AN ADDRESS
- 25%"-P

KARL

HEINZEN.

PUBLISHED BY THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROPAGATION
OF RADICAL PRINCIPLES.
M OR SALE BY
F OR SAL-E'B-y.

NIIANAPOL

-IN-DIANA.,



*ct
1!:~
h
~,
~
i
j
~x~ ~r:C
-1:~ ~:i;
a. i
J



--S                                               -
-AUTHOR'S PREFACE.--
Those who, during the past thirty or forty years, have witnessed
the revolutionary movements and struggles in the social and political
affairs of Europe or taken a part therein, will scarcely fail to inquire
into the cause of the great disproportion of the successes and reforms
attained to the efforts and sacrifices made.  The history of that time
shows us millions of revolutionists in motion, hundreds of thousands
in the grave, in the dungeon, in exile-and what have they attained?
Nothing but the triumph of a reaction, clothed in modern forms, but
wielding greater power than it had ever before.
The great French revolution also perished, but only in the struggle
with foreign nations; for itself, at least, it was fully victorious, and, in
spite of its overthrow, it transformed half the world.  Its immediate
victory and its powerful influence were due to the unity of the people
who had risen to overthrow the power of royalty and of aristocracy.
Even in the year 1830 the revolution attained its purpose, because
the power of the people was not yet broken by discord in the struggle
itself.  But in the year 1848 the seed of the discord was already
planted, which has since frustrated all revolutionary efforts; and this
discord grew out of the so-called  "social questions."  It would be
useless to attempt to establish now, who are responsible for the origin
of this discord,-the politicians who neglected the social questions,
or the representatives of social questions who turned their backs on
politics. The important points are, the fact that the resultant division
of the people's power and its deflection in various directions have
everywhere helped the reaction to gain the victory, and the conviction
that all who uphold this division now, betray the revolution.
To-day, it does not occur even to conservatives to deny the need
of social improvement.  Much more are the insight and good will
of those open to the urgency of this need, who, as progressive.elements,
occupy the wide region between the so-called "lower classes" and the
dominant reactionaries, and who, together with those "lower classes,"
form the true people. That this people, if its powers are not divided
inimically, could very easily throw off the yoke of its oppressors, is
as certain as it is sure that its interests are common interests and
need for their adjustment only the necessary freedom in a democratic "
community.



But it is just the recognition of this truth that is constantly
repressed by the pernicious practices of a sort of demagogues who
look upon the treatment of the "social questions" as a monopoly,
and who seek to make of the "lower classes," as a separate "workingmen's party," a tool of their chimerical doctrines and criminal
ambition.  In short, those who secure the continued supremacy of
the reaction by neutralizing the power of the most energetic part of
the people most in need of revolution, are the communistic demagogues.   No country has proportionately made so much progress in
free development, as that in which the "workingmen" have remained
accessible to political agitation and go hand in hand with the republicans, viz. Italy.  If there were in Germany a united republican
party, including the workingmen, contending for a democratic state
in order to carry out social reforms, it would soon become an impossibility for a band of half-Russian barbarians, who use the people
merely as a paying machine and food for cannons, to confiscate the
entire nation.  By the establishment of a separate "workingmen's
party," and by their insane doctrines, the communists effect that the
democracy not belonging to them is paralyzed and becomes completely
powerless; that the workingmen themselves are drawn away from
politics, and thus lose the ground on which they might operate efficiently; that they are put off with senseless and extravagant conceits
and demands, which can never be realized; that, in their isolation,
they become the defenceless objects of reactionary rage which, by
sacrificing them, secures ever fresh terms of continuance; that they
serve as a scarecrow for all owners of property and drive these constantly into the ranks of the reaction, which thereby gains a fivefold guarantee of supremacy.
The statement that the interests of the workingmen call for the
formation of a separate party, because they have nothing to hope
from the other parties, rests on an intentional or unintentional deception.  If the workingmen are not strong enough to press attention
to their interests on another party, they can still less be able to
secure these interests as a separate party; or if they expect to be
able to do this as a separate party, they must be sure of success in
connection with  others who cannot be victorious without them.
The truth is that, in general, the workingmen are kept in political
ignorance by their demagogues, and thereby rendered unable to exercise the influence due them in party struggles.  And this defect will
surely not be remedied by their falling back upon themselves and
their "economic" platform.
If there is a German to whom     an imperial order is due, or
something still worse, it is MR. K. MARX, who has rendered the
greatest services to communistic demagogism in Germany.  I opposed
this "sophist and intriguer," this "foremost logical juggler of Germany,"
as early as 1847, because I foresaw the consequences of his pernicious



practices; and all he has done since, has only confirmed my opinion.
In a controversy which I had at that time with him and his faithful friend ENGELS, he was particularly troubled about my "harshness,"
my "morality," and my "sound sense."    To this refers the following
passage from a legacy in which I remembered him before my first
journey to America, with various suitable expedients in his activity,
(vide,  "The Heroes of German Communism," dedicated to Mr.
Karl Marx by Karl Heinzen. Bern, 1848."):
"b) I bequeath to K. Marx Plato's dialogue "Euthydemos."  After
the perusal of this, it will be clear to him that his analogy in which
he charges me with "ruffianism," is not worth a penny in comparison
with that offered me by the heroes of that dialogue.  These heroes
are the Greek sophists which yield as good a rhyme upon communists,
as the "ruffians" do upon republicans.  Those sophists knew everything, but themselves did not believe what they knew.   They perverted everything, asserted everything, denied everything.  Incapable
of comprehending the easiest matter, they were always capable of
giving a decisive verdict upon the most difficult.  They were as
shameless as they were crafty, as vulgar as they were "unprincipled,"
as infamous as they were shrewd.    Strange to say they found their
chief opponents and despisers in the Socratic School, whose head is
well known as the most distinguished representative of "morality"
and "sound sense."  This mutual antipathy is easily explained.  As
to sound sense, it tolerates no subterfuges; and as to morality, it
looks upon a sophist, translated into practical life, simply as a low
intriguer, a cheat, a worthless fellow.  It is, therefore, self-evident
that a sophist will have nothing to do with Morality, since she is a
passionate interpreter, translating theory at once into practice.  Besides it is remarkable, that the Greek sophists, these "democrats,"
had not the least antipathy to royal courts, and cast especially fond
side-glances towards Sicily.  As a sample of their ingenious and
conscientious mode of argument, I adduce an instance from the mentioned dialogue.  "Do you possess a dog?" asked one of the other.
Answer: Yes.- "Has he puppies?"       Answer: Two.-- Conclusion:
"Consequently you possess your dog not only as a dog, but also as a
father, therefore he is your father, hence his puppies are your brothers."
This example (haracterizes also the argumentation of our German
sophist. Starting from a false premise surreptitiously obtained, he is
capable of proving what he pleases; and since, in addition to his
demagogic speculation with a separate "workingmen's party" in which
he is secure against competitors of equal rank, he has the ambition
to set up a new "scientific" light for the world, - he is, as a true
German book-worm, at great pains to furnish his sophistically constructed doctrine with all possible quotations and documentary proofs,
which, however, should be received as cautiously as his conclusions.
In this manner he has succeeded in becoming an authority among the



uncultured workingmen who have the least understanding for the
unreadable books he writes, and in striking with awe the sub-demagogues who make their living by docile submission to his superiority.
It is enough for his followers, if the result of his conclusions shows
that they alone have created all wealth, but will not be able to share
it until all means of production are in their hands, until "capital"
is done away with, in other words, until communism is established.
An isolated "workingmen's party" that is being crammed for years with
such doctrines without hearing truth a single time, will at last resemble
a Catholic community which, excluded from every influence of reason
and continually fanaticized by the priests, believes to be in possession
of truth and becomes at last inaccessible to all better information.
To be the pope of such a community is as easy as it is unworthy;
but greediness and moderation are not always opposites.
Now, they have even done Mr. Marx the service of considering
him dangerous (which he has always desired) by identifying him with
the Paris commune with which he had nothing whatever to do, and
in which he would personally have played the sorriest part.  The
reaction is not careful of its own interest, if it has demagogues of his
stripe persecuted by the police and the courts. It seems, indeed, that
it has been scared out of its senses by the Paris commune.  But the
communists, as well as the workingmen deceived by them, may find
in these persecutions a wholesome lesson.  About thirty years ago
when these gentlemen were so zealously occupied with the "abolition
of the state", the republic might have been offered them as a free
gift, they would have contemptuously rejected it as the goal of narrowminded politicians. Later, too, they derided the republicans on every
occasion, and Mr. Marx did all he could to keep the workingmen
out of politics, to render them indifferent to their chief enemies, the
crowned despots, and to blunt in them every moral interest, all
interest in liberty, by his "economic" calculations. Now, after thirty
years, these contemners of the republic have made such astonishing
progress, that they must allow themselves to be sent to the fortress
by "imperial" tribunals even for a few innocent utterances.
In spite of this, even  their "international" programme, this
Marxian humbug, does not concern itself at all with political reform.
Politics is mentioned only in the suggestion that "every political
movement should be used as a means of the economic emancipation
of the working classes", by which every other and higher interest is
excluded from politics; it is mentioned also in the false assertion,
that "the economic dependence of the workingmen from the owners
of the means of work is the foundation of all political oppression"
(for which reason, of course, the hatred of the workingmen is to be
directed against capitalists, and not against the despots), while it is,
on the contrary, political oppression, the dominant power of the
despots, that renders both the workingman and the capitalist depend


5
ent, robs and ruins them both, and an economic emancipation is absolutely impossible without the political emancipation.
The need of an international union of workingmen is argued by
the fallacy that "emancipation of labor is neither a local nor a
national, but a social problem."  Here "social" is used as the antithesis of "local" and "national", in order to unite afterwards just
as logically "social" and "international", - and this senseless play
with words and ideas was tamely submitted to in order to become
enthusiastic over a new watchword.  Nearly everything has to-day
become "international" without being on that account "social", and
without being able to do away with the "national".  Particularly it
is politics that is international, and without politics all "international"
"economy" is a mere swindle.   The "international union of workingmen" can bring to these, as long as princes sit on thrones, nothing
but "international" persecution.  And when it will have been paralyzed by this in all countries, nothing will remain for it but to return
to the very first beginning with which the politicians of sound sense
have always started, viz.: the formation of the democratic republic on
a national basis: the French republic, German republic, Italian
republic, etc. And if this is attained, all "international workingmen's
unions" have become useless, because then every nation has full
liberty to solve "the social problem" on its own soil.
For thirty years the communists have misled the workingmen by
the deceptive project of circumventing political emancipation by "economic" propaganda; and after passing over this circuitous route,
strewn with corpses and rags, they stand again before the old guidepost, which they would not see on setting out, and on which there
is written: "Down with princes! Long live the republic!"
No isolated "workingmen's party", only a united liberty party
for the attainment of the democratic republic will regenerate the
nations of Europe; and in America only a radical reform party, that
will make democracy a reality, will do away with the rottenness
which the present false democracy has created.
The communistic extravagances, which in Europe have brought
about so much confusion, discord, and misery, have called forth also
in America, especially among German "workingmen" and "reformers" all kinds of movements and divisions.  They have now even
here begun to be "international", which can only lead to fruitless
distraction of the forces from the problems to be solved on American
soil (and possibly to a momentary improvement of the finances of the
"general council" in London).  These circumstances, as well as the
interest which of late attaches to "social questions", decided me to
deliver an address at New York, the Babylonian high-school for all
possible doctrines of error and confusion, in the beginning of last
March. This address I now publish, as a simple appeal to sound sense.
K. H.
Boston Highlands, May, 1872.



THE fate of a question, particularly of a reform question, depends not only on the justice of its object, but
as much upon the manner of putting it or of choosing
its starting point. The most reasonable question, falsely
put, may meet the opposites of the recognition and success it deserves.  If I say, he does not himself deserve
to be free and happy who would not see all other men
also free and happy, all who lay claim to humanity will
approve; but if, in order to emphasize this idea, I condemn and assail all free and happy men, because and
as long as there are dependent and unhappy men, I
repel the former without benefitting the latter in the
least. Would we approve of the fact, or even give our
support to it, that, while we ourselves enjoy the comforts
and luxuries of life, other men should in spite of all
efforts be condemned with their descendants to misery,
to the want of all enjoyments of life, to mental and
physical ruin, by the accident of birth, by the unmerited
disfavor of circumstances, or even through the fault of
inconsiderate egotists who use their dependence and
weakness in order to fleece and oppress them? Is it
just, is it humane, is it to be tolerated that helplessness
should be the rule, and misery the inheritance not of
individuals alone, but of entire groups of the population?
Is the right to lead a civilized life a less inalienable
human right, than the right to utter thoughts in language or to give expression to the will at the polls? And
is the protection of this right less a duty and an important concern of society, than the legal protection of
the person whose life is of no value without that right?
Does not the state, does not organized society, in limiting
the natural liberty and power of individuals by commanding regard for the general welfare, spontaneously establish



the considerations due by the generality to the individual,
and do not these considerations comprise a guarantee of
the conditions of existence as a compensation for sacrificing
to civilization the natural right of self-help?
All these questions--which constitute a simple and
intelligible statement of the chief portion of the so-called
social question -will not be rejected nor answered adversely by any one who would avoid being called a
barbarian. But when it becomes necessary to give active
proof of this agreement in a humane demand, by uniting for the purpose of effecting the remedy, we find the
necessary insight disturbed by the greatest confusion,
and all good will paralyzed by the most hostile contradictions. This, it seems to me, is due in the first place
to the fact that the question at issue, whose correctness
is essentially admitted by all, is falsely put for the
purposes of vindication. I do not presume to treat this
question exhaustively, nor to offer an infallible expedient
for its solution. The object of my address is merely to
throw the light of criticism  upon the most troublesome
errors, illusions, perversions, extravagances, and prejudices
that I may recognize as such, and to present in a clear
synopsis the leading points of view which appear to me
correct and decisive.
The first right of man is the right to his existence,
The care for the preservation of existence is in the first
place the business of the existing individual. The means
for this lie in his activity, his work; and this work gives
him an indisputable right to the actual yield or value of
the same. I do not believe that any one of my hearers
will oppose a single letter of these fundamental propositions; I also believe that each one of my hearers has the
consciousness of being the preserver of his existence by
honest work without plundering the helplessness of others.
But now let us assume that a man with callous hands
shbuld step forth and should raise not only the claim of
being the only true workingman, but also the further



8

claim that he and his comrades in labor should in justice
control the state, at the same time demanding that we
should either support his party as required, or be treated
as enemies of work and of workingmen, as " bourgeois,"
as heartless capitalists and plunderers. What should we
answer? We should say: " you start from false premises
and arrive at false conclusions.  In order to gain your
right, you propose to injure others; in attending to your
interests, you forget the interests of all others.  A right
which is not general, cannot be a true right; it is a privilege. You would oppose privileges, and you vindicate
them. We freely acknowledge all general rights, to which
you may appeal, and we assist in their realization; but
if you will treat us as enemies, when and because we will
not place ourselves on your one-sided stand-point, if you
will impose upon us the stamp of your craft or guild,
instead of uniting with us on a common human basis,we can only lament your error and leave you to your
fate, until experience and reflection shall have convinced
you that our stand-point is higher and wider than yours,
and that with your narrow and exclusive one-sidedness
you cannot attain your object."
Somewhat in this manner we should answer. But is
not the position, which I have here assigned to a typical
workingman towards this assembly, exactly the same
position which the spokesmen of the so-called workingmen's party without exception seek to assume and to vindicate towards society at large? and is not the result, too,
the estrangement and repulsion of those reform elements
and factors that.are ready to recognize and realize every
true right, but unwilling, nay unable to sacrifice their
culture, their intelligence, their convictions, and their just
position to the one-sided claims of a narrow "class" idea?
By seeking to extend their party over the entire society,
the so-called workingmen succeed merely in isolating
themselves from the whole society. Their boast of their
numbers merely leads to a pernicious self-delusion; and



they may congratulate themselves, if this self-delusion
does not lead to murderous annihilation, as in Paris.
Besides they should know that the power of intelligence
is more decisive than mere numerical strength. Yet,
even if the latter should decide, those who constitute
the actual organizable "workingmen's" army would represent a vanishingly small minority.  Those who call
themselves workingmen par excellence will never attain
their object without those who keep away from their
"party," simply because they will not submit to an
aristrocracy of labor, and who, starting from the basis of
general human and civil rights-view individual interests
from the stand-point of the general objects of civilization.
The slaves have been freed by those who were not slaves;
they would still be slaves, if they had looked upon freemen as their enemies and had treated them as such.
There are more true men who are workers, than there
are " workingmen " who are true men, men in the sense
which is of the greatest importance in social reforms.
Whether the low degree of culture and insight be merited
or not, makes no difference in the establishment of the
actual condition and in the calculation of its consequences.
Even the wildest spokesman of the exclusive "workingmen's party.will admit that the great majority of those
who, e. g. in this country, constitute his followers and
among whom there are especially the negroes and the
Irish, cannot have the ability to undertake the reformation of society according to their pattern, however much
they may be in need of such reform. Why, then, should
they nevertheless award to them this ability? Why,
should they look in them alone for the standard of the
reform?  Why should they attempt to subordinate to
them everything that differs from them by education,
intelligence, and higher civilization?  The consequence
of this proceeding can only be to bring the so-called
workingmen into hostile opposition to those with whose
aid they are least able to dispense.



10
It is not only reasonable but also necessary, that the
workingmen of the different branches of trade and industry should consult concerning their special interests
in special assemblies and organizations, and prepare for
their vindication not only in the more limited business
circles, but also in the state, as is, indeed, also done by
merchants, farmers, men of science, etc.; but the formation of a special workingmen's party which strives for
supremacy in the state, is as little justified as a special
party  of merchants, manufacturers, lawyers, men     of
science, etc., would be.  It would be justified only if
there existed a special party of capitalists with the express
aim of gaining supremacy in the state for the oppression
of the "workingmen."
Work is a universal life-activity in all circles of
society.  Those who do absolutely no work, may be
counted on the fingers.   Even the usurer, the extortioner, the tyrant works, sometimes more indefatigably
than his victims.   Even those who would limit work
to manual work, would meet so many differences of
kind and degree, of success and position, that they
would vainly seek a common characteristic and interest
as a party tie.   And if the dividing line should be
drawn in accordance with the benefit or injury to the
common welfare, the position of those who would claim
to constitute the true workingmen's party, would become
still less tenable; for all intellectual activity, all mental
labor, all science, all art, which have been of the greatest benefit to mankind, lie beyond the limits of a mere
"workingmen's party."   Besides it is more than questionable, whether the activity of a great number of the
"workingmen" proper confers benefits upon humanity.
It were a great gain for humanity, if all the senseless
and pernicious luxuries, which support millions of workingmen, disappeared from the earth.   The gun-manufacturer Krupp employs more than 14,000 workingmen,
who zealously turn out the murderous instruments, with



11
which their so-called brethren are slaughtered by the
order of despots.  Who will deny these accomplices in
murder, who live indirectly from blood-shed, the right of
counting themselves as members of the "workingmen's
party" from   the stand-point of mere   workingmen?
Millions of "workingmen" labor industriously in building churches, with whose help they are deprived not
only of their reason but also of a great portion of the
proceeds of their hard labor.  Shall we give them the
dominion merely because they are called workingmen?
And are not even the soldiers, who help to keep down
all liberty and to destroy all wealth, also workingmen?
It has been mathematically proved that there is no
harder work than that of a soldier in the field, laden
with knapsack, arms, and ammunition, without reference
to the sufferings and dangers to which he is exposed by
diseases and the enemy's bullet.  Who has a right to
exclude the soldier from the workingmen's party, if mere
work is to decide?
Work is nothing but a simple expedient for the
attainment of an object, and since self-preservation is
the first object of every individual, work is an imperative necessity for every one who does not want to live
at the expense of others  To say-a man works-signifies, as a rule, merely-he tries to preserve his life.
The first question that concerns us in this is-does he
accomplish the object of his work, does the work yield
adequate results, and does he really enjoy these results?
But it is unreasonable and, indeed, nonsensical to look
upon work, and especially, upon the coarsest labor, as
an aim. in itself, to make it an object of pride and
reverence, and to exalt this pride in the proportion in
which the labor becomes a burden and a torment.   All
are guilty of this contradiction, who make mere labor
the decisive starting-point in a party-formation, and a
uniting watch-word.  The demagogues who always emphasize labor, who assign to labor the highest claims,



12

and who give to the performers of the coarsest mechanical labor the preference over all others-must, if they
would be   consistent, condemn every new     invention,
which facilitates such labor or relieves man of it. In
their eyes steam must be the greatest enemy of work
and of the workingmen.    Similarly, they must consider
a reduction of the time of work, e. g. by the eight-hour
law, as prejudicial, whereas such a law simply says:
"Man is not here in order to use his time and
strength as a beast of burden.  Labor is not his object,
but only a means for attaining his object, and this
means is to be facilitated as much as possible, so that
its application may not lead to the loss of the object.
Let us abrogate the workingman as much as possible, so
that we may gain the human being thereby."
For my part, I see in the usual false stress laid
upon a needy position, a humiliation rather than an
exaltation.  Would it not be unreasonable, if, in liberating a beggar from  his condition, I were at the same
time to inculcate beggar's pride in him?  Would I try
to foster a consciousness of slavery or even a pride of
slavery in slaves, whom  I deliver of their fetters?  I
appeal to their pride of Humanity, that they may learn
to give up their servile position.  In the same category,
however, I place those to whom labor is an oppresive
burden, because it not merely absorbs all their vital
powers, but also does not help them to attain their
object and to vindicate their right.  What consistency
is there in making them proud of a burden of which
I help to relieve them, and of which they long to be
delivered?  In considering every   beggar and   every
slave and every laborer--let us call him laborer of
burden or of toil-as my equal in human right and
destiny, I cannot render myself guilty of the contradiction of maintaining in him a self-complacent consciousness
of the inhuman position out of which I wish to elevate
him; but I should give him a higher human conscious


13

ness to keep him from falling back into his former degradation.  We ought all to be working human beings,
but we should be in a lamentable plight, if we could
not rise above the condition of the "workingman," or
were not permitted to do so.
Those who have--so to speak-invented the workingmen's party, may have recognized that its limits cannot
be fixed, that consequently, in this respect they have
made a false proposition, and, as two negatives make
an affirmative, they seem to have thought that two
false propositions make a true one.     Therefore, they
covered the labor-wall with an additional class-wall, and
invented the working class.  And, in order not to undermine or lose this class, every expedient of demagogy
was used to foster a so-called "consciousness of class,"
i. e. to fill every one concerned with the conviction that
his position or occupation made of him a being wholly
different and separated from the rest of society, treated
inimically by it, and, hence inimically opposed to it.
Yet even this seclusion proved inadequate, and thus it
came to pass that they speak as occasion requires, of
the "working class" or the "working classes; " at the
same time, whatever may be said of "mental workers,"
it is tacitly implied, that all who do not submit to the
classifying chiefs, hence particularly the scientific and
literary world, belong to the not "working" or idle
"classes."  Again, even within the "working classes"
par excellence, the business of classification has to be
continued, since, there too, so many differences present
themselves, that not all can be treated alike.   Hence
the army that is to combat and to rule all the rest
of society, is designated  sometimes as "proletaries,"
sometimes simply as " workingmen," sometimes as " hired
laborers," sometimes as "mechanics."     The class of
" mechanics " forms the transition to the class of "small
tradesmen," who again form the transition to the class
of "bourgeois," for whom I would propose the name of



i4
large tradesmen.   Those, however, who ate iti the most
extreme contrast with the society to be overthrown, and
who, therefore, have the first claims upon help, are discarded and rejected as the "ragged proletariat," because
they cannot be disciplined and organized.  On the wholef
the talent of submission to discipline, to tnental uhiformn
to organization under the leadership of a chief, gives the
first claim to consideration and future dominion.  Hence,
the true workingmen, whose influence turns the scales
and who are called before all others, are the operatives
united in one and the same place in      great numbers.
Compared with these, even the ten-fold more hnumerous
"class" of rural laborers or farmers has no weight,
because it does not afford compact masses for organization under demagogic leaders.   If classification is carried
on in this way, we shall yet see emerge classes of shoemakers, tailors, joiners, smiths, masons, etc.  The idea
of man and citizen of the state, all that is common to
us as human beings and citizens, and serves us as a mental and moral bond of union in our aims and struggles,
is abolished by this "economic" method of classification.   The specific economic interest alone decides,
only the kind of occupation that fills our larders and
our purses, determines our value, our rights, our position.
our ideal in human society.
What is a "class "? This word has been used in such
a variety of significations that a definition of its meaning
in a discussion of social organization seems absolutely
necessary. Class, in general, signifies a group or division
possessing certain common characteristics or similarities.
Thus we speak of classes in the kingdoms of nature; the
divisions of a school are graded in classes; also the expression " social class" is common in ordinary life. We
speak  of "cultured classes", "lower classes", "middle
classes", etc.  A  more decided tendency of differential
contrast lies in the word " penal class"; in military circles
a "second class of soldiers" has been introduced, which



is used for purposes of degradation for misdemeanor. A
similar tendency exists, when we speak of a social or
political classification in an antagonistic or even in a
revolutionary sense.   On the other hand, portions or
groups of the population that are distinguished merely by
accidental, external, transient, or insignificant characteristics, and which, therefore, are most appropriately designated in terms of trade, occupation, or profession, and
which besides are subject to constant mutual fusion,cannot be regarded as classes in the pregnant signification
of hostile opposition.   The formation    of such classes
requires fixed legal limits, standing differences of riglIts,
duties and functions, which can be removed only by way
of politics or insurrection.  Only politics can create true
classes, but not social life alone. A political establishment
of privileges on the one hand, or of disfranchisement on
the other; a supremacy on the one hand, or an oppression
on the other, founded on the political institutions,-constitute the indispensable conditions for the formation of
classes in the sense in which the spokesmen of the socalled workingmen's party seek to create it artificially.
The introduction of a census that renders the right of
suffrage dependent on the possession of property, or
the complete exclusion from the right of suffrage on
the plea of color, of sex, etc., as well as, indeed, every
disparity of rights in the institutions and laws in accordance with external position,-give rise to true classes and
refer the disfranchised classes to revolution, if peaceable
uprising  fails to secure them   their rights.  All these
points are disregarded by the workingmen's demagogues,
because they give no heed to politics. A further aggravation of this contrast of classes we have in the caste,
whose characteristic is found in its tendency to perpetuate
the differences of rights in a hereditary condition.  Now,
in a society that is founded in its constitution and laws
on equal rights for all, i. e., in a truly democratic state,
we can have no more to do with classes in a reactionary



16

or revolutionary sense than   we can with castes.     Of
course, even in the democratic state, there will always be
more or less difficulty in the vindication of equal rights,
-a difficulty depending on social position as well as on
personal ability; but this difference, incident to the nature
of things, cannot result in a hostile classification, and is
usually counterbalanced by superiority of numbers. Persons of greater ability, as well as of greater wealth, will
always be in the minority in every state.
Thus we see that the class, inasmuch as it is not
created by political institutions, can, no more than work,
seire as a fixed line of division. In order to fix this line
of demarcation, a third contrast or difference is brought
in, that of capital and labor.  If the question of capital
were put in such a way. as to call for measures by which
every man could secure the capital he needs, it would
have justice and reason on its side. But it is put in such
a way as to represent capital as an evil in itself, and
every capitalist not only as a non-laborer but also as an
enemy of all who are not yet capitalists. Whatever idea
we may have of capital, it is a thing needed and coveted
by everybody, laborers as well as non-laborers; but
whether or not in any case the possession of capital be
reprehensible, is generally a merely individual question,
depending on the manner in which it has been obtained
or on the use made of it.   No workingman would complain of a capitalist who should make him a partner in
the business, i. e., a fellow-capitalist. Not in the capital
itself, then, there is evil, but in the fact that this is not
done, and that the workingman who has only his work
to depend on, is compelled to sell his work at any price
to the owners of capital.  The problem, then, is simply
to make every workingman as far as possible also a
capitalist.  Now, this object cannot be accomplished by
the usual blind and inconsiderate ragings against capital,
but only either by mutual agreement and association of
workipgmen and capitalists, or by political measures



17
which render the former independent of the latter. Yet
even without these means, we see this line of distinction
broken every day by workingmen who become capitalists
and by capitalists who become workingmen again. What
hold is there for the incitement of a class hatred which
is based merely on the difference in economic condition?
If it is not thoroughly blinded by fanaticism, it must
admit that it is justifiable only in cases where the better
economic condition is united with a hostile disposition.
Suppose, on the other hand, that - what happens daily
in our free country-a poor workingman by industry and
skill rises to the condition of a capitalist, but retains
enough sense of justice and sympathy to assist in advancing the interests of his former colleagues; would not
the injustice of these appear as insanity, if they should
treat him as an enemy merely because he is no longer
as poor as they are?  And does the mere possession of
capital indeed have the influence of making a monster
of every human being? Numerous instances answer the
question in the negative; its affirmation were a condemnation of human nature to the lowest meanness, and also
a condemnation of every workingman who succeeds in
hoarding a capital.  In monarchies hereditary privileges
and injustice unite inhumanity with possession; freedom
and equality humanize also the rich and inspire them
with the ambition of general usefulness. In America, no
one defends the destitute laborer with more warmth and
energy than the man who was also one of the most
energetic advocates of the slaves; and this man, Wendell
Phillips, is a capitalist. England has not furnished a
more generous and zealous friend of the workingmen
than Robert Owen; and Owen was a capitalist.      In
Germany, the workingmen were full of enthusiasm for
the deceased Lasalle, and forgot wholly that he was a
capitalist.  The untenableness of their customary differentiation is proved, however, most strikingly by the
workingmen in their inconsistent proceeding during the



18

late formation of their party in America. The delegates
of the "workingmen's party" so laboriously organized
during a number of years, chose as candidate for the
presidency Judge Davis, and Davis is a millionaire.  I
never heard that he ever atoned for this fault by mastership in work.   Besides he is a conservative politician.
Is his nomination perhaps intended to compromit capital?
The secret motive of it lies simply in the consciousness
of the inefficiency of a party confined to mere "workingmen," and in the fallacy of a consistent opposition between capital and labor.  This inefficiency has nowhere
been shown up in practice so convincingly as in our
country which grants complete liberty for all party experiments. All efforts to establish a special workingmen's
party, made with so much zeal and with so many sacrifices in the different States and in the Union, have failed
lamentably, resulting only in sterile starts. Also, I do
not know a single exclusive "workingmen's" paper that
has lived longer than a couple of years.
Yet Liberty proves the untenableness of the line of
demarcation between capital and labor also in other
directions.  In the legislature of Massachusetts it was
lately shown, that in the savings banks of this state
there are deposited $163,000,000, which is $13,000,000
more than the combined capital of the Bank of England
and the Bank of France.    A great part of these 163
millions consists of the savings of "workingmen;" for
the capitalists proper do not put their money.in savings
banks.   Now shall these depositors be classed with the
capitalists or with the " workingmen?"  A similar condition is found to exist in the smaller manufacturing
state of Connecticut, in whose savings banks $60,000,000
are deposited.  It was proved some time ago before the
Trade Union Congress of England, that the association
of "Amalgamated Engineers" alone had used within
fourteen years $2,173,000 for the support of striking
workingmen, and the association of " Iron Founders"



$1,110,000 for the same purpose.     Besides the two
associations had  expended  in a period   not stated,
$3,000,000 for benevolent purposes.  Surely a beautiful
testimonial for their generous disposition.  But in what
"class" are ' workingmen"    to be entered, who can
expend such sums?  Certainly not with the " proletaries,"
so that the " proletaries" might again form a special
" class" in opposition to the ' workingmen " who can
save something.  Again, what commentary is furnished
by these two associations and by the savings banks of
Massachusetts and Connecticut, to the allegedly irrefutable proposition, insisted upon with so much stress by
the spokesmen of the "workingmen," that all hired
labor does not yield more than is needed for the merest
preservation of existence?  The lesson taught by these
instances is rather this, that the workingmen only need
the necessary freedom in order to refute that proposition.
It is a fact that in remote industrial districts even of
free England there are great numbers of laboring men
and women oppressed to the lowest grade of misery and
wretchedness; and in America, too, greed of gain is
eagerly at work where labor is helplessly surrendered to
it.  But it is no less a fact that in both countries the
right of agitation and association has elevated the workingmen in general to a condition that excites the envy
of those whom a monarchical despotism forcibly holds
fast in the debasement of old times.    In Germany,
workingmen cannot deposit millions in savings banks,
nor expend them in the support of others; and here
the proposition that the wages are barely sufficient to
prevent starving  may, indeed, hold   generally good.
Yet it does not follow from this that capital is a curse,
but only- that liberty is a blessing.  Not hatred against
capital, but hatred against oppression is the saving watchword.   In the proportion in which "workingmen" help
to abolish the latter, will they share in the former.
The question of capital is closely allied with that of



20

wages.   Efforts have been made to intensify the contrast of labor and capital by that of hired laborers and
capitalists. Here again they reject, in the manner of the
communists, the good with the bad.    No laborer would
complain of his wages, if these always covered the
full value of his work, and if a contract shielded him
against arbitrary dismissal from  his position.  Not the
wages, but the excessive scantiness of the wages furnishes
the just subject of complaint. The greatest possible selfdependence of each individual is the aim     of social
development, and the workingman as a capitalist represents the attainment of this object.  But this self-dependence and independence cannot be carried out in all
relations.  There will always be kinds of work to be
exchanged for compensations that can only be made in
the form of wages.   A manufacturer may go in partnership with his operatives, and thus change that which
they drew formerly as wages into a dividend; but there
are many relations and occupations, from the servant
and day-laborer to the commercial clerk and political
officer in which the compensation for work can only be
given in the shape of fixed wages.  Whether this fixed
income be called wages, or fees, or remuneration, or salarydoes not change the nature of the thing. The President of
the United States is just as much a hired laborer as the
dry-goods clerk, the editor of a paper as much as the
day-laborer in the factory.   To abrogate the relation
of hired work would be equivalent with disintegrating
society, which can only be kept together by an exchange
of services and counter-services; and such a complete
abrogation is possible only in communism."
Thus we see also this line of demarcation disappear
by which the relation of hired work was to divide society
into two hostile halves.  Work did not stand the test;
class did not stand the test; capital did not stand the
test; neither do wages stand the test. It is quite evident,
however, how these false lines of demarcation could arise;



21

and what those have in view who seek to keep them up
and to carry them out consistently. The aim is communism.
Communism would transform the whole society into an
institution of common labor, in which there are no
capitalists; -against these, then, the "workingman " is
especially or exclusively directed. In order to attain the
purpose, communism must seek to separate those who
are to bring about ttis transformation as a specially
organized army animated by a special esprit du corps,
from society which is represented as being hostile. Therefore, it forms them into a "class" and inspires them with
the so-called "class-spirit" in anticipation of the so-called
"class-struggle."  Since by this struggle   communism
would abolish all property, it condemns this at once by
the indiscriminate war against capital, by which name it
is rendered most readily hateful to the destitute who has
only his labor to depend on; and since in a society that
produces and consumes in common there can no longer
exist any exchange of service and counter-service among
individuals, it follows as a matter of course that communism must wholly condemn all wages.
We have seen, then, that the false manner of putting
the so-called social question, this great question of the
abolition of misery, is to be led back to a false principle,
on the basis of which its solution is attempted; and
even those who condemn the false principle, the principle
of communism, more particularly the so-called socialists,
have partially accustomed themselves to adopt its fallacious putting of the question and its phraseology.
We have now to show why communism is a false
principle. In the first place, however, let us get an idea
of its introduction, especially in Europe, where it has the
greatest number of.followers.
A political revolution may be accomplished in its
principal strokes over night. A successful insurrection in
Paris changes France in a few -hours from a monarchy
to a republic.   A social revolution which contemplates



22

not only a change in the form of government, the throwing off of external oppression, the emancipation of suffrage
in general; but which enters into all the relations of life,
relates to the preservation of the physical existence of
the whole society, dissevers all the time-honored connections of its constitution, touches the dearest interests of
each individual, and requires of him an entirely new
mode of living and striving, - can be the work only of
many years, gradual transitions, and free participation.
The political revolution may, at the same time, take
preparatory measures of social improvement by placing
the people in possession of the means which the overthrown despotism had robbed or withheld from them;
but it cannot force a complete revolution of social conditions upon the liberated people, without assuming the
character of this despotism and continuing it.  Yet, we
hear every day, especially from the "international" camp,
the announcement of a social revolution; and inasmuch
as this announcement proceeds from communistic centers,
that revolution can mean only the introduction of communism.    Now, the first step towards this is and must
be the abolition of all existing proprietary rights. Social
reforms may be singly and gradually introduced; but
communism   must, if possible, step into life at a single
blow, because it would abolish the entire foundation of
the society of the present, and because it could make no
concession nor render itself guilty of any omission or inconsistency, without jeopardizing its existence.  For a
partial communism would not only call forth the most
dangerous antagonism of all proprietary relations left
untouched, but would be unable to carry out the necessary organization for business and administration. Now,
I challenge the boldest imagination to picture to itself
the effect of the communistic proclamation, by which a
"workingmen's" dictator should decree to the European
world: " HENCEFORTH NO ONE SHALL HAVE A CLAIM UPON
WHAT HE HAS EARNED OR POSSESSES; PRIVATE PROPRIETOR


1t1P 1HAS CEASED TO EXIST." Everi he, who considers it
possible that a party which could issue such a proclamation,
will ever appear victoriously at the head of a revolution,
cannot fail to see before his mind a sea of blbod in which,
society will be immersed in a furious and desperate struggler
in order to seek afterwards its salvation in a reaction
such as the world has never yet seen.    For him   who
does not belong to such a party, there is no condition
which he would not prefer to the one threatened.    In
accordance  with this, communism    must calculate its
chances; this should bring its representatives to their
senses concerning the consequences of its instigations andi
concerning the true significance of the game they are
constantly carrying on with the " struggle of the classes."
Nevertheless I should say that communism     must and
will be carried out, if I recognized it as correct in
principle; for whatever is true must at every hazard also.
become real, just as all falsehood in spite of all reality
must fall.
There is a superficial view according to which the
'essence of communism consists in the rapacious demand
of an equal division of existing property among those
destitute of property.  But such a division would bring
about the very opposite of that which true communism
seeks, viz. the supplying of each person with individual
or private property.  Communism will and must abolish
this very property and the proprietors. It does not grant
the individual the right to- acquire and possess property
for himself; all that heretofore has been called property
must pass over into the possession of society, in which
and for which each individual works in order to be then
supplied from the general stores with all that he may
need.   This and this alone is true communism.      Its
origin is easily explained..  The rights of property have
ever formed the principal objects of contention among
men, and the difference of possession, how ever it may
have originated, has ever been a chief eauee of inequality



24

in rights, liberty, and happiness. The simplest way
to abolish this inequality, to end this contention for ever,
was according to all appearances the abolition of private
ownership, and its fusion into a community of goods in
which each should have an equal share as consumer
and as producer.  The abolition of property for the prevention of poverty, of the struggle of interests, and of
inequality, is of the same logic as the abolition of liberty
for the sake of order. As a political fancy, it was devised
already by the Greek philosophers who fused all individual interests in the then all-powerful idea of the state;
this is shown particularly in the "Republic" of Plato.
He included in the community of goods also women
who, at that time, as is the case to a great extent even
to-day, were included in the inventory of male possessions.  Practically, communism  was tried among the
Greeks only in Sparta, in the iron experiment of Lycurgus, which, however, still needed the helots. Among the
Jews the Essenes were distinguished as practical communists.  Especially numerous were the communistic
sects which were called forth by christianity with its
universal love and fanatical self-denial; and among these
the anchorites and anabaptists were prominent.    The
greatest support was, of course, given to the communistic
tendency by the medieval feudalism, and by the later
development of the industries, which intensified the contrast between the ruling rich and the ruled poor by the
possession of power and capital, and, thus, brought it to
a more general consciousness.  With full determination,
as a political institution, communism first showed itself
in the French revolution, where Baboeuf and his associates wanted to introduce it forcibly, and paid with their
lives for the attempt. After Baboeuf the most decided
representative of communism   was the Icarian Cabet.
St. Simon, Fourier, Leroux, Proudhon, Louis Blanc, and
others mixed communistic and socialistic ideas.   The
same may be said of Robert Owen of England. What


25
ever modern communists have asked, was anticipated
and discussed in the earlier doctrines, especially of the
French. The communistic idea has much that is plausible to fancy and thoughtlessness, for which reason experiments to introduce it in practical life, have not been
wanting; and just these experiments ought to have convinced even the most deluded fanatic of their untenableness. Not only the Greek, Jewish, and Christian experiments of older dates, but also those made in modern
times, especially in America, with fullest liberty and
sufficient means, by Owen, Cabet, Rapp, Weitling, had to
be given up after a short time.        All have established
especially two facts, which decisively condemn communism  without reference to its theoretical untenableness and
fallacy.   In the first place, it could be introduced and
carried out only by the dictatorship of a chief or patriarch, after whose abdication the laboriously contrived
structure always fell to the ground again; and, secondly,
the maintenance of equality and harmony imposed upon
the participants ascetic privations, which I had almost
called brutalizing, whereby they purchased their security
against former evils at an intolerably high price.      With
democratic liberty and without the tyrannizing of nature,
no communism      is possible;--this was the verdict of the
instituted experiments.*
Yet, even without said experiments, communism           is
found to be false in principle, because it is contrary to
human nature.      Man is, indeed, a social being, but this.does not imply that he feels the want of sinking his individuality in society, but only that each one nee'ds
society for his individuality.    His own individuality is
* The absurdity and impracticability of thecommunistic equalization would
soon be evident, especially among the Germans, among whom individuality
plays so important a part, and has been shown most ludicrously, e. g., in
Weitling's experiments. The colony, established by him in Western America,
suffered in the very beginning a severe shock through the jealousy which
animated the individual members. on account of the difference in the quality of
the coats and hats which they had brought along. A uniform, as among
convicts and soldiers, seems to be one of the first requisites of communistic
harmony.



26
for each one the starting-point and the end.  For the
attainment of this end, he needs the free unfolding of his
powers, and he must be in condition to vindicate his
natural right to whatever he produces by means of these
powers, even if it be done in connection with others.
What he has produced, is then his work, his property,
and no one's else. The idea of personal property cannot
be separated from personal existence, nor the claim to
the product from the activity of the producing individual,
as little as we can separate the fruit from the tree.  On
the other hand, the property created by him, and subject
to his exclusive disposal, is the necessary condition of his
individual existence and of that independence which he
needs for asserting his individuality towards others. Now
communism, in abolishing personal property, not only
deprives the individual of the natural right to that which,
as a result of his activity, cannot be separated from him,
but robs him also of liberty and of the possibility of continuing this activity, in order to secure to him as a compensation a physical existence in   a  community in
which all free individuality must perish.  Now, since
only the most thoughtless lack of independence and the
coarsest contentment could submit to' such leveling and
drilling, and since the very nature of every self-conscious
and cultured individual must rebel against them, the
establishment of communism is feasible only under a
dictatorship that compels every manifestation of life as
a social function, and joins all functions in a connected
mechanism, in short, reduces the entire social life to an
official factory and barracks concern, in which the least
deviation of individual power from the general rule must
be suppressed as a disturbing insurrection.  To every
power a fixed activity must be assigned, every not prescribed activity must become as impossible as every not
numbered existence; and recreation, as well as work,
must be subjected to official regulation, so that no interruption and disturbance may interfere with the military



27
order. Again, particular wants of taste must be suppressed,
as well as particular exertions of talent, because their
gratification would create inequalities, and would justify
and foster a jealousy that might give the signal for an
anarchy of individuality or for a revolution.  Hence,
Baboeuf was wholly consistent when, together with economic equality, he wanted   to  compel also  the  mental
equality, banishing all science and art, and limiting all
instruction to reading, writing, and arithmetic.  There
must be no question in a communistic society of a
special calling for prominent natures, of new paths for
ingenious minds, of independent research    for gifted
thinkers, for they all need free individual scope, the free
disposal of their powers and means; they must all be
enlisted in the universal army of workingmen, whose rule
of duty and equality can admit not a single exception
for individual activity.  Thus, then, a theory of beneficence that promises the gratification of all wants, is compelled to suppress tyrannically the noblest wants, in order
to avoid the appearance of privilege; and, not in condition
to relieve individuality of the responsibility for inequalities and for ideal aims which only individuality can
undertake, it must seek to supress these inequalities and
aims by a compulsory equality that does violence to
nature. In a communistic state, I should not even be
permitted to deliver to day in New York a lecture in
praise of communism, without leave from     the chiefoverseer, to whose division of workingmen in Boston I
might have been assigned, perhaps as secretary; and if
I should prefer New York to Boston, I should be compelled to leave the Empire City again, unless accidentally
some position were open to me.
The picture that I have sketched here of a communistic society, is carefully put together from the indisputable  consequences  that follow from the principle   of
communism, the abolition of individual property and
hence, of individual existence.  In spite of all chal


28

lenges, I have never yet found a communist who
could refute those consequences, nor one who would
undertake  to  defend  them   directly.  On the other
hand, there was no lack of phrases and fancies which,
mostly borrowed from Fourier's system, were intended to
palliate and cover up those consequences. One attempted
to silence the demands of individuality by an assumed
universal passion for work; another, by its all-powerful
social instinct; the third, by time-honored "love," which
now bears the name of " brotherliness." To make use of
sentimentality as a basis for fixing the relations of justice among men is always suspicious, and proves either
that reason is not used, or that its use is to be forestalled; but nothing is more suspicious than the love or
brotherliness in question. It may have its value among
individuals as the result of personal agreement; as a
bond of union for society it is an empty, unmeaning
phrase. For a communistic society, it is at the same
time a contradiction in the premises. The manifestation
of love and brotherliness can be in place only where
one party needs it, and the other has the means and the
occasion for it. An inequality in conditions of life and
means is, therefore, premised; but communism makes all
equal, promises universal gratification of all wants, leaves,
therefore, room neither for wishes nor for the fullfilment
of wishes in the relations of individuals. Why should it
then put forth the superfluous love and brotherliness
that have become useless?
In order not to become too diffuse, I must limit myself to these remarks. In spite of all the hatred that I
feel for a kingdom, I must still confess that I do not
know which I should choose, if I had the choice only
between a monarchy and a communistic society. In a
monarchy, I should at least have a prospect of being
able to create for myself a personal sphere in secret;
but a communistic society,-unless I should find an
asylum above or under the earth,-would not leave me



29

the smallest spot for individual existence, and would
press me with inevitable compulsion into its leveling and
uniforming barracks. I cannot understand that there still
are cultured and thinking men who can have doubts
concerning the nature and the consequences of communism; but those who have escaped doubt, should make it
a matter of conscience, a duty towards mankind, to combat that senseless, barbarous doctrine, which threatens
all culture, wherever it still shows its head, instead of
actively or passively supporting a party whose leaders
threaten society with that doctrine, and thereby jeopardize the existence of every rational society, and falsify or
hinder all rational development towards liberty; and
whoever approves of that doctrine from conviction, should
openly and decidedly enter the lists for it, so that reason
and truth may have an opportunity to make propaganda
among the misled masses by a suitable controversy.
Having seen now what communism is, and to what it
must lead, we have to examine wherein socialism differs
from it, which is so often mistaken for it by a thoughtless confusion of ideas, and by denunciatory calculation.
This difference cannot be based on any really scientific
doctrine or historical consideration; but, it follows naturally from their different views of property and of the
means to be chosen for attaining their object, although
this object is the same. Both have the common object
of abolishing misery and of bridging the chasm between
affluence and poverty; but the principles on which they
rest, and the means they propose    are diametrically
opposed to each   other.  Communism    would   deprive
every one of personal property, because it regards personal property as the source of all evils; socialism
would supply each one with personal property, because
it looks upon such property as the condition of all prosperity. Communism makes the community the object, and
sacrifices free individual existence to it; for socialism,
free individual existence is the object, and the commu


30

nity the means. Communism, by suppressing individual
endeavor, paralyzes the principal lever and motive of
development; socialism  would let development proceed
from the orderly emulation of individual powers.  Communism   combats "free competition," because it would
put an end to the aim of this competition, the acquisition of property; socialism would remove the obstacles of
free competition, this chief incentive of all progress, by
bringing it within the reach of all by help for the weak
and limitation for the strong. Communism would, in
anti-democratic spirit control the entire social machinery
by a superior authority; socialism would, in accordance
with democratic principles, let social life develop itself
from below upward. The recognition of these differences
is enough to exclude the blending of these two terms,
to enable us to draw a fixed party line, and to show
the unreasonableness of the assertion made by the communists, that "communism is the consequence of socialism," and that consequently the latter serves as introduction to the former.
As indicated, the welfare of the individual is the
object of socialism; and the union of all individuals into
a society, called the state, serves this object with its
combined powers and means, inasmuch as the individual cannot attain it single-handed. The socialistic
view of the state is very different from that of the ordinary jurisprudential politicians. These assign the state
little beyoud the negative task of keeping its members
from open war against each other, as is expressed in the
well-known phrases " maintenance of order" and " protection of life and property;" in other respects, its watchwords are laissez alter and help yourself.  The penal and
police departments, therefore, fill almost the entire idea
of the state. The socialistic or humane idea of the state,
on the other hand, is at the same time a positive one
which enlarges the object of political union by adding
the task of helping each individual to attain what he has



31
a right to claim from life. This brings us to the so-called
state-help which meets with so much opposition in some
regions.  It is remarkable how easy it is to discredit
principles recognized long ago, when they are made to
apply to a new case, inconvenient in controling circles.
The assertion of the jurists to the contrnry notwithstanding. as long as there have been states, state-help hais been
their more or less clearly admitted object and has been
practiced more or less extensively by them. It must be
evident even to the plainest understanding that the state
owes its existence not only to the social instinct but also
to the need of mutual help, and that only insanity could
form the plan of organizing a state for the purpose of
mutual abandonment or opposition. The state and statehelp are as inseparable as the concert and musical entertainment.   In fact, the contradiction is directed only
against a universal and definite assertion of the principle
vindicating new rights, although it is in actual operation in a great number of tangible facts which habit
thoughtlessly overlooks. This is a most striking application of Wieland's saying that sometimes the very trees
keep men from seeing the forest. Surrounded *by statehelp, living on state-help, owing all they are to state-help,
they preach against state-help; and those do it the
loudest, who have been most benefitted by it.   Princes,
aristocrats, men of wealth make no objection to state-help,
as long as it.secures their dominion, and enables them to
plunder the helpless; but their opposition comes in,
as soon as this help is to be extended to those who need
it most.   By this it is proved at the same time that
these needy persons can have no hope from state-help as
long as they have no part in dominion.   Whoever rules
the state, helps himself with its aid. The alleged contrast
of self-help and state-help is wholly absurd, for both belong
together; without state-help no adequate self-help is
possible, and self-help consists in making use of the state
and of the resources opened by it.   The wild beast is



32

consigned to self-help; if we would consign man to this,
we should at the same time empower hinm to break through
the regulations of the state according to his personal
pleasure and to satisfy his momentary wants without
considering others.   The injunction, "Help yourself!"
can reasonably proceed only from the supposition that
in the state and through the state each one can find the
corresponding possibility of acquiring by his own activity
what he needs; but to address this injunction to those
who without any fault of theirs, perhaps even through
the fault of the state, have been prevented from attaining
the purpose of their life by their own activity, is making
barbarity the principle in the name of the state which,
indeed, ought to be the means for universal humanizing.
If, e. g. the state should turn off the poor seeking help
and offering his labor with the injunction, " Help yourself! ", this would be asking him to starve or to rob. To
refuse work to him who seeks work, entitles him to robbery.
The injunction "Help yourself! " is justified only, if the
state itself follows the rule, " Help all!"  It should relieve
no one from self-help, but render it possible for all, - this is,
in short, the true state-help. Now, that the state can and
will accomplish this only if all equally have and actually
exercise the right of assisting in establishing the institutions of the state and of using its means, that we can
speak of true state-help only in the true state, i. e. in the
democratic republic, is self-evident.
On the right to state-help and the democratic use of
this right all social questions hinge.  The declaration of
independence proclaims the equal right of all men to
life, liberty, and happiness. The constitution of the United
States begins with the declaration that the people of this
republic unite, in order to promote the general welfare.
The objects of the free state are recognized in this constitution and in the declaration of independence to the
greatest extent,-objects which are impossible without the
so-called "social questions." The only task, then,.is to



33

find the right means for the attainment of these objects
and to employ these means.
But not America alone has recognized the socialistic
object of the state.  During the great French revolution,
which has defined the universal rights of man most
clearly it was expressly established- although only for
a short time - to be the duty of the state not only to
care for those unable to work, but also to furnish remunerative occupation to all who can work but are unable
to find sufficient employment in the free intercourse of
life.  Nay more, even the despotism "by the grace of
God " in Prussia, as has been proved not long ago by
Dr. Jacobi, has recognized -probably as an after-effect
of the doctrines of the French revolution--that statehelp is a duty of the state.  In the second part of the
Prussian common law, in chapter 19, we read: " ~ 1. It
is the duty of the state to care for the support of those
citizens who cannot make their living themselves, and
who cannot obtain it from other private persons, that,
according to special laws, are bound thereto. ~ 2. Those
who lack merely the means and opportunity to earn independently a living for themselves and their families, shall
receive work suited to their powers and capacities.  ~ 6. The
state has the right and the duty to make arrangements
by which destitution among its citizens may be prevented,
and by which excessive extravagance may be checked."
The Prussian practice is, indeed, somewhat at variance
with its theory, and whoever attempts to vindicate in the
land of Hohenzollern, the common law cited above,
receives an interpretation by the police and musket law,
which is a matter of course in a monarchial government.
Yet the adduced paragraphs show that the fundamental
principle of socialism cannot be denied even in the worst
state. Nevertheless there is a great outcry against socialism, and an effort to confound it with communism, which
surely can point to no approving paragraph in the
Prussian common law.



34

In practice, there never was a state, not more or less
socialistic. If it was not from avowed intention, it was
so from necessity, either by creating institutions that
supplied occasional wants of all, but which became
possible only by the common means, or by caring for
individual helplessness that was threatened by ruin in
the private circles of society.  Are not public streets,
public fountains, public hospitals, public poor-houses,
public insane asylums, public museums, public parks,
public libraries, and public schools, socialistic institutions? And are not the kind, the number, the common
usefulness of these institutions in full accord with the
share that citizens have and take in political life? There
is no more important institution than the public school.
Now, what countries do more for the public school than
free Switzerland and the free United States? And does
it not depend merely on the citizens of these republics
to extend the system of free schools so as to place at the
disposal of all without distinction, not only free elementary
schools, but all kinds of institutions of learning up to the
highest?
I am from principle opposed to donations of land;
but is not the so-called  homestead-bill a socialistic
measure, that was possible only in a republic? Imagine
the public lands of the United States in possession of
the Emperor of Germany: what use would he make of
them? He would use them for royal domains and hunting-grounds, for the endowment of ministers like Manteufel
and other lords, who would grant the half-starved peasants
the privilege of transforming them for their masters into
parks of vice and paradises of indolence.
Now, if it holds good in experience and in theory,
that the establishment of social institutions and reforms
is incumbent on the state, both as a whole and in its
sub-divisions, and that it performs this duty in exact
proportion with the share that the citizens who need
reform have in political life: is it not proved, then, with



35

mathematical certainty, that such citizens must either
accuse themselves for not making use of the liberties at
their disposal, or that, wherever existing  institutions
hinder their participation in political life, they should
first endeavor to improve these institutions? I am of
the opinion that he who arouses an interest in politics
among the masses; that he who shows them that only
democracy can furnish the way to social reforms, and
what political institutions are needed for the establishment of a pure democracy,-has deserved better for the
people than he who writes libraries of books on political
economy, confuses their understanding with impossible
theories, entertains them with demagogic battle-cries, and
abuses their political ignorance to give them a contempt
for politics.  This is true above all in Europe, where, in
spite of the despotism of princes, the call for liberty is
still drowned by the communistic cry against the capital
of the bourgeoisie. Unquestionably capital rules there, and
capital is to be overthrown, but a very different one from
that of the bourgeois and stock-jobbers.  The capital I
mean, is the most terrible and most powerful of all, for
it devours and assimilates all others.  It controls work
and money, it sacrifices the workman and his employer,
and, for those who have no share in it, it produces devastation and barbarity, misery and blood. It is neither of
gold nor of silver, yet it rules both, as it does liberty and
life.  No other capital is as simple and insipid as this,
and yet no other yields so high an interest. Those who
invest it, are neither "bourgeois" nor manufacturers,
neither financiers nor bankers, but they understand how
to manage the debit and credit better than the best of
book-keepers.  You wish to know      the name of this
capital? Formerly they called it the sword, now they call
it the cannon. This capital lately yielded to one of these
capitalists, in a single transaction in which he reduced a
distinguished antagonist to bankruptcy, five thousand
millions in money, a couple of countries with a few



36
million "souls," and the dominion over 40,000,000 admirers, who even to this time are beyond themselves
with wonder at such a genius for business. And capitalists of this kind are quietly overlooked by the professional
enemies of capital, who continue to rave against the
capital of the poor bourgeois, while these naturally take
refuge behind the chief of capitals, the cannon, rather
than allow themselves to be made into communists.
But let us return to America.  As socialist, I start
neither with workingmen nor with a class, but with men
and citizens of equal rights, and merely ask which men
and citizens need state-help, and which ones can do without it, and, thereupon, what measures are needed to
secure this help.  Then I find that those are most in
need of state-help who complain least about their situation; and that those who complain most make the least
use of the right means for removing the complaint, but
revolve without success within the circle of a class separation from  the rest of society, and seem to expect a
general revolution from the appearance of a Messiah.
This is particularly true of the German "workingmen."
Now, no Messiah will come, unless each one strives to
become himself a Messiah; and salvation will no more
come in one day than it will bring to all the same fortune. It is an untenable fancy and an unnatural demand
to ask that equal rights should also bring in their train
a universal equality of condition in life. As individual
men differ in their powers and faculties, in their inclinations and wants, there will always be different conditions
in life which they make for themselves according to their
individuality. The problem is merely this, to let no one
sink below a minimum of human prosperity, and to
secure for each one, by means of state-help, the general
requisites that put him in condition to obtain by his own
activity what his natural talent may enable him to obtain.
What now are the principal measures and reforms by
which the state is to accomplish this object?



37
The first is the securing of a sufficient number of free
institutions of instruction of aU kinds, in which every
member of society without distinction of descent, of rank,
and of sex may have an equal opportunity of cultivating
his native faculties, so that he may be in condition not
only to establish his material existence and to vindicate
his rights in the state, but also      that he    may    become a
morally responsible human being, capable of fulfilling his
duties to the whole.
This moral state-help is aided by the material help.
This is to secure the needy against the danger of becoming destitute through lack of work or of being plundered
by the wealthy, by offering through public work a reserve,
and through public credit a support for suitable association. If in this manner labor destitute of means is enabled to operate without depending on the capital of
others, this will be compelled to place it in possession of
its actual yield,* either by paying adequate wages or by
granting it partnership in the business enterprise.
It will be difficult to refute the justice and necessity
of these two chief demands upon the state; but doubts
will be raised concerning the feasibility of their fulfillment. Whence, it will be asked, shall the state obtain
the means?
* I say of its yield not of its value, because only the actual yield of the
product of labor renders it possible to estimate of the value of the labor spent
upon it. This is particularly true of the products of large induslrial establishments. Whatever is left of the yield of the product obtained, after deducting
a fair interest of the capital invested and risked in the establishment, of the
cost of material used, and of the remuneration for the activity of the manager,
is to be credited to the labor not interested in the capital and management,
and the amount of this surplus must be determinable from the average of
current prices or with the help of periodical balances. The communists would
make the time expended on the work the measure for estimating its value.
If this were correct, the lazy and unskilled, who need most time for a certain
work, would be the most valuable workmen, and that product ot labor for
which the greatest amount of time has been used, would cost the greatest
amount of money. It is easy to divine the object of this false arithmetic. In
a communistic society in which wages and free exchange of products of labor
are abolished, and where all are equal, there can be no other means for maintaining such an order of things, but the fixing of an equal time of work for all.
Each one works for the same number of hours, and for this he has an equal
share in the products of the common labor. The factory-clock is for communism, the criterion and the regent.



38
It will obtain them, in the first place, from the taxes,
and these it will raise according to the just measure of
surplus and not of its need. No tax is more just than that
upon actual income, but it must spare the income which
does not go beyond a minimum necessary for the preservation of existence, and make its assessments-and
progressively, too--only on that whicfi passes into the
limits of surplus. The acquisition of property under the
conditions prescribed by the democratic society is an inalienable right of every man; but no one can claim a
right to remain an undisturbed millionaire, and to amass
unlimited wealth in a needy multitude without paying
adequate tribute to the society that enables him to do
this.  If he who has an income of $5,000, pays 10 per
cent taxes, he still sacrifices more than the millionaire
with an income of $1,000,000, who pays 50 per cent.
Stewart, the New York millionaire, had a marble palace
built, which, without its furniture, cost $3,000,000. Would
it have been an injustice, and would it have given less
satisfaction to Mr. Stewart, if the state had indirectly
compelled him to allow the three millions wasted for
the superfluous palace in which he does not even dwell,
to be used for the endowment of necessary schools or for
the support of neglected children of proletaries. The fear
that such a progressive tax, which offers at the same
time the most efficient means for drawing a limit to the
accumulation of capital, would drive capitalists from the
land, deserves no consideration. Let them go, especially
if foreign countries receive them with the same conditions
that drove them from our shores. The few who would
actually emigrate, would only make room for better successors. By his emigration, Mr. Stewart would probably
secure existence to hundreds, who are now repressed by
him. Every human being is entitled to enough, no one
has a right to too much; and if none have too much, all
will have enough. The hatred of the workingmen against
capital is, on the whole, unreasonable; but the hatred of



39
the poor against the rich is justified, where affluence
insolently opposes itself to want.
No less just than the introduction of an adequate
progressive tax, would be the modification of the laws of
inheritance by the state.  I am  unable to understand
that a will which no longer exists, can continue to have
legal value; that a piece of paper on which I have disposed of my possessions before my death, should after
my death represent my living person and demand obedience in its name.  While living I have, of course, a
right to give away my property; and it might be said
with plausibility that a legacy is only a donation with a
delay of the time for taking possession; but a donation
is an accomplished fact which cannot be taken back,
while a legacy can be changed at any moment before the
death of the testator, and should, therefore, be considered
as a notice of an intended donation or as the plan of a
donation. A right of inheritance can exist as an inalienable right only in the case of natural heirs who would
enter upon possession even without a will, because they
have a claim upon the common property left by the
deceased, not as partners in its acquisition, but as members of the family belonging together and directly interested
therein. He who has given them existence or who with
them has established and led a common existence, should
not leave them  behind without the common means of
existence.  Yet even with them- a progressive tax upon
their inheritance would be justified beyond certain limits.
The right of inheritance seems to me, however, perfectly
untenable in the case of collateral or distant relatives
who have not contributed in the least to the acquisition
of the property left behind, who were never concerned in
it, and who base, their claims on nothing but their name.
Hence all property that does not go to heirs intestate
should be forfeited to the state. I do not think, indeed,
that under existing circumstances any one of us would
protest or refuse acceptance, if an unknown or forgotten



40

aunt should bequeath him $100,000; but I think, too,
that in a society that has abrogated such legacies, we
should be less in condition to miss the $100,000.
The principal resource on which the socialistic state
of the future would have to depend, is the resuming of
lands from private possession.  That the soil cannot be
private property, will at some future time result practically from necessity, as it now follows theoretically from
the definition of property.   What is property?   What
any one produces by his own activity.    Individual property is the product of individual work.      Instead of
saying, " Property is theft," we should say, "Property is
work;" and, on tlie other hand, communism is robbery,
because it robs every individual of the fruit of his particular activity and of his independent existence.  The
definition, property is work is not even overthrown by
the facts that it cannot be inverted into, work is property,
and that those who are wont to possess least property,
do the most work. It is, indeed, the object of this reform
to establish the just relation between work and property.
This proposition, then, holds good: what I produce
by my own work without injuring others, is as inalienably
mine as my own life.
Now, this definition of property, of course, excludes
for me every special right to everything that I have not
produced, more particularly to that which no one can
produce, and which is, was, and will be the source of all
production and life for all persons, viz.: nature. This is
tacitly recognized with regard to all those departments or
parts of nature of which it is impossible to take possession and in whose general use no one can be repressed
or curtailed.  No power attempts to take possession of
the atmosphere, the light, and the ocean, and to exclude
others therefrom, for the simple reason that it is a physical impossibility, and because the most extensive use
of these conditions of life and intercourse cannot exhaust
or destroy them.   An exception, however, is made with



41
the solid portions of nature, with the soil.  Justly there
cannot in reality be any other but movable property; but
when men gave up nomadic life and established fixed
abodes, then arose immovable property, which cannot be
justly considered as such.  The soil is, if possible, still
more indispensable for its inhabitants than the remaining
parts of nature. The person who owns all the land in a
state, can make all its inhabitants his slaves, or drive
them across the boundary, or starve them to death. Even
this possibility-and it is not a mere possibility, but has
in a great measure become a reality in feudal territories,
e. g. in Mecklenburg-proves the necessity of looking upon
the soil as the property only of the 'entire society that
occupies it. But even without this consideration, the untenableness of an exclusive private right to the soil follows from the definition of property as the product of
human activity.   The cultivation and improvement of the
ground is, indeed, an activity that creates a claim, but
only to the further use of the ground and to the products,
but not to the ground itself.  If, in some future time,
the state shall have become exclusive owner of the soil,
(which may be accomplished partly in revolutionary
changes by confiscation of lands unjustly or forcibly occupied - e. g. of royal domains or feudal possessions, -
but mostly, in general, by modifications of the laws of
inheritance and by expropriations for purposes of public
good)-it will assign soil up to a certain maximum only
to actual cultivators and leave these and their direct
descendants in possession, as long as they continue to
cultivate it.  These have in this arrangement the same
security which they would have as actual owners, although
they are always only lessees of the state, and, on giving
up the piece of ground, can claim only a fair compensation for the improvements or additions (buildings, etc.)
made by them.
The immense advantages that would follow in the
train of the establishment of the public proprietorship of



42

the soil, must be evident to all.  There could no longer
exist a landed aristocracy nor a destitute class, there
could no longer exist a proletariat nor a dearth of homes.
A low rent which the state would collect from those who
use a certain quantity of land, would constitute the only
tax, a tax that would place more means at its disposal
than all the present taxes taken together.  There need
be no limit, then, for new improvements of all descriptions.
Since the passage of the home-stead bill, land is given
away partly to actual cultivators. But this giving away,
which merely opens the door to later sales, is no less
an infringement of an indisputable and important principle, than direct sales would be.  Every reform  party
that does not make every "exertion to vindicate this
principle by preventing all future gifts and sales of public
lands, both to cultivators and to speculators, proves thereby that it does not understand its task. If the principle
is once established with reference to public lands, the
road is opened to its application to the whole territory of
the republic.  It is true, we shall not live to see this
final result, but then, no one can expect to carry the
most extreme social reforms by storm.  The main point
is always to have the principles acknowledged, whose
realization constitutes the reforms, if that is accomplished,
their realization can no longer be frustrated.
This is not the place to make further propositions of
reform, or to enter upon a more detailed discussion of
those made, since it could only be my object to indicate
by laying down the main points, the way in which the
democratic state will be able to solve the socialistic
problem, without losing itself in the monstrosities of communism. Yet there is another point to be held in view,
which is usually overlooked in the discussion of these
questions.
The so-called social question cannot be solved as a
mere question of the stomach. It is connected with all
the questions of human culture, and the radical, the real



43
reform should always keep the whole human being in
view. Economic one-sidedness will succeed as little in
advancing humanity as political one-sidedness; but even
the combination of the political with the social-questions
is not sufficient without clearing the religious department.
Religious enlightenment, too, is a social question, as well
as the development of democracy.    What would the
citizens do even in the most radical democracy, if they
were spiritually under the control of priests? How long
would the most radical social measures last in a community of catholics? Does not everywhere material miserystand in proportion to the religious credulity? There are
complaints of the plundering of workingmen by the
capitalists; but who plunders more insolently, the capitalists or the priests? The former at least give them bread,
but the latter put them off with a wafer and a draft upon
eternity, while they take from their purses the hardearned wages that were intended for immediate wants?
What gain would it be for the workingmen, for humanity,
if we could satisfy the complaints of all the destitute
concerning their empty purses and stomachs, if we left
their heads filled with religious nonsense? Would we not
by enriching them, simply enrich the priests? Where
now the Irishman, as a poor laborer gives the priest one
dollar, he would as a rich laborer give him  a hundred
dollars.  The consequence would be a hundred-fold increase of priestly power, by enabling them to unite the
means of wealth with those of spiritual influence; and in
due course of time, the priests would again find a way to
lead those through, whom they have been enriched, back
to the condition of the most dependent poverty as in the
middle ages. Unquestionably, too, acommunistic society
of workingmen destitute of religious enlightenment, would
suit no one better than the Jesuits.  They would soon
make a new Paraguay of it, and a Dr. Francia would be
readily found in any country. And what would become
of the enlightened, if we had delivered the workingmen



44
from the capitalists, but not from  the priests?  From  the
stand-point of a mere workingman, I have no right to
question the Irishman concerning his religious confession,
nor to apportion to him his value and his rights according to this; from the stand-point of humanity, however,
I ask a question which has been discussed neither by
an " international" congress,* nor at any other assembly
of " workingmen," viz: the question whether a thorough
social reform is possible without a thorough religious reform.
The dominion of capital should be opposed as well as
the dominion of priesthood; but if I had the choice
between the dominion of capitalists and that of priests, I
should for the present decide in favor of the capitalists.
In conclusion allow me to speak of a subject that
brings to our view the highest aim of social reforms, and,
at the same time the entire scope of the problem they
are to solve. The social evils are to be removed.* Well,
let them make a good start, in order to reach with 'the
healing knife the very bottom of the proud flesh that
eats ever deeper into the social body..There an evil
will be found resembling a representative ulcer in which
all kinds of social morbid matter are gathered; it is
called specifically " the social evil;" yet reformers as well
as reactionaries are in the habit of treating it most frivolously as a secondary affair. The current wisdom of male
brutality, which has created it, even expects to master it
with a few policemen, since it neither uses violence nor
inaugurates revolts.   Let us look about in Berlin or in
Vienna, in New York or in Boston,- everywhere the
same spectacle: a poor woman, that offers the residue of
her charms for sale for a supper, is arrested by a guardian of public safety and morality. This does away with
her and the evil she represents. Whoever should tell the
* The general statutes of the "International Workingmen's Association,"
adopted at the Geneva Congress, September 3d, 1866, declare as the basis of
their relation to mankind, " truth, justice, morality without distinction of color,
of religious cofession, and of nationality." That association is, then, wholly
indifferent to religious enlightenment, and its logic couples without scrUpleg
"truth " and its opposite, religion,



45
people that a history of the world is needed in order to
explain the existence of this despised woman, that an
entire revolution of the world, and not a squad of policemen, is needed to remove her, and that humanity will
never be able to attain truly humane conditions without
her explanation and removal, would be scoffed at as a
maniac.
In truth, whoever declares it to be his object to
remove this poor, wretched being with the "social evil,"
proclaims it as his object to turn the entire society upside
down. In order to banish this poor, wretched being from
the world, it is necessary to dethrone emperors and kings,
to abolish all armies and all "heroes", to tear down the
barracks and the churches, to liberate nations and individuals, to humanize "workingmen" and capitalists, to
" reconstruct" republics and monarchies.
The stronger devour, annihilate, or use the weaker.
This is the law of nature and natural history; and, as
long as man has not become emancipated from natural
history, also the law of human history.  If nature had
given man a stomach-appetite for women, the weaker sex
had disappeared long ago in his stomach. But as nature
fortunately has placed this appetite not in his stomach
or palate, he is content with using his weaker half as the
tool without rights and will for his whims and lusts.
Men were made slaves merely because they first had to
undergo the test of strength; women were born slaves
because it was unnecessary for them to submit to such a
test. Men were subjugated as individuals or as nations;
women were slaves from their very nature, as women.
With regard to them men were the victors without combat, by the mere native advantage of stronger bones, and
the less the victory cost them, the less scrupulously they
abused it.
The progress of development in the legal relations
among human beings consists in the gradual abolition of
abuse of rude strength or power over defenceless weak


46

ness. This abolition, of course, men had first to conquer
only for themselves, because woman as wholly defenceless
and as being everywhere subordinate could not, for the
present, be considered.  But to what extent have men
succeeded in their struggle?  Let the princes and their
subjects answer this question. As a matter of course, the
emancipation and equality of men among themselves is
the indispensable condition for the elevation of the female
sex. Wherever there are yet princes and subjects, women
have nothing to hope. There prostitution is their inevitable and universal fate; there they can, at best, console
themselves with the thought that their male masters are
also prostitutes and, indeed, worse than they, prostitutes
who give mind and opinion for menial service and their
bodies to be shot.
That even the republic, as it exists to-day, still rests
on the right of stronger bones is universally known.  It
is quite natural that in the model republic, the rights of
the coarsest negro were recognized before those of the
most cultured lady.  The supremacy of the male bones
over female weakness cannot be abrogated before all male
bones have attained equality among themselves.  When
this shall have been accomplished both parties will be
placed directly opposite each other, and the weaker sex
may then call the stronger one in corpore to account for
the subjection it has dictated.
This is the course of the abolition of violence, of the
abolition of the "supremacy of the stronger." This is
connected with the abolition of other supremacies.  The
stronger devour, subdue, and abuse not only the weaker,
but they also appropriate first whatever may belong to
the wants and pleasures of life. If the savage has enough
to eat only for one stomach, his wife will surely have to
go hungry. Possession can only be obtained by acquisition. In consequence of his physical power, man was
first qualified to acquire, and although his wife had to
help him occasionally, yet, as sole master, he Also became



47
sole possessor. The progress of civilization increased the
capacity of acquisition, and for this, too, the stronger man
secured the monopoly as well as for the things acquired,
by excluding woman f:om the opportunities of education.
She remained, therefore, economically and mentally as
helpless and dependent on the male, as she was physically and politically.  In other words, he made her a
proletary, as he had made her a tool; and necessity and
want of education condemned her (within and without
"matrimony ") to prostitution, as much as the superior
strength, whence her subjection at first proceeded.
In this way prostitution has become to be an exact
criterion of the progress of civilization, humanity, and
morality among a people.    Not the freedom of sexual
intercourse in accordance with affection indicates the
condition of public morality, but the unfreedom of that
intercourse which proceeds from want, and for which
sexual instinct is not a motive. No woman, who has not
been educated into debasement, will abandon herself,
except from necessity, to a man who does not inspire her
with affection. We may, therefore, set it down as certain,
that the entire unclean intercourse of the prostitution of
our time will disappear, if every woman can obtain
together with an adequate education, the power of taking
care of her own existence, and does not lack the opportunity for the use of this power,  Just as certain it is
that only the free choice of mutually independent human
beings can offer a guarantee for true wedlock, truly moral
marriage. However much human beings love one another
truly, this will not ruin a society; but it is ruined by a
so-called love that is paid for. This paying for love will
cease as soon. as those, who formerly were needy, shall
have no more need for it; they will not need it any more,
if they have enough for themselves; they will have
enough themselves if they have an opportunity to earn
what they need by their own activity, and this opportunity
they will have if they can have equal rights in the de


48

velopment of their faculties and can represent their
interest in a radically democratic republic.
This gradation shows how much is yet to be done to
get rid of that wretched " woman," whom the policeman
is dragging to the station-house. This wretched woman
still stands everywhere as a landmark far down at the
foot of the mountain of civilization; but on its summit
which so far has not been     reached  by  any state,
stands the free, independent woman. If a people should
set itself the exclusive task of making this free, independent woman a possibility, it would in this, at the
same time endeavor to attain all that humanity can
attain.  All conditions of general welfare and general
elevation meet in this one aim. " No more prostitution,"
would be equivalent with no more slavery, no more
brutality, no more baseness, no more misery of any kind.
Hence every reformer may use Goethe's words as the
motto of his endeavors in a higher sense than that in
which they are used in Faust: "The eternal soul of
womanhood draws us on!"



-x

A



I.-i

BY THIE.rs to a

-i -

- 20
20