B. " Socialistische Bausteine"
B. " Socialistische Bausteine"[6]
RHEINISCHE JAHRBÜCHER, P. 155 ET SEQ.
In this essay the reader is first of all prepared for the more difficult truths of true socialism by a belletristic and poetic prologue. The prologue opens by proclaiming "happiness" to be the "ultimate goal of all endeavour, all movements, of all the arduous and untiring exertions of past millenniums". In a few brief strokes, so to speak, a history of the struggle for happiness is sketched for us:
"When the foundations of the old world crumbled, the human heart with all its yearning took refuge in the other world, to which it transferred its happiness" (p. 156).
Hence all the bad luck of the terrestrial world. In recent times man has bidden farewell to the other world and our true socialist now asks:
"Can man greet the earth once more as the land of his happiness? Does he once more recognise earth as his original home? Why then should he still keep life and happiness apart? Why does he not break down the last barrier which cleaves earthly life into two hostile halves?" (ibid.).
"Land of my most blissful feelings!" etc. He now invites "Man" to take a walk, an invitation which "Man" readily accepts. "Man" enters the realm of "free nature" and utters, among other things, the following tender effusions of a true socialist's heart:2
".!. gay flowers ... tall and stately oaks ... their satisfaction, their happiness lie in their life, their growth and their blossoming ... an infinite multitude of tiny creatures in the meadows ... forest birds ... a mettlesome troop of young horses ... I see" (says "man" ) "that these creatures neither know nor desire any other happiness than that which lies for them in the expression and the enjovment of their lives. When night falls, my eyes behold a countless host of worlds which revolve about each other in infinite space according to eternal laws. I see in their revolutions a unity of life, movement and happiness" (p. 157).
"Man" could also observe a great many other things in nature, e.g., the bitterest competition among plants and animals; he could see, for example, in the plant world, in his "forest of tall and stately oaks", how these tall and stately capitalists consume the nutriment of the tiny shrubs, which might well complain: terra, aqua, aere et igni interdicti sumush; he could observe the parasitic plants, the ideologists of the vegetable world, he could further observe that there is open warfare between the "forest birds" and the "infinite multitude of tiny creatures", between the grass of his "meadows" and the "mettlesome troop of young horses". He could see in his "countless host of worlds" a whole heavenly feudal monarchy complete with tenants and satellites, a few of which, e.g., the moon, lead a very poor life aere et aqua interdicti; a feudal system in which even the homeless vagabonds, the comets, have been apportioned their station in life and in which, for example, the shattered asteroids bear witness to occasional unpleasant scenes, while the meteors, those fallen angels, creep shamefaced through the "infinite space", until they find somewhere or other a modest lodging. In the further distance, he would come upon the reactionary fixed stars.
"All these beings find their happiness, the satisfaction and the enjoyment of their life in the exercise and manifestation of the vital energies with which nature has endowed them."
That is, "man" considers that in the interaction of natural bodies and the manifestation of their forces these natural bodies find their happiness, etc.
"Man" is now reproached by our true socialist with his discord:
"Did not man too spring from the primeval world, is he not a child of nature, like all other creatures? Is he not formed of the same materials, is he not endowed with the same general energies and properties that animate all things? Why does he still seek his earthly happiness in an earthly beyond?" (p. 158).
"The same general energies and properties" which man has in common with "all things", are cohesion, impenetrability, volume, gravity, etc., which can be found set out in detail on the first page of any textbook of physics. It is difficult to see how one can construe this as a reason why man should not "seek his happiness in an earthly beyond". However, he admonishes man as follows:
"Consider the lilies of the field."
Yes, consider the lilies of the field, how they are eaten by goats, transplanted by "man" into his buttonhole, how they are crushed beneath the immodest embraces of the dairymaid and the donkey-driver!
"Consider the lilies of the field, they toil not, neither do they spin: and thy Heavenly Father feedeth them."(1)
Go thou and do likewise! After learning in this fashion of the unity of "man" with "all things", we now learn how he differs from "all things".
"But man knows himself, he is conscious of himself. Whereas in other beings, the instincts and forces of nature manifest themselves in isolation and unconsciously, they are united in man and become conscious ... his nature is the mirror of all nature, which recognises itself in him. Well then! If nature recognises itself in me, then I recognise myself in nature. I see in its life my own life [...]. We are thus giving living expression to that with which nature has imbued us" (p. 158).
This whole prologue is a model of ingenuous philosophic mystification. The true socialist proceeds from the thought that the dichotomy of life and happiness must cease. To prove this thesis he summons the aid of nature presupposing that this dichotomy does not exist in nature and from this he deduces that since man, too, is a natural body and has the properties which such bodies generally possess, this dichotomy ought not to exist for him either. Hobbes had much better reasons for invoking nature as a proof of his bellum
omnium contra omnes,3 and Hegel, on whose construction our true socialist depends, for perceiving in nature the cleavage, the slovenly period of the Absolute Idea, and even calling the animal the concrete anguish of God. After shrouding nature in mystery, our true socialist shrouds human consciousness in mystery too, by making it the "mirror" of this mystified nature. Of course, when the manifestation of consciousness ascribes to nature the mental expression of a pious wish about human affairs, it is self-evident that consciousness will only be the mirror in which nature contemplates itself. That "man" has to abolish in his own sphere the cleavage, which is assumed to be non-existent in nature, is now proved by reference to man in his quality as a mere passive mirror in which nature becomes aware of itself; just as it was earlier proved by reference to man as a mere natural body. But let us inspect the last proposition more closely; all the nonsense of these arguments is concentrated in it.
The first fact asserted is that man possesses self-consciousness. The instincts and energies of individual natural beings are transformed into the instincts and forces of "Nature", which then, as a matter of course, "are manifested" in isolation in these individual beings. This mystification was needed in order later to effect a unification of these instincts and forces of "Nature" in the human self-consciousness. Thereby the self-consciousness of man is, of course, transformed into the self-consciousness of nature within him. This mystification is apparently resolved in the following way: in order to pay nature back for finding its self-consciousness in man, man seeks his, in turn, in nature — a procedure which enables him, of course, to find nothing in nature except what he has imputed to it by means of the mystification described above.
He has now arrived safely at the point from which he originally started, and this way of turning round on one's heel is now called in Germany—development.
After this prologue comes the real exposition of true socialism.
First Cornerstone
Page 160: "Saint-Simon said to his disciples on his death-bed: 'My whole life can be expressed in one thought: all men must be assured the freest development of their natural capacities.' Saint-Simon was a herald of socialism."
This statement is now treated according to the true socialist method described above and combined with that mystification of nature which we saw in the prologue.
"Nature as the basis of all life is a unity which proceeds from itself and returns to itself, which embraces the immense multifariousness of its phenomena and apart from which nothing exists" (p. 158).
We have seen how one contrives to transform the different natural bodies and their mutual relationships into multifarious "phenomena" of the secret essence of this mysterious "unity". The only new element in this sentence is that nature is first called "the basis of all life", and immediately afterwards we are informed that "apart from it nothing exists"; according to this it embraces "life" as well and cannot merely be its basis.
After these portentous words, there follows the pivotal point of the whole essay:
"Every one of these phenomena, every individual life, exists and develops only through its antithesis, its struggle with the external world, and it is based upon its interaction with the totality of life, with which it is in turn by its nature linked in a whole, the organic unity of the universe" (pp. 158, 159).
This pivotal sentence is further elucidated as follows:
"The individual life finds, on the one hand, its foundation, its source and its subsistence in the totality of life; on the other hand, the totality of life in continual struggle with the individual life strives to consume and to absorb it" (p. 159).
Since this statement applies to every individual life, "therefore", it can be, and is, applied to men as well:
"Man can therefore only develop in and through the totality of life" (No. I, ibid.).
Conscious individual life is now contrasted with unconscious individual life; human society with natural life in general; and then the sentence which we quoted last is repeated in the following form:
"By reason of my nature, it is only in and through community with other men that I can develop, achieve self-conscious enjoyment of my life and attain happiness" (No. II, ibid.).
This development of the individual in society is now discussed in the same way as "individual life" in general was treated above:
perpetual reaction against society, which confronts me as a restricting force, that I achieve self-determination and freedom, without which there is no happiness. My life is a continuous process of liberation, a continuous battle with and victory over the conscious and unconscious external world, in order to subdue it and use it to enjoy my life. The instinct of self-preservation, the striving for my own happiness, freedom and satisfaction, these are consequently natural, i.e., reasonable, expressions of life" (ibid.).
Further:
"I demand, therefore, from society that it should afford me the possibility of winning from it my satisfaction, my happiness, that it should provide a battlefield for my bellicose spirit. Just as the individual plant demands soil, warmth and sun, air and rain for its growth, so that it may bear leaves, blossoms and fruit, man too desires to find in society the conditions for the all-round development and satisfaction of all his needs, inclinations and capacities. It must offer him the possibility of winning his happiness. How he will use that chance, what he will make of himself, of his life, depends upon him, upon his individuality. I alone can determine my happiness" (pp. 159, 160).
There follows, as the conclusion of the whole argument, the statement by Saint-Simon which is quoted at the beginning of this section. The Frenchman's idea has thus been vindicated by German science. What does this vindication consist in?
The true socialist has already earlier imputed various ideas to nature which he would like to see realised in human society. While formerly it was the individual human being, whom he made the mirror of nature, it is now society as a whole. A further conclusion can now be drawn about human society from the ideas imputed to nature. Since the author does not discuss the historical development of society, contenting himself with this meagre analogy, it remains incomprehensible why society should not always have been a true image of nature. The phrases about society, which confronts the individual in the shape of a restricting force, etc., are therefore relevant to every form of society. It is quite natural that a few inconsistencies should have crept into this interpretation of society. Thus he must now admit that a struggle is waged in nature, in contrast to the harmony described in the prologue. Society, the "totality of life", is conceived by our author not as the interaction of the constituent "individual lives", but as a distinct existence, and this moreover separately interacts with these "individual lives". If there is any reference to real affairs in all this it is the illusion of the independence of the state in relation to private life and the belief in this apparent independence as something absolute. But as a matter of fact, neither here nor anywhere in the whole essay is it a question of nature and society at all; it is merely a question of the two categories, individuality and universality, which are given various names and which are said to form a contradiction, the reconciliation of which would be highly desirable.
From the vindication of "individual life" as opposed to the "totality of life" it follows that the satisfaction of needs, the development of capacities, self-love, etc., are "natural, reasonable expressions of life". From the conception of society as an image of nature, it follows that in all forms of society existing up to now, the present included, these expressions of life have attained full maturity and are recognised as justified.
But we suddenly learn on page 159 that "in our present-day society" these reasonable, natural expressions of life are nevertheless "so often repressed" and "usually only for that reason do they degenerate into an unnaturalness, malformation, egoism, vice, etc."
And so, since society does not, after all, correspond to its prototype, nature, the true socialist "demands" that it should conform to nature and justifies his claim by adducing the plant as an example — a most unfortunate example. In the first place, the plant does not "demand" of nature all the conditions of existence enumerated above; unless it finds them already present it never becomes a plant at all; it remains a grain of seed. Moreover, the state of the "leaves, blossoms and fruit" depends to a great extent on the "soil", the "warmth" and so on, the climatic and geological conditions of its growth. Far from "demanding" anything, the plant is seen to depend utterly upon the actual conditions of existence; nevertheless, it is upon this alleged demand that our true socialist bases his own claim for a form of society which shall conform to his individual "peculiarity". The demand for a true socialist society is based on the imaginary demand of a coco-nut palm that the "totality of life" should furnish it with "soil, warmth, sun, air and rain" at the North Pole.
This claim of the individual on society is not deduced from the real development of society but from the alleged relationship of the metaphysical characters — individuality and universality. You have only to interpret single individuals as representatives, embodiments of individuality, and society as the embodiment of universality, and the whole trick is done. And at the same time Saint-Simon's statement about the free development of the capacities has been correctly expressed and placed upon its true foundation. This correct expression consists in the absurd statement that the individuals forming society want to preserve their "peculiarity", want to remain as they are, while they demand of society a transformation which can only proceed from a transformation of themselves.
Second Cornerstone
"You've forgotten the rest of the charming refrain? Well, just give it up and start over again!"(1)
"Infinite in their variety, all individual Beings as unity taken together are World Organism" (p. 160).
And so we find ourselves thrown back again to the beginning of the essay and have to go through the whole comedy of individual life and totality of life for the second time. Once more we are initiated into the deep mystery of the interaction of these two lives, restauré a neuf by the introduction of the new term "polar relationship" and the transformation of the individual life into a mere symbol, an "image" of the totality of life. Like a kaleidoscopic picture this essay is composed of reflections of itself, a method of argument common to all true socialists. Their approach to their arguments is similar to that of the cherry-seller who was selling her wares below cost price, working on the correct economic principle that it is the quantity sold that matters. As regards true socialism, this is the more essential because its cherries were rotten before they were ripe.
A few examples of this self-reflection follow:
Cornerstone No. I, pp. 158, 159.
"Every individual life exists and develops only through its antithesis ... is based upon its interaction with the totality of life,
"With which it is in turn, by its nature, linked in a whole.
"Organic unity of the universe.
Cornerstone No. II, pp. 160, 161.
"Every individual life exists and develops in and through the totality of life; the totality of life only exists and develops in and through the individual life." (Interaction.)
"The individual life develops ... as a part of life in general.
"The world organism is combined unity.
"The individual life finds, on the one hand, its foundation, its source and its subsistence in the totality of life,
"On the other hand, the totality of life in continual struggle with the individual life strives to consume it.
"Therefore (p. 159): "Human society is to conscious ... life what unconscious universal life in general is to the unconscious individual life.
"Which" (the totality of life) "becomes the soil and subsistence of its" (the individual life's) "development ... that each is founded upon the other....
"That thev struggle against one another and oppose one another.
"It follows (p. 161): "That conscious individual life is also conditioned by the conscious totality of life and" ... (vice versa).
"7 can only develop in and through "The individual human being develops community with other men.... In society, only in and through society, society", vice too, the opposition of individual life and versa, etc.... life in general becomes", etc....
"Nature ... is a unity ... which em-"Society is a unity which embraces braces the immense multifariousness of and comprises the multifariousness of in-ks phenomena." dividual human development." But our author is not satisfied with this kaleidoscopic display. He goes on to repeat his artless remarks about individuality and universality in yet another form. He first puts forward these few arid abstractions as absolute principles and then concludes that the same relationship must recur in the real world. Even this gives him the chance of saying everything twice under the guise of making deductions, in abstract form and, when he is drawing his conclusion, in seemingly concrete form. Then, however, he sets about varying the concrete names which he has given to his two categories. Universality appears variously as nature, unconscious totality of life, conscious ditto, life in general, world organism, all-embracing unity, human society, community, organic unity of the universe, universal happiness, common weal, etc., and individuality appears under the corresponding names of unconscious and conscious individual life, individual happiness, one's own welfare, etc. In connection with each of these names we are obliged to listen to the selfsame phrases which have already been applied often enough to individuality and universality.
The second cornerstone contains, therefore, nothing which was not already contained in the first. But since the words égalité, solidarité, unité des intérêts are used by the French socialists, our author attempts to fashion them into "cornerstones" of true socialism by turning them into German.
"As a conscious member of society I recognise every other member as a being different from myself, confronting me and at the same time supported by and derived from the primary common basis of existence and equal to me. I recognise every one of my fellow-men as opposed to me by reason of his particular nature, yet equal to me by reason of his general nature. The recognition of human equality, of the right of every man to existence, depends therefore upon the consciousness that human nature is common to all; in the same way, love, friendship, justice and all the social virtues are based upon the feeling of natural human affinity and unity. If up to now these have been termed obligations and have been imposed upon men, then in a society founded upon the consciousness of man's inward nature, i.e., upon reason and not upon external compulsion, they will become free, natural expressions of life. In a society which conforms to nature, i.e., to reason, the conditions of existence must accordingly be equal for all its members, i.e., must be general" (pp. 161, 162).
The author displays a marked ability for first putting forward a proposition in assertive fashion and then legitimising it as a consequence of itself by inserting an accordingly, a consequently, etc. He is equally skilful at incidentally smuggling into his peculiar deductions traditional socialistic statements by the use of "if they have", "if it is"—"then they must", "then it will become", etc.
In the first cornerstone, we saw, on the one hand, the individual and, on the other, universality which confronted him as society. This antithesis now reappears in another form, the individual now being divided within himself into a particular and a general nature. From the general nature of the individual, conclusions are drawn about "human equality" and community. Those conditions of life which are common to men thus appear here as a product of "the essence of man", of nature, whereas they, just as much as the consciousness of equality, are historical products. Not content with this, the author substantiates this equality by stating that it rests entirely "on the primary common basis of existence". We learned in the prologue, p. 158, that man "is formed of the same materials and is endowed with the same general energies and properties that animate all things". We learned in the first cornerstone that nature is "the basis of all life", and so, the "primary common basis of existence". Our author has, therefore, far outstripped the French since, being "a conscious member of society", he has not only demonstrated the equality of men with one another; he has also demonstrated their equality with every flea, every wisp of straw, every stone.
We should be only too pleased to believe that "all the social virtues" of our true socialist are based "upon the feeling of natural human affinity and unity", even though feudal bondage, slavery and all the social inequalities of every age have also been based upon this "natural affinity". Incidentally, "natural human affinity" is an historical product which is daily changed at the hands of men; it has always been perfectly natural, however inhuman and contrary to nature it may seem, not only in the judgment of "Man", but also of a later revolutionary generation.
We learn further, quite by chance, that present-day society is based upon "external compulsion". By "external compulsion" the true socialists do not understand the restrictive material conditions of life of given individuals. They see it only as the compulsion exercised by the state, in the form of bayonets, police and cannons, which far from being the foundation of society, are only a consequence of its structure. This question has already been discussed in Die heilige Familie and also in the first volume of this work.
The socialist opposes to present-day society, which is "based upon external compulsion", the ideal of true society, which is based upon the "consciousness of man's inward nature, i.e., upon reason". It is based, that is, upon the consciousness of consciousness, upon the thought of thought. The true socialist does not differ from the philosophers even in his choice of terms. He forgets that the "inward nature" of men, as well as their "consciousness" of it, "i.e.", their "reason", has at all times been an historical product and that even when, as he believes, the society of men was based "upon external compulsion", their "inward nature" corresponded to this "external compulsion".
There follow, on page 163, individuality and universality with their usual retinue, in the form of individual and public welfare. You may find similar explanations of their mutual relationship in any handbook of political economy under the heading of competition and also, though better expressed, in Hegel.
For example, Rheinische Jahrbücher, p. 163:
"By furthering the public welfare, 1 further my own welfare, and by furthering my own welfare, I further the public welfare."
Cf. Hegel's Rechtsphilosophie, p. 248 (1833):
"In furthering my ends, I further the universal, and this in turn furthers my ends."
Compare also Rechtsphilosophie, p. 323 et seq., about the relation of the citizen to the state.
"Therefore, as a final consequence, we have the conscious unity of the individual life with the totality of life, harmony" (Rheinische Jahrbücher, p. 163).
"As a final consequence", that is to say, of "this polar relationship between the individual and the general life, which consists in the fact that sometimes the two clash and oppose one another, while at other times, the one is the condition and the basis of the other".
The "final consequence" of this is at most the harmony of disharmony with harmony; and all that follows from the constant repetition of these familiar phrases is the author's belief that his fruitless wrestling with the categories of individuality and universality is the appropriate form in which social questions should be solved.
The author concludes with the following flourish:
''Organic society has as its basis universal equality and develops, through the opposition of the individuals to the universal, towards unrestricted concord, towards the unity of individual with universal happiness, towards social" (!) "harmony of society" (11), "which is the reflection of universal harmony" (p. 164).
Third Cornerstone
THIRD CORNERSTONE
"Man's struggle with nature is based upon the polar opposition of my particular life to, and its interaction with, the world of nature in general. When this struggle appears as conscious activity, it is termed labour" (p. 164).
Is not, on the contrary, the idea of "polar opposition" based upon the observation of a struggle between men and nature? First of all, an abstraction is made from a fact; then it is declared that the fact is based upon the abstraction. A very cheap method to produce the semblance of being profound and speculative in the German manner.
For example:
Fact: The cat eats the mouse. Reflection: Cat — nature, mouse — nature, consumption of mouse by cat=consumption of nature by nature = self-consumption of nature.
Philosophic presentation of the fact: Devouring of the mouse by the cat is based upon the self-consumption of nature.
Having thus obscured man's struggle with nature, the writer goes on to obscure man's conscious activity in relation to nature, by describing it as the manifestation of this mere abstraction from the real struggle. The profane word labour is finally smuggled in as the result of this process of mystification. It is a word which our true socialist has had on the tip of his tongue from the start, but which he dared not utter until he had legitimised it in the appropriate way. Labour is constructed from the mere abstract idea of Man and nature; it is thereby defined in a way which is equally appropriate and inappropriate to all stages in the development of labour.
" Therefore, labour is any conscious activity on the part of man whereby he tries to acquire dominion over nature in an intellectual and material sense, so that he may utilise it for the conscious enjoyment of his life and for his intellectual or bodily satisfaction" (ibid.).
We shall only draw attention to the brilliant deduction:
"When this struggle appears as conscious activity, it is termed labour—therefore labour is any conscious activity on the part of man", etc.
We owe this profound insight to the "polar opposition". The reader will recall Saint-Simon's statement concerning libre développement de toutes les facultés" mentioned above, and also remember that Fourier wished to see the present travail répugnant replaced by travail attrayante We owe to the "polar opposition" the
Free development of all capacities.—Ed. "Repellent labour" replaced by "attractive labour" (Charles Fourier, Nouveau monde industriel).—Ed.
following philosophic vindication and explanation of these propositions:
"But since" (the "but" is meant to indicate that there is no connection here) "for life every manifestation, exercise and expression of its forces an.d faculties should be a source of enjoyment and satisfaction, it follows that labour should itself be a manifestation and development of human capacities and should be a source of enjoyment, satisfaction and happiness. Consequently, labour must itself become a free expression of life and so a source of enjoyment" (ibid.).
Here we are shown what we were promised in the preface to the Rheinische Jahrbücher, namely, "how far German social science differs in its development up to the present from French and English social science" and what it means "to present the doctrine of communism in a scientific form".
It would be a lengthy and boring procedure to expose every logical lapse which occurs in the course of these few lines. But let us first consider the offences against formal logic.
To prove that labour, an expression of life, should be a source of enjoyment, it is assumed that life should afford enjoyment in all its expressions. From this the conclusion is drawn that life should be a source of enjoyment also in its expression as labour. Not satisfied with this periphrastic transformation of a postulate into a conclusion, the author draws a false conclusion. From the fact that "for life every manifestation should be a source of enjoyment", he deduces that labour, which is one of these manifestations of life, "should itself be a manifestation and development of human capacities", that is to say, of life once again. Hence it ought to be what it already is. How could labour ever be anything but a "manifestation of human capacities"? But he does not stop there. Because labour should be so, it "must consequently" be so, or still better: betause labour "should be a manifestation and development of human capacities", it must consequently become something completely different, namely, "a free expression of life", which did not enter into the question at all before this. And whereas earlier the postulate of labour as enjoyment was directly deduced from the postulate of the enjoyment of life, the former postulate is now put forward as a consequence of the new postulate of "free expression of life in labour".
As far as the content of the proposition is concerned, one cannot quite see why labour has not always been what it ought to be, why it must now become what it ought to be, or why it should become something which up to now it was not bound to be. But, of course, up to now the essence of man and the polar opposition of man and nature were not properly explained.
A "scientific vindication" of the communist view about the common ownership of the products of labour follows:
"But" (the recurrent "but" has the same meaning as the previous one) "the product of labour must serve at one and the same time the happiness of the individual, of the labouring individual, and the general happiness. This is effected by reason of the fact that all social activities are complementary and reciprocal" (ibid.).
This statement is merely a copy of what any political economy has to say in praise of competition and the division of labour; except that the argument has been weakened by the introduction of the word "happiness".
Finally, we are given a philosophic vindication of the French organisation of labour:
"Labour as a free activity, which is enjoyable, affords satisfaction and at the same time serves the common weal, is the basis of the organisation of labour" (p. 165).
But since labour should and must become a free activity "which is enjoyable", etc., and therefore this state of affairs has not yet been reached, one would have expected on the contrary the organisation of labour to be the basis of "labour as an enjoyable activity". But the concept of labour as such an activity is quite sufficient [for the writer].
At the end of the essay the author believes to have reached "results".
These "cornerstones" and "results", together with those other granite boulders which are to be found in the Einundzwanzig Bogen, the Bürgerbuch and the Neue Anekdota,™ form the rock upon which true socialism, alias German social philosophy, will build its church.(1)
We shall have occasion to listen to a few of the hymns, a few of the fragments of the cantique allégorique hébraïque et mystique which are chanted in this church.
Endnotes
[6] The review was published anonymously under the heading "Die heilige Familie oder Kritik der kritischen Kritik. Gegen Br. Bauer und Consorten. Von F. Engels und K. Marx, Frankfurt, 1845".