other countries have only just attained it. France, Germany, and especially America, are the formidable competitors who, at this moment — as foreseen by me in 1844 — are more and more breaking up England’s industrial monopoly. Their manufactures are young as compared with those of England, but increasing at a far more rapid rate than the latter; and, curious enough, they have at this moment arrived at about the same phase of development as English manufacture in 1844. With regard to America, the parallel is indeed most striking. True, the external surroundings in which the working-class is placed in America are very different, but the same economical laws are at work, and the results, if not identical in every respect, must still be of the same order. Hence we find in America the same struggles for a shorter working-day, for a legal limitation of the working-time, especially of women and children in factories; we find the truck-system in full blossom, and the cottage-system, in rural districts, made use of by the “bosses” as a means of domination over the workers. When I received, in 1886, the American papers with accounts of the great strike of 12,000 Pennsylvanian coal-miners in the Connellsville district, I seemed but to read my own description of the North of England colliers’ strike of 1844. The same cheating of the workpeople by false measure; the same truck-system the same attempt to break the miners’ resistance by the capitalists’ last, but crushing, resource, — the eviction of the men out of their dwellings, the cottages owned by the companies. I have not attempted, in this translation, to bring the book up to date, or to point out in detail all the changes that have taken place since 1844. And for two reasons: Firstly, to do this properly, the size of the book must be about doubled; and, secondly, the first volume of “Das Kapital,” by Karl Marx, an English translation of which is before the public, contains a very ample description of the state of the British working-class, as it was about 1865, that is to say, at the time when British industrial prosperity reached its culminating point. I should, then, have been obliged again to go over the ground already covered by Marx’s celebrated work. It will be hardly necessary to point out that the general theoretical standpoint of this book — philosophical, economical, political — does not exactly coincide with my standpoint of to-day. Modern international Socialism, since fully developed as a science, chiefly and almost exclusively through the efforts of Marx, did not as yet exist in 1844. My book represents one of the phases of its embryonic development; and as the human embryo, in its early stages, still reproduces the gill-arches of our fish-ancestors, so this book exhibits everywhere the traces of the descent of Modern Socialism from one of its ancestors, German philosophy. Thus great stress is laid on the dictum that Communism is not a mere party doctrine of the working-class, but a theory compassing the emancipation of society at large, including the capitalist class, from its present narrow conditions. This is true enough in the abstract, but absolutely useless, and sometimes worse, in practice. So long as the wealthy classes not only do not feel the want of any emancipation, but strenuously oppose the self-emancipation of the working-class, so long the social revolution will have to be prepared and fought out by the working-class alone. The French bourgeois of 1789, too, declared the emancipation of the bourgeoisie to be the emancipation of the whole human race; but the nobility and clergy would not see it; the proposition — though for the time being, with respect to feudalism, an abstract historical truth — soon became a mere sentimentalism, and disappeared from view altogether in the fire of the revolutionary struggle. And to-day, the very people who, from the “impartiality” of their superior standpoint, preach to the workers a Socialism soaring high above their class interests and class struggles, and tending to reconcile in a higher humanity the interests of both the contending classes — these people are either neophytes, who have still to learn a great deal, or they are the worst enemies of the workers — wolves in sheep’s clothing. The recurring period of the great industrial crisis is stated in the text as five years. This was the period apparently indicated by the course of events from 1825 to 1842. But the industrial history from 1842 to 1868 has shown that the real period is one of ten years; that the intermediate revulsions were secondary, and tended more and more to disappear. Since 1868 the state of things has changed again, of which more anon. I have taken care not to strike out of the text the many prophecies, amongst others that of an imminent social revolution in England, which my youthful ardour induced me to venture upon. The wonder is, not that a good many of them proved wrong, but that so many of them have proved right, and that the critical state of English trade, to be brought on by Continental and especially American competition, which I then foresaw — though in too short a period — has now actually come to pass. In this respect I can, and am bound to, bring the book up to date, by placing here an article which I published in the London Commonweal of March 1, 1885, under the heading: “England in 1845 and in 1885” It gives at the same time a short outline of the history of the English working-class during these forty years, and is as follows: “Forty years ago England stood face to face with a crisis, solvable to all appearances by force only. The immense and rapid development of manufactures had outstripped the extension of foreign markets and the increase of demand. Every ten years the march of industry was violently interrupted by a general commercial crash, followed, after a long period of chronic depression, by a few short years of prosperity, and always ending in feverish over-production and consequent renewed collapse. The capitalist class clamoured for Free Trade in corn, and threatened to enforce it by sending the starving population of the towns back to the country districts whence they came, to invade them, as John Bright said, not as paupers begging for bread, but as an army quartered upon the enemy. The working masses of the towns demanded their share of political power — the People’s Charter; they were supported by the majority of the small trading class, and the only difference between the two was whether the Charter should be carried by physical or by moral force. Then came the commercial crash of 1847 and the Irish famine, and with both the prospect of revolution. “The French Revolution of 1848 saved the English middle-class. The Socialistic pronunciamentos of the victorious French workmen frightened the small middle-class of England and disorganised the narrower, but more matter-of-fact movement of the English working-class. At the very moment when Chartism was bound to assert itself in its full strength, it collapsed internally before even it collapsed externally on the 10th of April, 1848[5] . The action of the working-class was thrust into the background. The capitalist class triumphed along the whole line. “The Reform Bill of 1831[6] had been the victory of the whole capitalist class over the landed aristocracy. The repeal of the Corn Laws was the victory of the manufacturing capitalist not only over the landed aristocracy, but over those sections of capitalists, too, whose interests were more or less bound up with the landed interest — bankers, stock-jobbers, fund-holders, etc. Free Trade meant the re-adjustment of the whole home and foreign, commercial and financial policy of England in accordance with the interests of the manufacturing capitalists — the class which now represented the nation. And they set about this task with a will. Every obstacle to industrial production was mercilessly removed. The tariff and the whole system of taxation were revolutionised. Everything was made subordinate to one end, but that end of the utmost importance to the manufacturing capitalist: the cheapening of all raw produce, and especially of the means of living of the working-class; the reduction of the cost of raw material, and the keeping down — if not as yet the bringing down of wages. England was to become the ‘workshop of the world'; all other countries were to become for England what Ireland already was — markets for her manufactured goods, supplying her in return with raw materials and food. England, the great manufacturing centre of an agricultural world, with an ever-increasing number of corn and cotton-growing Irelands revolving around her, the industrial sun. What a glorious prospect! “The manufacturing capitalists set about the realisation of this their great object with that strong common sense and that contempt for traditional principles which has ever distinguished them from their more narrow-minded compeers on the Continent. Chartism was dying out. The revival of commercial prosperity, natural after the revulsion of 1847 had spent itself, was put down altogether to the credit of Free Trade. Both these circumstances had turned the English working-class, politically, into the tail of the ‘great Liberal Party,’ the party led by the manufacturers. This advantage, once gained, had to be perpetuated. And the manufacturing capitalists, from the Chartist opposition, not to Free Trade, but to the transformation of Free Trade into the one vital national question, had learnt, and were learning more and more, that the middle-class can never obtain full social and political power over the nation except by the help of the working-class. Thus a gradual change came over the relations between both classes. The Factory Acts, once the bugbear of all manufacturers, were not only willingly submitted to, but their expansion into acts regulating almost all trades was tolerated. Trades’ Unions, hitherto considered inventions of the devil himself, were now petted and patronised as perfectly legitimate institutions, and as useful means of spreading sound economical doctrines amongst the workers. Even strikes, than which nothing had been more nefarious up to 1848, were now gradually found out to be occasionally very useful, especially when provoked by the masters themselves, at their own time. Of the legal enactments, placing the workman at a lower level or at a disadvantage with regard to the master, at least the most revolting were repealed. And, practically, that horrid ‘People’s Charter’ actually became the political programme of the very manufacturers who had opposed it to the last. ‘The Abolition of the Property Qualification’ and ‘Vote by Ballot’ are now the law of the land. The Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884[7] make a near approach to ‘universal suffrage,’ at least such as it now exists in Germany; the Redistribution Bill now before Parliament creates ‘equal electoral districts’ — on the whole not more unequal than those of Germany; ‘payment of members,’ and shorter, if not actually ‘annual Parliaments,’ are visibly looming in the distance — and yet there are people who say that Chartism is dead. “The Revolution of 1848, not less than many of its predecessors, has had strange bedfellows and successors. The very people who put it down have become, as Karl Marx used to say, its testamentary executors. Louis Napoleon had to create an independent and united Italy, Bismarck had to revolutionise Germany and to restore Hungarian independence, and the English manufacturers had to enact the People’s Charter. “For England, the effects of this domination of the manufacturing capitalists were at first startling. Trade revived and extended to a degree unheard of even in this cradle of modern industry; the previous astounding creations of steam and machinery dwindled into nothing compared with the immense mass of productions of the twenty years from 1850 to 1870, with the overwhelming figures of exports and imports, of wealth accumulated in the hands of capitalists and of human working power concentrated in the large towns. The progress was indeed interrupted, as before, by a crisis every ten years, in 1857 as well as in 1866; but these revulsions were now considered as natural, inevitable events, which must be fatalistically submitted to, and which always set themselves right in the end. “And the condition of the working-class during this period? There was temporary improvement even for the great mass. But this improvement always was reduced to the old level by the influx of the great body of the unemployed reserve, by the constant superseding of hands by new machinery, by the immigration of the agricultural population, now, too, more and more superseded by machines. “A permanent improvement can be recognised for two ‘protected’ sections only of the working-class. Firstly, the factory hands. The fixing by Act of Parliament of their working-day within relatively rational limits has restored their physical constitution and endowed them with a moral superiority, enhanced by their local concentration. They are undoubtedly better off than before 1848. The best proof is that, out of ten strikes they make, nine are provoked by the manufacturers in their own interests, as the only means of securing a reduced production. You can never get the masters to agree to work ‘short time,’ let manufactured goods be ever so unsaleable; but get the work-people to strike, and the masters shut their factories to a man. “Secondly, the great Trades’ Unions. They are the organisations of those trades in which the labour of grown-up men predominates, or is alone applicable. Here the competition neither of women and children nor of machinery has so far weakened their organised strength. The engineers, the carpenters and joiners, the bricklayers, are each of them a power, to that extent that, as in the case of the bricklayers and bricklayers’ labourers, they can even successfully resist the introduction of machinery. That their condition has remarkably improved since 1848 there can be no doubt, and the best proof of this is in the fact that for more than fifteen years not only have their employers been with them, but they with their employers, upon exceedingly good terms. They form an aristocracy among the working-class; they have succeeded in enforcing for themselves a relatively comfortable position, and they accept it as final. They are the model working-men of Messrs. Leone Levi & Giffen, and they are very nice people indeed nowadays to deal with, for any sensible capitalist in particular and for the whole capitalist class in general. “But as to the great mass of working-people, the state of misery and insecurity in which they live now is as low as ever, if not lower. The East End of London is an ever-spreading pool of stagnant misery and desolation, of starvation when out of work, and degradation, physical and moral, when in work. And so in all other large towns — abstraction made of the privileged minority of the workers; and so in the smaller towns and in the agricultural districts. The law which reduces the value of labour-power to the value of the necessary means of subsistence, and the other law which reduces its average price, as a rule, to the minimum of those means of subsistence, these laws act upon them with the irresistible force of an automatic engine which crushes them between its wheels. “This, then, was the position created by the Free Trade policy of 1847, and by twenty years of the rule of the manufacturing capitalists. But then a change came. The crash of 1866 was, indeed, followed by a slight and short revival about 1873; but that did not last. We did not, indeed, pass through the full crisis at the time it was due, in 1877 or 1878; but we have had, ever since 1876, a chronic state of stagnation in all dominant branches of industry. Neither will the full crash come; nor will the period of longed-for prosperity to which we used to be entitled before and after it. A dull depression, a chronic glut of all markets for all trades, that is what we have been living in for nearly ten years. How is this? “The Free Trade theory was based upon one assumption: that England was to be the one great manufacturing centre of an agricultural world. And the actual fact is that this assumption has turned out to be a pure delusion. The conditions of modern industry, steam-power and machinery, can be established wherever there is fuel, especially coals. And other countries besides England — France, Belgium, Germany, America, even Russia — have coals. And the people over there did not see the advantage of being turned into Irish pauper farmers merely for the greater wealth and glory of English capitalists. They set resolutely about manufacturing, not only for themselves, but for the rest of the world; and the consequence is that the manufacturing monopoly enjoyed by England for nearly a century is irretrievably broken up. “But the manufacturing monopoly of England is the pivot of the present social system of England. Even while that monopoly lasted, the markets could not keep pace with the increasing productivity of English manufacturers; the decennial crises were the consequence. And new markets are getting scarcer every day, so much so that even the Negroes of the Congo are now to be forced into the civilisation attendant upon Manchester calicos, Staffordshire pottery, and Birmingham hardware. How will it be when Continental, and especially American, goods flow in in with ever-increasing quantities — when the predominating share, still held by British manufacturers, will become reduced from year to year? Answer, Free Trade, thou universal panacea. “I am not the first to point this out. Already in 1883, at the Southport meeting of the British Association,[8] Mr. Inglis Palgrave, the President of the Economic section, stated plainly that ‘the days of great trade profits in England were over, and there was a pause in the progress of several great branches of industrial labour. The country might almost be said to be entering the non-progressive state.’ “But what is to be the consequence? Capitalist production cannot stop. It must go on increasing and expanding, or it must die. Even now the mere reduction of England’s lion’s share in the supply of the world’s markets means stagnation, distress, excess of capital here, excess of unemployed workpeople there. What will it be when the increase of yearly production is brought to a complete stop? “Here is the vulnerable place, the heel of Achilles, for capitalistic production. Its very basis is the necessity of constant expansion, and this constant expansion now becomes impossible. It ends in a deadlock. Every year England is brought nearer face to face with the question: either the country must go to pieces, or capitalist production must. Which is it to be? “And the working-class? If even under the unparalleled commercial and industrial expansion, from 1848 to 1868, they have had to undergo such misery; if even then the great bulk of them experienced at best but a temporary improvement of their condition, while only a small, privileged, ‘protected’ minority was permanently benefited, what will it be when this dazzling period is brought finally to a close; when the present dreary stagnation shall not only become intensified, but this, its intensified condition, shall become the permanent and normal state of English trade? “The truth is this: during the period of England’s industrial monopoly the English working-class have, to a certain extent, shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were very unequally parcelled out amongst them; the privileged minority pocketed most, but even the great mass had, at least, a temporary share now and then. And that is the reason why, since the dying-out of Owenism, there has been no Socialism in England. With the breakdown of that monopoly, the English working-class will lose that privileged position; it will find itself generally — the privileged and leading minority not excepted on a level with its fellow-workers abroad. And that is the reason why there will be Socialism again in England.” To this statement of the case, as that case appeared to me In 1885, I have but little to add. Needless to say that to-day there is indeed “Socialism again in England,” and plenty of it — Socialism — Socialism of all shades: Socialism conscious and unconscious, Socialism prosaic and poetic, Socialism of the working-class and of the middle-class, for, verily, that abomination of abominations, Socialism, has not only become respectable, but has actually donned evening dress and lounges lazily on drawing-room causeuses. That shows the incurable fickleness of that terrible despot of “society,” middle-class public opinion, and once more justifies the contempt in which we Socialists of a past generation always held that public opinion. At the same time we have no reason to grumble at the symptom itself. What I consider far more important than this momentary fashion among bourgeois circles of affecting a mild dilution of Socialism, and even more than the actual progress Socialism has made in England generally, that is the revival of the East End of London. That immense haunt of misery is no longer the stagnant pool it was six years ago. It has shaken off its torpid despair, has returned to life, and has become the home of what is called the “New Unionism,” that is to say, of the organisation of the great mass of “unskilled” workers. This organisation may to a great extent adopt the form of the old Unions of “skilled” workers but it is essentially different in character. The old Unions preserve the traditions of the time when they were, founded, and look upon the wages system as a once-for-all established, final fact, which they at best can modify in the interest of their members. The new Unions were founded at a time when the faith in the eternity of the wages system was severely shaken; their founders and promoters were Socialists either consciously or by feeling; the masses, whose adhesion gave them strength, were rough, neglected, looked down upon by the working-class aristocracy; but they had this immense advantage, that their minds were virgin soil, entirely free from the inherited “respectable” bourgeois prejudices which hampered the brains of the better situated “old” Unionists. And thus we see now these new Unions taking the lead of the working-class movement generally, and more and more taking in tow the rich and proud “old” Unions. Undoubtedly, the East Enders have committed colossal blunders; so have their predecessors, and so do the doctrinaire Socialists who pooh-pooh them. A large class, like a great nation, never learns better or quicker than by undergoing the consequences of its own mistakes. And for all the faults committed in past, present and future, the revival of the East End of London remains one of the greatest and most fruitful facts of this fin de siècle, and glad and proud I am to have lived to see it.[9] --------------------- Notes 1. Corn Laws: High grain tariffs adopted by the British Parliament in 1815 in the interest of the landlords. The laws prohibited the importation of grain if its price within the country was less than 80 shillings a quarter. An extremely heavy burden on the poor, the Corn Laws were a disadvantage also to the industrial bourgeoisie since they made labour-power clearer, shrank the home market and hampered the development of foreign trade. They were repealed in 1846. 2.Ten-Hours’ Bill: Adopted by the British Parliament on June 8, 1847. It applied only to juveniles 13-18 years old and to women workers. 3. Little Ireland: A working-class district in Manchester during the forties of the past century. 4. Seven Dials: A working-class district in the centre of London. 5. The Chartist Convent called for April 10, 1848 a mass meeting in London and a demonstration of the workers for the purpose of submitting a new petition to Parliament. Should the latter refuse to endorse the People’s. Charter, a demand raised in the petition, the Convent intended to start an uprising. However, as a result of the measures taken by the Government — it had inundated the capital with police, troops and armed bourgeois. detachments — as well as the unpreparedness of the Chartists for decisive action and the irresolution of their leaders, the demonstration was a failure. The petition which the Chartist leader O'Connor had ordered transported to Parliament was not even discussed by the House of Commons. 6. The first electoral reform bill was introduced in Parliament in March 1831 and adopted in June 1832. It put an end to the political monopoly of the landed aristocracy, bankers and usurers. In consequence of the treachery of the bourgeois Radicals, who made use of the mass labour movement for the universal franchise merely to promote their own interests, the law of 1832 fixed high property qualifications in the towns (10 pounds) and counties (50 pounds), thus first opening the doors of Parliament only to representatives of the industrial bourgeoisie. The proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie remained disfranchised. 7. In spite of the mass movement of the workers for universal suffrage the second electoral reform law, owing to the treachery of the opportunist trade-union leaders, granted the franchise only to house-owners, householders and tenants of flats who paid an annual rent of no less than £10. Thus, only the labour aristocracy was enfranchised; the mass of urban workers, the small farmers and the rural proletariat did not receive the right to vote under this measure, which was adopted on August 15, 1867. A third .election reform, carried out in 1884 under mass pressure in the rural areas, merely extended the 1867 law to rural districts without satisfying the demands of the farm workers. About two million men and all women were still barred from the polls after the third reform. 8. The British Association for the Advancement of Science: A society founded in Britain at the beginning of the nineteenth century and still existing. The transactions of its annual sessions are published in the form of reports. In the nineteenth century it counted no few progressive figures but at present its position is reactionary in both politics and science. 9. In his Preface to the second German edition of The Condition of the Working-Class in England Engels quoted a passage from the above English Preface and then added the following in conclusion:    “Since I wrote the above, six months ago, the English working-class movement has again made a big step forward. The parliamentary elections which took place the other day have given formal notice to both official parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, that both of them would thereafter have to reckon with a third party, the workers’ party. This workers’ party is only just being formed; its elements are still occupied with casting off traditional prejudices of every sort — bourgeois, old trade-unionist and even doctrinaire-socialist — so that they may finally be able to get together on a basis common to all of them. And yet the instinct to unite which they followed was already so great that it produced election results hitherto unheard-of in England. In London two workers stood for election, and openly as Socialists at that; the Liberals did not dare to put up their own men against them and the two Socialists won by overwhelming and unexpected majorities. In Middlesbrough a workers’ candidate contested a seat with a Liberal and a Conservative and was elected In spite of the two; on the other hand, the new workers’ candidates who bad made compacts with the Liberals failed hopelessly of election, with the exception of a single one. Among the former so-called workers’ representatives, that is, those people who are forgiven their being members of the working-class because they themselves would like to drawn their quality of being workers in the ocean of their liberalism, Henry Broadhurst, the most important representative of the old unionism, was completely snowed under because he came out against the eight-hour day. In two Glasgow, one Salford and several other constituencies, independent workers’ candidates ran against candidates of both the old parties. They were beaten, but so were the Liberal candidates. In short, in a number of big city and industrial election districts the workers have definitely severed all ties with the two old parties and thus achieved direct or indirect successes, beyond anything witnessed in any previous election. And boundless is the joy thereof among the working people. For the first time they have seen and felt what they can achieve by using their suffrage in the interest of their class. The spell which the superstitious belief in the ‘great Liberal Party’ cast over the English workers for almost 40 years is broken. They have seen by dint of striking examples that they, the workers, are the decisive power in England if they only want to and know what they want; and the elections of 1892 marked the beginning of such knowing and wanting. The Continental workers’ movement will take care of the rest. By their further successes the Germans and the French, who are already so numerously represented in their Parliaments and local councils, will keep the spirit of emulation of the English going at a quite adequate pace. And if in the not very distant future it appears that this new Parliament cannot get anywhere with Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Gladstone cannot get anywhere with this Parliament, the English workers’ party will surely be sufficiently constituted to put an early end to the seesaw of the two old parties, who have been succeeding each other in office and by this very means perpetuating the rule of the bourgeoisie.”

1892年英文版序言[264]     本書是再版的英譯本。原書最初於1845年在德國出版。那時作者還年輕，只有二十四歲，所以這本著作就帶有作者青年時代的烙印，反映著他青年時代的優點和缺點；但是無論優點或缺點，現在都並不使他感到有什麼羞愧。這本書於1886年由美國 弗·凱利-威士涅威茨基夫人 譯成英文，次年在紐約出版。由於美國版已銷售一空殆盡，而且從未在大西洋此岸廣泛流傳，現經有關各方一致同意，將英譯本再版印行。 作者曾用英文 為 美國版 寫過一篇新的序言[265]和一篇附錄。那篇序言同本書正文關係不大，其中談的是現代美國工人運動，因此在這裡作為与主題無關的部分略去；而附錄——原來的序言——則大部分被採用在本序言中。 這本書裡所描寫的情況，就英國而言，現在在很多方面都已成為過去。現代政治經濟學的規律之一（雖然通行的教科書裡沒有明確提出）就是：資本主義生產愈發展，它就愈不能採用作為它早期階段的特徵的那些瑣細的哄騙和欺詐手段，它就愈不能採用。波蘭猶太人 即歐洲商業發展最初低階段的代表的那些瑣細的騙人伎倆，那些狡猾手段，使他們在本國獲得很多好處， 並為大家所通用的狡猾手段，而只要一到漢堡 或 柏林，就顯得陳舊過時，不合用了。同樣，一個經紀人，猶太人也好，基督徒也好，如果 從柏林或 漢堡 來到 曼徹斯特 交易所 呆上幾個月，他就會發現，要想廉價購入棉紗或布匹，最好還是放棄那一套固然已經稍加改進 但到底還很低劣的手段和手腕，雖然這些手段和手腕 在他本國被看作智慧的頂峰。的確，這些狡猾手腕，在大市場上，不會得逞已經不合算了，那裡 時間就是金錢，那裡 商業道德必然發展到一定的水平，其所以如此，純粹是為了節約時間和麻烦勞動。在工廠主對待工人的關係上，情況也正是這樣。 1847年危機以後的工商業復甦，是新的工業時代的開端。穀物法[266]的廢除 及 由此而引起的財政改革，給英國工商業提供了它們發展所必需的地盤。此後，很快又在 加利福尼亞 和 澳大利亞 發現了金礦。殖民地市場吸收英國工業品的能力一天天增長起來。郎卡郡的動力織機 使千百萬 印度 手工織工 陷於失业边缘徹底的滅亡。中國的門戶日益被打開。最主要的一點是：美國——從商業觀點看來 當時只是一個殖民地市場，雖然是遠遠超過所有其他殖民地市場的最大的一個——經濟發展的速度，甚至對這個進展神速的國家講來也是空前的。此外，前一時期未出現的新的交通工具——鐵路和海洋汽船——現在已經在國際範圍內應用起來；它們事實上創造了以前只是潛在著的世界市場。這個世界市場 最初是由一些以農業為主 或純粹從事農業的國家所組成的，這些國家都圍繞著一個工業中心——英國。英國消費它們的大部分過剩原料，同時又滿足它們對工業品的大部分需要。無怪乎英國工業獲得了這樣巨大的和空前的發展，以致1844年的狀況， 同它比起來 現在看來，都顯得是原始的 和 微不足道的了。与這樣的發展同時，大工業看起來也有了某些道德準則。工廠主靠著對工人進行压低工资瑣細偷竊的辦法來互相競爭已經没什么作用不合算了。事商業的發展，已經不允許再使用這些低劣的謀取金賺錢的手段，不會有作為；這些手段，對擁資百萬的工廠主說來，已毫無意義，僅僅對那些在任何地方 只要能抓住一文賺到一点錢就很高興的較小的生意人 彼此之間保持競爭還有用處。這樣，實物工資制［truck-system］被取消了，通過了十小時工作日法案[267]，並且實行了一大串比較次要的其他改良措施，——這十分实在違反自由貿易和無限制競爭的精神，但是卻十分有利於同條件較差的同行競爭的大資本家。此外，企業規模愈大，僱用的工人愈多，工廠主每次同工人發生衝突時 所遭受的損失和困難 也就愈多。因此，工廠主們，尤其是大的工廠主們，就感染有了一種新的精神，他們學會了避免不必要的糾紛，默認工聯的存在和势力量，最後甚至把罷工——發生得適時的罷工——看作是實現他們自己的目的的有力手段。過去哪些帶頭同工人階級作鬥爭的最大的工廠主們，現在卻首先起來鼓吹和平与和協調了。他們這樣做是有很充分的理由的。所有這些對正義和仁愛的讓步，事實上只是使資本加速積聚於少數人 手中的手段，——對他們說來 早年的那種小器的額外勒索 已經毫無意義，而且成了嚴重的障礙——手中的手段，是最迅速而有效地消滅 沒有這種額外收入 就不能維持下去的小競爭者的手段。這樣，——至少是起码在主要的工業部門中，因為在次要的工業部門中遠不是這樣——在資本主義基礎上進行的生產的發展本身已經足以免除所有那些在這一發展的較早階段使工人命運惡化的小的欺壓現象。這樣一來，下面這件重大的基本事實就愈來愈明顯了：工人階級處境悲慘的原因不應當到這些小的欺壓現像中去尋找，而應當到資本主義制度本身中去尋找。僱傭工人為取得每天的一定數目的報酬而把自己的勞動力賣給資本家。在不多的幾小時工作之後，他就把這筆工資的價值再生產出來了。但是，根據合同的實際內容，工人必須再工作好幾小時，以便完成一個工作日。工人用這個附加的幾小時剩餘勞動 創造出來的價值，就是剩餘價值。這個剩餘價值不破費資本家一文錢，但仍然落入資本家的腰包。這就是這樣一個制度的基礎，這個制度使文明社會愈來愈分裂成兩部分，一方面是一小撮路特希爾德們和萬德比爾特們，全部生產資料和消費資料的所有者，另一方面是廣大的僱傭工人群眾，他們除了自己的勞動力之外 一無所有。產生這個結果的，並不是某些小的欺壓現象而是制度本身，——這個事實已從英國資本主義1847年以來的發展過程中 十分鮮明地顯示出來。 其次，霍亂、傷寒、天花以及其他流行病的一再發生，使英國資產者懂得了，如果他想使自己以及自己的家人不致成為這些疾病的犧牲者，就必須立即着手改善自己城市的衛生狀況。因此，這本書裡所描寫的那些最令人觸目驚心的惡劣現象，現在或者已被消除，或者已經不那樣明顯。下水道已經修築起來或改善了；在我不得不描寫的那些最壞的“貧民窟”中間，有許多地方修建了寬闊的街道；“小愛爾蘭”已經消失了，“七日規”跟着也將被清除。[268] 但是這有什麼意義呢？1844年時我還能用幾乎是田園詩的筆調來描寫的地區，幽雅清靜，而現在，隨著城市的發展，已經整批 ​​整批地陷入了同樣破落、荒涼和窮困的境地。只是豬和垃圾堆 再也看不到了。資產階級掩飾工人階級災難的手法又進了一步。但是，在工人住宅方面並沒有任何重大的改善，這一點 從1885年皇家委員會“關於窮人的居住條件”的報告中[269] 可以明顯地看到。其他各方面的情形也都是這樣。警察局的限制命令多得像雪片一樣，但它們只能把工人的窮困狀況包藏起來，而不能把這種狀況消除。 但是，如果說英國現在已度過了我所描寫的這個資本主義剝削的青少年時期，那末 其他國家則剛剛踏進這個時期。法國、德國、尤其是美國，這些強大可怕的競争对手敵手，它們如同我在1844年所預見的一樣，正在日益摧毀英國的工業壟斷地位。它們的工業比英國的工業年輕，但是其成長卻迅速得多，而且，看起來很有趣，現在已經達到与1844年英國工業大致相同的發展階段。拿美國來比較，情況特別明顯。當然，美國工人階級所處的外部環境和英國工人很不相同，但是，無論在英國或美國，都是同樣的經濟規律在起作用，所以產生的結果雖然不是在各方面都相同，卻仍然是屬於同一性質的。正因為如此，在美國 我們也可以看到同樣的爭取縮短工作日、爭取從立法上，限制工作時間，特別是限制工廠女工和童工的工作時間的鬥爭；我們也發現極其盛行的實物工資制和農村地區的小宅子制[270]，“老闆”就利用這些制度作為統治工人的手段。1886年當我讀到美國報紙上 關於康乃爾斯威爾區12000名賓夕法尼亞礦工大罷工的報導時，我簡直就像在讀我自己写的關於1844年英格蘭北部 煤礦工人罷工的描寫一樣。[271]同樣是用假尺、假秤來欺騙工人，同樣是實物工資制，同樣是資本家企圖用最後的但是致命性的手段，即把工人趕出他們所住的屬於公司的小宅子來粉碎礦工們的抵抗。 我不打算在這個譯本中使本書的敘述 更新至現在繼續到目前，或詳細地一一列舉1844年以來發生的一切變化。我不這樣做，有兩個原因：第一，若要認真地做，就得把本書的篇幅增大一倍。第二，卡爾·馬克思的“資本論”第一卷——有英譯本[272]——已經極為詳細地描述了1865年左右，即英國的工業繁榮達到了頂點時的英國工人階級的狀況；若這樣，我就得重複馬克思的名著裡已經講過的東西了。 很明顯幾乎用不着指出，本書在哲學、經濟和政治方面的總的理論觀點，並不是和我現在的觀點並不是完全一致的。1844年還沒有現代的國際社會主義。從那時起，首先是，並且幾乎完全是，由於馬克思的功績，它才徹底發展成為科學。我這本書只是它的胚胎發展的一個階段。正如人的胚胎在其發展的最初階段 還要再現出我們的祖先魚類的鰓弧一樣，在本書中到處都可以發現 現代社會主義從它的祖先之一即德國哲學起源的痕跡。例如本書很強調這樣一個論點：共產主義不是一種單純的工人階級的黨派性學說，而是一種目的在於把連同資本家階級在內的整個社會 從現存關係的狹小範圍中 解放出來的理論。這個論斷在抽象的意義上是正確的，然而在實踐中卻是絕對無益的，有時還要更壞。既然有產富有階級不但自己不感到有任何解放的需要，而且全力反對工人階級的自我解放，所以工人階級就應當單獨地準備和實現社會革命。1789年的法國資產者也曾宣稱資產階級的解放就是全人類的解放；但是貴族和僧侶不肯同意，這一論斷——雖然當時它對封建主義來說是一個抽象的歷史真理——很快就變成了一句純粹是自作多情的空話 而在革命鬥爭的火焰中 煙消雲散了。現在也還有這樣一些人，他們從“不偏不倚的”高高在上的觀點 向工人鼓吹一種社會主義，凌駕於工人的階級利益和階級鬥爭之上、企圖把兩個互相鬥爭的階級的利益 調和於更高的人道之中的社會主義，這些人如果不是還需要多多學習的傳教士新手，就是工人的最兇惡的敵人，披著羊皮的豺狼。 在本書中我把工業大危機的周期算成了五年。這個關於週期的長短的結論，顯然是從1825年到1842年間的事變進程中得出來的。但是1842年到1868年的工業歷史表明，這種週期實際上是十年，中間的波動只具有次要的性質，而且日趨消失。從1868年起情況又改變了，這在下面再談。 我有意地不刪去本書中的許多預言，其中包括青年人的熱情使我大膽作出的英國即將發生社會革命的預言。值得驚奇的並不是這些預言中有那麼多沒有言中，倒是竟然有這樣多已經實現了，而且當時我就已經預見到的（的確，我把時間估計得過分早了一些）歐洲大陸、特別是美國的競爭，將引起的英國工業的危急狀態，現在已經真正到來了。在這一點上 我可以而且有責任使本書和當前的情況相符合。為此，我把我的一篇曾以“1845-1885的英國”為題發表在1885年3月1日倫敦“公益”雜誌[273]上的文章轉載於此。這篇文章同時也簡單地敘述了這四十年間英國工人階級的歷史。現在照錄如下： “ 四十年前，英國面臨著一場危機，按一切跡像看來，只有用強權暴力才能解決的危機。工業的巨大而迅速的發展，超過了國外市場的擴大和需求的增加。每隔十年，生產的進程就被普遍的商業危機強制猛烈地打斷一次，隨後，經過一個長久的經常停滯時期，就是短短的繁榮年份，這種繁榮年份總是又以熱病似的生產過剩和最後再度破產而結束。資本家階級大聲疾呼地要求實行穀物自由貿易，大聲疾呼，並且威脅說，為了實現這一點，他們要把城市的饑民 送回原來居住的鄉村農業地區去，而且正如約翰·布萊特所說，讓這些饑民不是作為乞求麵包的窮人，而是作為駐紮在敵區的一支軍隊去湧入這些城市地區。城市工人群眾要求參預政權——實行人民憲章[274]；大多數小商人資產階級的大多數支持他們，二者之間的分歧，僅僅在於：是應當用物質力量 還是用精神力量來實現憲章。這時1847年的商業危機和愛爾蘭的飢荒到來了，革命的前景也同時出現了。   1848年的法國革命拯救了英國資產階級。勝利的法國工人的社會主義口號 嚇倒了英國小資產階級，引起了比較狹小 然而比較實際的英國工人階級運動的瓦解。憲章運動正當它應當顯示全部力量的時候，卻在1848年4月10日外部崩潰[275]到來以前，就從內部崩潰了。工人階級的活動被推到了後台。資本家階級獲得了全線的勝利。   1831年的議會改革[276]是整個資本家階級對土地貴族的勝利。穀物稅的廢除 不只是工業資本家對土地貴族的勝利，而且也是對那些同地產的利益有著或多或少的密切關係的資本家的勝利，即對銀行家、交易所經紀人、食利者等等的勝利。自由貿易意味著改革英國全部對內對外的貿易和財政政策，以適應工業資本家 即現在代表著國家的階級的利益。而這個階級也就努力地做起這些事來。工業生產上的每一個障礙都被毫不容情地掃除。關稅率和整個稅收制度實行了根本的改革。一切都使之服從於一個目的，然而對工業資本家來說卻是極為重要的目的：減低各種原料 特別是工人階級的生活資料的價格，減少原料費用，壓住（即使還不能壓低）工資。英國應當已成為'世界工廠'；其他一切國家就像對於英國應當同愛爾蘭一樣，成為英國工業品的銷售市場，同時又供給英國它原料和糧食。英國是農業世界的偉大的工業中心，是工業太陽，日益增多的生產穀物和棉花的愛爾蘭都圍著它運轉。多麼燦爛的前景啊！   工業資本家在着手實現自己的這個偉大目的時，具有堅強的健全的理智，並且蔑視傳統的原則，這是他們一向和歐洲大陸上器量較小的同行競爭者不同的地方。憲章運動已奄奄一息。1847年危機過去之後 自然而然地重新出現的商業繁榮，被人​​說成完全是自由貿易的功勞。由於這兩種情況，英國工人階級在政治上成了'偉大的自由黨'即工廠主領導的政黨的尾巴。這種有利的局面既已取得，就必須永遠保持下去。憲章派所反對的不是自由貿易本身，而是把自由貿易變成有關國家存亡的唯一問題，工廠主 從這種反對立場中了解到，並且越來越了解到：沒有工人階級的幫助，資產中間階級永遠不能取得對國家的完全的社會統治和政治統治。這樣，兩個階級之間的相互關係就逐漸改變了。從前被所有的工廠主視為妖魔鬼怪可畏之物的工廠法，現在他們不但自願地遵守，甚至還容許把它推廣到差不多所有部門中去。以前被看做惡魔現形的工聯，現在被工廠主們當作完全合法的機構，當作在工人當中 傳播健康的經濟觀點的有用工具 而受到寵愛和保護。甚至直到1848年還被認為是邪惡窮凶極惡的罷工，現在也逐漸被認為很有用處了，特別是當工廠主老爺們 在需要時主動挑起罷工的時候。在那些使工人地位低於雇主或不利於工人的法律中，至少已經廢除了最令人反感的那一部分法律。而十分可怕的'人民憲章'，實際上已經成了那些曾經誓死反對它的工廠主們自己的政治綱領。'取消財產資格限制'和'秘密投票選舉'我在已經成為本國的法律。1867年和1884年的議會改革[277]已經大大接近於'普選權'，至少是像德國現存的那種普選權；目前正在議會中討論的關於重新分配各選區席位的新的法律草案，規定了'平等的選區'，總的說來 不會比德國的更不平等有不同。'議員支薪'和縮短任期——即使還不能'每年改選議會'——顯然不久定會實現；儘管這樣，還是有人說憲章運動已經死亡。    1848年的革命，和它以前的許多次革命一樣，有著奇特的同路人和繼承人。正是那些把這次革命鎮壓下去的人，如卡爾·馬克思常說的，變成了它的遺囑執行人。[278]路易-拿破崙不得不建立獨立而統一的意大利，俾斯麥不得不在德國實行根本的改革，不得不恢復匈牙利的獨立，而英國的工廠主們不得不使人民憲章生效。   對英國來說，工業資本家的這種統治的結果一開始是驚人的。工商業重新活躍起來，並且飛快地發展，其速度甚至對這個現代工業的搖籃來說也是空前的。過去應用蒸汽和機器獲得的驚人成果，和1850—1870這二十年間的巨大產量比起來，和輸出口与輸入進口的巨大數字、和積聚在資本家手中的財富以及集中在大城市裡的勞動力的巨大數字比起來，就微不足道了。誠然，這個進步和以前一樣被每十年一次的危機所中斷：1857年有一次危機，1866年又有一次；但是這些大變動現在已被看成是一種自然的、不可避免的事情，這種事情是命中注定的遭遇，但最後總是又走上正軌。   這個時期工人階級的狀況怎樣呢？有時也有改善，甚至對於廣大群眾來說也是如此。但是，由於大量的失業後備軍洶湧而來，由於工人不斷被新機器排擠，由於現在同樣日益受機器排擠的農業人口移來，這種改善每次都又化為烏有。   我們發現，工人階級中 只有兩種 '受到保護的' 人的狀況得到了長期的改善。第一種，是工廠工人。法律把他們的工作日規定在較為合理的限度內，這使他們的體質得到了恢復，並且給了他們一種精神上的優勢，而這種優勢又因為他們集中在一定地區而加強了。他們的狀況無疑要比1848年以前好。最好的證明是：在他們舉行的罷工中，十次有九次 都是因為工廠主們為了自己的利益，作為保證縮減生產的唯一手段而挑起的。你永遠也不能說服工廠主同意給工人縮短工作時間，儘管他們的工業品根本找不到銷路；但是要是你使工人罷工，資本家們就會把你開除毫無例外地關閉自己的工廠。   第二種，是巨強大的工人聯合會。他們這个組織，主要是各行業的 成年男子劳工，或者單獨也可加入。這是那些絕大部分或者全部使用成年男子勞動的生產部門的組織。無論是女工和童工的競爭，或者是機器的競爭，迄今為止都不能削弱它們的有組織的力量。機械工、粗細木工、泥瓦工都各自組成一種力量，這種力量甚至強大到能夠成功地抵制採用機器，例如泥瓦工和他們的幫手就是這樣。從1848年以來，他們的狀況無疑有了顯著的改善；這方面最好的證明是：在十五年多的時期中，不但雇主非常滿意他們，而且他們也非常滿意雇主。他們形成了工人階級中的貴族；他們為自己爭到了比較舒適的地位，於是就認為萬事大吉了。他們是萊昂·里維先生和吉芬先生的模範工人，對每個明智懂事的資本家和整個資本家階級來説，他們現在的確是非常可愛、非常隨和的人。   但是，談到廣大工人群眾，他們的窮困和生活無保障的情況，現在至少和過去一樣嚴重。倫敦的東頭是一個日益擴大的貧民區泥塘，在失業時期，那裡充滿貧困、絕望和飢餓，在有工作做的時候又到處是肉體和精神的屈辱墮落。在其他一切大城市裡也是一樣，只有享有特權的少數工人是例外；在較小的城市和農業地區中，情況也是這樣。一條規法律把勞動力的價值限制在必需的生產資料的價值上，另一條規法律把勞動力的平均價格 照例降低到這種生活資料的最低限度上。這兩條規法律以自動機器的不可抗拒的力量對工人起著作用，用它們的輪子壓軋著工人。   這就是1847年的自由貿易政策和工業資本家二十年的統治所造成的狀況。但是以後就發生了變化。的確，在1866年的破產 ​​之後，1873年左右有一次微弱而短暫的復甦，但這次復甦並沒有延續下去。的確，完全的危機並沒有在它應當到來的時候 即1877年或1878年發生，但是從1876年起，一切重要的工業部門都處於經常停滯的狀態。既沒有完全的破產 ​​，也沒有人們所盼望的、在破產以前和破產以後 慣常被人指望的工業繁榮時期。死氣沉沉的蕭條，所有部門的所有市場上都出現的經常的過飽和現象，——這就是我們在其中生活了將近十年的狀況。這是怎樣產生的呢？   自由貿易論是建立在英國應當成為農業世界的唯一大工業中心這樣一個假設上的。而事實表明，這種假設是一個純粹的妄想。現代工業存在的條件——蒸汽力和機器，凡是有燃料、特別是有煤的地方都能創造出來，而煤不僅英國有，其他國家，如法國、比利時、德國、美國、甚至俄國也都有。這些國家的居民看不出，僅僅為了讓英國資本家獲得更大的財富和光榮 而使自己淪為赤貧的愛爾蘭佃農有什麼好處。他們就堅決地動手來進行製造，不僅是為了自己，而且也是為了世界的其他部分；結果，英國享有了將近一百年的工業壟斷，現在無可挽回地失去了。    但是英國的工業壟斷是英國現存社會制度的基石。甚至在保持著這種壟斷的時期，市場也跟不上英國工業的日益增長的生產率；結果是每隔十年就有一次危機。而現在新的市場一天比一天少起來，連剛果的黑人也正在被迫接受曼徹斯特的印花布、斯泰福郡的陶器和伯明翰的金屬製品 這種形式的文明了。當欧洲大陸、上的特別是美國的商品 日益大量地湧來的時候，當現在仍然掌握在英國工廠主手中的那個最主要份額 將一年年減少的時候，結果會怎樣呢？讓自由貿易這個萬應靈丹回答吧！   我不是指出這一點的第一個人。早在1883年不列顛協會南港會議上，該協會的經濟組主席英格利斯·鮑格雷夫先生就曾直截了當地説： '英國獲得巨額利潤的日子已經過去了，有些大工業部門的發展停頓了。幾乎可以說，英國正進入停滯狀態。'[279]      但是結果會怎樣呢？資本主義生產是不能停下來的：它必須繼續增長和擴大，否則必定死亡。即使現在，僅僅縮減一下英國在世界市場供應方面所佔的那個最大份額，就意味著停滯、貧窮，一方面 資本過剩，另一方面 失業工人過剩。要是每年的生產完全停止增長，情形又將怎樣呢？   這正是資本主義生產易受傷害的地方，它的阿基里斯之踵。必須經常擴大，就是資本主義生產的基礎，而這種經常的擴大， 現在越來越不可能了。資本主義生產正陷入絕境。英國一年比一年緊迫地面臨著這樣一個問題：要么是國家滅亡，要么是資本主義生產滅亡；必然滅亡的究竟是哪一個？ 而工人階級呢？既然在1848—1868年商業和工業空前高漲的情況下 ，他們還得遭受這樣的窮困，既然那時工人階級廣大群眾的狀況，至多也不過得到暫時的改善，而只有享有特權和'受到保護的'的區區少數 才獲得了長期的利益，那末，當這個耀眼的時期最終結束時，當目前這種慘淡的停滯 不但加劇起來，而且這種加劇了的狀態變成英國工商業的經常的和正常的狀態時，情形又將怎樣呢？   真實的事情是：當英國還保存著工業壟斷地位還保存著的時候，英國工人階級 在一定程度上 是分沾過這一壟斷地位的利益的。這些利益在工人中間國分配得極不均勻：取得絕大部分的是享有特權的少數，但廣大群眾有時也能沾到一點。正因為如此，所以從歐文主義滅絕以後，英國再也沒有過社會主義了。當英國工業壟斷一旦破產時，英國工人階級就要失掉這種特權地位，整個英國工人階級，連享有特權和佔居領導地位的少數在內，將跟其他各國工人弟兄 處於同一水平上。正因為如此，社會主義將重新在英國出現。 ” ---------------- 對於我在1885年看到的情況的這種敘述，我只需要做少許的補充。不用說，現在的確“社會主義重新在英國出現了”，而且是大規模地出現了。各色各樣的社會主義都有：自覺的社會主義和不自覺的社會主義，散文平淡的社會主義和詩歌的社會主義，工人階級的社會主義和資產中間階級的社會主義。事實上，這個一切可怕的東西中最可怕的東西，這個社會主義，不僅變成了非常體面的東西，而且已經穿上了燕尾服，大模大樣地躺在沙龍裡的沙發上了。這表明“好社會”的可怕暴君——資產中間階級輿論——的不可救藥的反复無常，而且再一次證明，我們老一代的社會主義者 始終輕視這種輿論是有道理的。然而，對這個徵兆本身，我們沒有理由不滿意。 但是，我認為，倫敦 東頭 的覺醒，比資產階級圈子裡這種賣弄摻了水的社會主義的短暫的時髦風尚重要得多的，甚至比社會主義在英國一般獲得的實際成就也更重要的，是倫敦東頭的覺醒。這個巨大的貧窮淵藪已不再是六年前那樣的死水潭了。倫敦東頭抖掉了絕望的冷漠；它復活了，並且成了所謂“新工聯”，即廣大的“沒有技術的”工人群眾的組織的發源地。雖然這種組織在很大程度上採用了“有技術的”工人的舊工聯的形式，但是按其性質說來，仍然和舊工聯有本質上的區別。舊工聯 保存著它們產生的那一時代的傳統；它們把僱傭勞動制度看做永恆的、一成不變的制度，它們至多只能使它變得稍微溫和一些，以利於它們的會員。新工聯則是在僱傭勞動制度萬古長存 這一信念 已經大大動搖的時候成立的。它們的創始者和領導者都是自覺的社會主義者 或本能的社會主義者；趨向於新工聯並構成其力量的群眾，都是被工人貴族輕視和藐視的粗人。但他們擁有一個無比的優點：他們的心理還是一塊處女地，絲毫沒有沾染上傳統的“體面的”資產階級偏見，而那些處境較好的“舊”工聯主義者卻被這種偏見弄得昏頭昏腦。我們現在已經看到，這些新工聯如何爭取領導整個工人運動並日益牽著富有而傲慢的“舊”工聯一起走。 毫無疑問，倫敦東頭的活動家們犯了一系列巨大的錯誤；但是他們的前輩也有過同樣的情形，瞧不起他們的那些空論社會主義者 現在也還有同樣的情形。偉大的階級，正如偉大的民族一樣，無論從哪方面學習，都不如從自己所犯錯誤的後果中學習，來得好、來得快。雖然過去和現在 他們犯過各種各樣的錯誤，而且將來還會犯錯誤，但是倫敦東頭的改善，覺醒仍顯然是這個十九世紀末的最偉大、最有成果的事件之一，而我能活到現在，親眼看到它，實在感到高興和自豪驕傲。 弗·恩格斯     1892年1月11日 ----------------- 載於1892年 在倫敦出版的 弗·恩格斯 《英國工人階級狀況1844 》 原文是英文 俄文譯自“一八四四年的英國工人階級狀況” 註釋： [264]這篇序言是恩格斯為1892年在倫敦出版的他的“英國工人階級狀況”（見“馬克思恩格斯全集”中文版第2卷第269—587頁）英國版而寫的。這個版本是1887年在紐約第一次出版的經作者同意的英譯本的第二版。序言基本上由恩格斯1886年寫的美國版附錄（見“馬克思恩格斯全集”俄文第2版第21卷第260—266頁）和該附錄所包括的他所著“一八四五年和一八八五年的英國”一文（同上，第21卷第198—205頁）構成，只是文字上略有修改，個別地方有刪節。序言結尾部分是恩格斯專為1892年英國版寫的。——第311頁。 [265]見“馬克思恩格斯全集”俄文第2版第21卷第345—353頁。——第311頁。 [266]英國的穀物法規定了高額的糧食進口稅，其目的在於限制或禁止從國外輸入糧食。此項法律是為大地主的利益而實行的。穀物法引起了工業資產階級和土地貴族之間的鬥爭，結果在1846年通過了關於廢除穀物法的法案。這一措施以及由此引起的糧食價格的下跌，雖然使生活費用有所減低，但歸根結底還是降低了工人的工資，增加了資產階級的利潤。穀物法的廢除沉重地打擊了土地貴族，促進了英國資本主義的更迅速的發展。——第312頁。 [267]關於實物工資制，恩格斯在他的“英國工人階級狀況”一書中做了介紹（見“馬克思恩格斯全集”中文版第2卷第467—469頁）。1831年通過了禁止實行實物工資制的法律；但很多工廠主並不遵守。 只適用於未成年工和女工的十小時工作日法案，是1847年6月8日英國議會通過的。——第313頁。 [268]“小愛爾蘭”（《Little Ireland》）是曼徹斯特南部的一個工人區，在這里居住的主要是愛爾蘭人。在恩格斯“英國工人階級狀況”一書中，有關於這個地方的詳細描述（“馬克思恩格斯全集”中文版第2卷第342—343頁）。 “七日規”（《Seven Dials》）是倫敦中部的一個工人區。——第314頁。 [269]指1885年“皇家委員會關於工人階級居住條件的報告。英格蘭和威爾士”（《Report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes.England and Wales》．1885）。——第314頁。 [270]小宅子制——工廠主以極苛刻的條件給工人提供住所，房租由工人的工資中扣除（詳見“馬克思恩格斯全集”中文版第2卷第469—470頁）。——第315頁。 [271]指1886年1月22日至2月26日美國賓夕法尼亞州一萬多礦工的罷工。在罷工過程中煉鐵工人和煉焦工人提出的增加工資和改善勞動條件的要求部分地得到了滿足。 關於1844年英格蘭北部煤礦工人的罷工，見“馬克思恩格斯全集”中文版第2卷第542—548頁。——第315頁。 [272]“資本論”第一卷的第一個英譯本是由賽·穆爾翻譯，由恩格斯校訂的，1887年出版。——第315頁。 [273]“公益”（《The Commonweal》）是英國的一家周刊，1885年至1891年和1893年至1894年在倫敦出版；社會主義同盟的機關報；1885年至1886年，恩格斯在這家周刊上發表過一些文章。——第317頁。 [274]包括了憲章派各項要求的人民憲章是1838年5月8日作為準備提交議會的一項法律草案公佈的。憲章包括六點：普選權（年滿二十一歲的男子）、議會每年改選一次、秘密投票、各選區一律平等、取消議會議員候選人的財產資格限制、發給議員薪金。1839年、1842年和1849年，議會三次否決了憲章派所遞交的要求通過人民憲章的請願書。——第317頁。 [275]憲章派原定於1848年4月10日在倫敦組織大規模的遊行示威，示威者要前往議會大廈，遞交第三封要求通過人民憲章的請願書。政府禁止這次示威遊行，為了阻撓遊行示威的進行在倫敦集結了大批軍警。憲章派的領導人（其中有許多人表現了動搖）決定放棄遊行示威，並且勸說遊行的群眾解散。反動勢力利用遊行示威的失敗向工人進攻和迫害憲章派。——第318頁。 [276]指選舉法的改革。選舉法改革法案於1831年為英國下院所通過，1832年6月為上院最後批准。這次改革旨在反對土地貴族和金融貴族的政治壟斷，為工業資產階級的代表打開了進入議會的大門。為實現改革而鬥爭的主力軍——無產階級和小資產階級，受了自由資產階級的欺騙而沒有獲得選舉權。——第318頁。 [277]1867年，英國在群眾性的工人運動的壓力下實行了第二次議會改革。第一國際總委員會積極參加了爭取改革的運動。按照新的法律，各郡中的選民財產資格限制降低到每年繳納房租十二英鎊；在城市中，一切房主和房屋承租者以及居住不下一年、所付房租不下十英鎊的房客都獲得投票權。由於1867年的改革，英國選民數目增加了一倍多，一部分熟練工人也獲得了選舉權。 1884年英國在農村地區的群眾運動壓力下實行了第三次議會改革。經過這次改革，1867年為城市居民規定的享有投票權的條件，也同樣適用於農村地區。第三次選舉改革以後，在英國相當大的一部分居民——農村無產階級、城市貧民以及所有的婦女，仍然沒有選舉權。秘密投票是在1872年實行的。——第319頁。 [278]馬克思在他的許多著作如“一八五九年的愛爾福特精神”一文（見“馬克思恩格斯全集”中文版第13卷第462—465頁）中，有過這樣的思想：反動派在1848年以後反而做了革命的遺囑執行人，他 ​​們出於自己的需要而實現了革命所提出的要求，雖然是以面目全非、滑稽可笑的形式實現的。——第319頁。 [279]見“不列顛科學促進協會1883年9月在南港舉行的第五十三次會議的報告”1884年倫敦版第608—609頁（《Report of the Fifty-Third Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science；held at Southport in September 1883》．London，1884，ｐ．608—609）。 不列顛科學促進協會成立於1831年，在英國一直存在到今天。協會每年年會的資料都以報告形式發表。——第322頁。