,note3 ,images of the original pages are available through ,internet ,archive_/,canadian ,libraries4 ,see http3_/_/www4archive4org_/details_/landm arksofscien#jj;engeuoft ---------------------------------------- ------------------- ,transcriber's ,note3 ,inconsistent hyphenation and use of quotation marks in the original document have been preserved4 ,subscripted characters in chemical formulas are enclosed in curly braces after an underscore4 ,for example1 the formula for water is represented by ,h#b,o4 ,obvious errors in chemical formulas were corrected without comment4 ,superscripted numbers are preceded by a carat character4 ,for example1 a-squared is represented by a#b4 ,obvious typographical errors have been corrected4 ,for a complete list1 please see the end of this document4 ---------------------------------------- ------------------- ,,landmarks ,,of ,,scientific ,,socialism ,anti-,duehring by ,,frederick ,,engels ,translated and ,edited by ,austin ,lewis ,chicago ,charles ,h4 ,kerr ,company ,co-,operative ,copyright1 #aijg by ,charles ,h4 ,kerr ,company ,john ,f4 ,higgins ,printer and ,binder #cgf-chb ,monroe ,street ,chicago1 ,illinois ,,table ,,of ,,contents ,,chapter ,i ,,page ,,translator',s ,,introduction #g ,,chapter ,,ii ,,prefaces #bc ,part ,i #bc ,part ,,ii #bg ,part ,,iii #ce ,,chapter ,,iii ,,introduction #cf ,i4 ,in ,general #cf ,,ii4 ,what ,herr ,duehring ,has to ,say #ej ,,part ,i ,,chapter ,,iv ,apriorism #ed ,the ,scheme of the ,universe #fc ,,chapter ,v ,,natural ,,philosophy #gj ,time and ,space #gj ,cosmogony1 ,physics1 and ,chemistry #hb ,the ,organic ,world #id ,the ,organic ,world 7conclusion7 #ajg ,,chapter ,,vi ,,moral ,,and ,,law #aaf ,eternal ,truths #aaf ,equality #acj ,freedom and ,necessity #adf ,,chapter ,,vii ,,the ,,dialectic #aej ,quantity #aej ,negation of the ,negation #aei ,conclusion #age ,,part ,,ii ,,chapter ,,viii ,,political ,,economy #agf ,i4 ,objects and ,methods #agf ,,ii4 ,the ,force ,theory #ahd ,,iii4 ,force ,theory 7continued7 #aic ,,iv4 ,force ,theory 7conclusion7 #bjc ,v4 ,theory of ,value #bad ,,vi4 ,simple and ,compound ,labor #bai ,,vii4 ,capital and ,surplus ,value #bbc ,,viii4 ,capital and ,surplus ,value 7conclusion7 #bbg ,,ix4 ,natural ,economic ,laws--,ground ,rent #bcb ,x4 ,with ,respect to the ,critical ,history #bce ,,part ,,iii ,,chapter ,,ix ,,socialism #bcf ,production #bcf ,distribution #bde ,the ,state1 ,the ,family1 and ,education #bef ,,appendix #bfa ,,landmarks ,,of ,,scientific ,,socialism ,,chapter ,i ,,translator',s ,,introduction ,when ,dr4 ,eugene ,duehring1 privat docent at ,berlin ,university1 in #ahge1 proclaimed the fact that he had become converted to ,socialism1 he was not content to take the socialist movement as he found it1 but set out forthwith to promulgate a theory of his own4 ,his was a most elaborate and self-conscious mission4 ,he stood forth as the propagandist not only of certain specific and peculiar views of socialism but as the originator of a new philosophy1 and the propounder of strange and wonderful theories with regard to the universe in general4 ,the taunt as to his all-comprehensiveness of intellect1 with which ,engels pursues him somewhat too closely and much too bitterly1 could not have affected ,herr ,duehring very greatly4 ,he had his own convictions with respect to that comprehensive intellect of his and few will be found to deny that he had the courage of his convictions4 ,thirty years have gone since ,duehring published the fact of his conversion to socialism4 ,the word conversion contains in itself the distinction between the socialism of thirty years ago and that of to-day4 ,what was then a peculiar creed has now become a very widespread notion4 ,men are not now individually converted to socialism but whole groups and classes are driven into the socialist ranks by the pressure of circumstances4 ,the movement springs up continually in new and unexpected places4 ,here it may languish apparently1 there it gives every indication of strong1 new and vigorous life4 ,the proletariat of the various countries race as it were towards the socialist goal and1 as they change in their respective positions1 the economic and political fields on which they operate furnish all the surprises and fascinations of a race course4 ,in #ahib ,engels wrote that the ,german ,empire would in all probability be the scene of the first great victory of the ,european proletariat4 ,but thirteen years have sufficed to bog the ,german movement in the swamps of ,parliamentarianism4 ,great ,britain1 whose ,chartist movement was expected to provide the ,british proletariat with a tradition1 has furnished few examples of skill in the management of proletarian politics1 but existing society in ,great ,britain has none the less been thoroughly undermined4 ,the year before that in which ,herr ,duehring made his statement of conversion1 the ,british ,liberals had suffered a defeat which1 in spite of an apparent recuperation in #ahhj1 proved the downfall of modern ,liberalism in ,great ,britain1 and showed that the ,liberal ,party could no longer claim to be the party of the working class4 ,not only that1 but the ,british philosophic outlook has become completely changed4 ,the nonconformist conscience grows less and less the final court of appeal in matters political4 ,a temporary but fierce attack of militant imperialism coupled with the very general acceptance of an empiric collectivism has sufficed to destroy old ideas and to make the road to victory easier for a determined and relentless working class movement4 ,but if thirty years have worked wonders in ,europe1 and disintegration can be plainly detected in the social fabric1 the course of social and political development in the ,united ,states has been still more remarkable4 ,in #ahge the country was still a farming community living on the edge of a vast wilderness through which the railroad was just beginning to open a path4 ,thirty years have been sufficient to convert it into the greatest of manufacturing and commercial states4 ,the occupation of the public lands1 the establishment of industry on an hitherto undreamed of scale1 the marvellous1 almost overnight creation of enormous cities1 all these have resulted in the production of a proletariat1 cosmopolitan in its character1 and with no traditions of other than cash relations with the class which employs it4 ,the purity of the economic fact is unobscured4 ,hence a socialistic agitation has arisen in the ,united ,states1 the enthusiasm of which vies with that in any of the ,european countries and the practical results of which bid fair to be even more striking4 ,this movement has arisen almost spontaneously as the result of economic conditions4 ,it is a natural growth not the result of the preaching of abstract doctrines or the picturing of an ideal state4 ,the modern ,american proletariat is1 as a matter of fact1 given neither to philosophic speculation nor to the imagination which is necessary to idealism4 ,such socialism as it has adopted it has taken up because it has felt impelled thereto by economic pressure4 ,hence1 apart from all socialistic propaganda1 a distinct disintegration-process has been proceeding in modern society4 ,each epoch carries within itself the seeds of its own dissolution4 ,things have just this much value1 they are transitory1 says ,engels in his paraphrase of ,hegel1 and this is in fact the central idea of his dialectic philosophy4 ,he criticises the work of ,duehring from this standpoint4 ,he labors not so much to show that ,duehring is mistaken in certain conclusions as to prove that the whole method of his argument is wrong4 ,his diatribes1 though the subject matter of his argument requires him to attack the ,berlin tutor1 are directed chiefly against all absolute theories4 ,eternal truth1 in the realm of science1 equally with that of philosophy1 he scouts as absurd4 ,to interpret the history of the time in terms of the spirit of the time1 to discover the actual beneath the crust of the conventional1 to analyse the content of the formulae which the majority are always ready to take on trust1 and to face the fact with a mind clear of preconceived notions is what ,engels set out to do4 ,it cannot be said that he altogether succeeded4 ,no man can succeed in such a task4 ,the prejudices and animosities created by incessant controversy warped his judgment in some respects1 and tended on more than one occasion to destroy his love of fair play4 ,the spirit which is occasionally shown in his controversial writing is to be deplored but it may be said in extenuation that all controversies of that time were disfigured in the same way4 ,he pays the penalty for the fault4 ,much of the work is valueless to-day because of ,engels' eagerness to score a point off his adversary rather than to state his own case4 ,but where the philosopher lays the controversialist on one side for a brief period1 and takes the trouble to elucidate his own ideas we discover what has been lost by these defects of temperament4 ,he possesses in a marked degree the gift of clear analysis and of keen and subtle statement4 ,the socialist movement everywhere arrives some time or other at what may be called the ,duehring stage of controversy4 ,there are two very distinct impulses towards socialism4 ,the individuals who are influenced by these impulses must sooner or later come into collision1 and as a result of the impact the movement is for a time divided into hostile parties and a war of pamphleteering and oratory supervenes4 ,this period has just ended in ,france4 ,for the last few years the ,french movement has been divided upon the question of the philosophical foundation of the movement1 and the parties to the controversy may be divided into those who sought to justify the movement upon ethical grounds and those who have regarded it as a modern political phenomenon dependent alone upon economic conditions4 ,the former of these parties based its claims to the suffrages of the ,french people upon the justice of the socialistic demands4 ,it proclaimed socialism to be the logical result of the ,revolution1 the necessary conclusion from the teachings of the revolutionary philosophers4 ,justice was the word in which they summed up the claims of socialism1 that and ,equality1 for which latter term as ,engels points out in the present work1 the ,french have a fondness which amounts almost to a mania4 ,hence one party of the ,french socialist movement chose as a platform those very eternal truths which ,engels ridicules and which it is the sole purpose of the present work to attack4 ,to kill eternal truths is however by no means an easy matter4 ,years of habit have made them part of the mental structure of the citizens of the modern democratic or semi-democratic states4 ,not only in ,france but to an even greater degree in the ,english speaking countries these eternal truths persist1 they form the stock in trade of the clergyman and the ordinary politician4 ,bernard ,shaw directs the shafts of his ridicule against these eternal truths and smites with a sarcasm which is more fatal than all the solemn ,german philosophy which ,engels has at his command4 ,but ,shaw is not appreciated by the ,british socialist4 ,the latter cannot imagine that the writer is really poking fun at things so exceedingly serious and so essential to any well constituted man1 to a well-constituted ,briton in particular4 ,the ,british socialist is as much in love with eternal truths as is the stiffest and most unregenerate of his bourgeois opponents4 ,he therefore toploftily declares that ,mr4 ,shaw is an unbalanced person1 a licensed jester4 ,precisely the same results would attend the efforts of an ,american iconoclast who would venture to ridicule the eternal truths which have been handed down to us in documents of unimpeachable respectability1 like the ,declaration of ,independence1 and by ,fourth of ,july orators1 portly of person and of phrase4 ,the eternal truth phase of socialist controversy seems to be as eternal as the truth1 and must necessarily be so as long as the movement is recruited by men who bring into it the ideas which they have derived from the ordinary training of the ,american citizen4 ,the other side of the controversy to which reference has been made derived its philosophy from the experience of the proletariat4 ,this modern proletariat1 trained to1 the machine1 is a distinct product of the occupation by which it lives4 ,the organisation of industry in the grasp of which the workman is held during all his working hours and manufacture by the machine-process1 the motions of which he is compelled to follow have produced in him a mental condition which does not readily respond to any sentimental stimulus4 ,the incessant process from cause to effect endows him with a sort of logical sense in accordance with which he works out the problems of life independent of the preconceptions and prejudices which have so great a hold upon the reason of his fellow citizens who are not of the industrial proletariat4 ,without knowing why he arrives by dint of the experience of his daily toil at the same conclusions as ,engels attained as the result of philosophic training and much erudition4 ,the ,church is well aware of this fact to her sorrow for the industrial proletarian seldom darkens her portals4 ,he has no hatred of religion1 as the atheistic radical bourgeois had1 but with a good-natured non possumus says by his actions what ,engels says by his philosophy4 ,revolution is an every day occurrence with the industrial proletarian4 ,he sees processes transformed in the twinkling of an eye4 ,he wakes up one morning to find that the trade which he has learned laboriously has overnight become a drug on the market4 ,he is used to seeing the machine whose energy has enchained him flung on the scrap heap and contemptuously disowned1 in favor of a more competent successor whose motions he must learn to follow or be himself flung on the scrap heap also4 ,this constant revolution in the industrial process enters into his blood4 ,he becomes a revolutionist by force of habit4 ,there is no need to preach the dialectic to him4 ,it is continually preached4 ,the transitoriness of phenomena is impressed upon him by the changes in industrial combinations1 by the constant substitution of new modes of production for those to which he has been accustomed1 substitutions which may make an aristocrat of labor of him to-day1 and send him tramping to-morrow4 ,the industrial proletarian therefore knows practically what ,engels has taught philosophically4 ,so that when in the course of his political peregrinations he strays into the socialist movement and there finds those who profess a socialism based upon abstract conceptions and eternal truths his contempt is as outspoken as that of a ,friedrich ,engels who chances upon a certain ,eugen ,duehring spouting paraphrases of ,rousseau by the socialistic wayside4 ,engels simply anticipated by the way of books the point of view reached by the industrial proletarian of to-day by the way of experience1 and by the ,american machine-made proletarian in particular4 ,this is a matter of no mean importance4 ,in the following pages we can detect if we can look beyond and beneath the mere criticism of ,duehring1 an attitude of mind1 not of one controversialist to another merely but of an entire class1 the class upon which modern society is driven more and more to rely1 to the class which relies upon it4 ,for their popular support classes and governments rely upon formulae4 ,when the cry of ,down with the ,tsar takes the place of the humbly spoken ,little ,father what becomes of the ,tsardom8 ,when the terms ,liberty and ,equality become the jest of the workshop1 upon what basis can a modern democratic state depend8 ,this criticism of eternal truths is destructive criticism1 and destructive of much more than the truths4 ,it is more destructive than sedition itself4 ,sedition may be suppressed cheaply in these days of quick-firing guns and open streets4 ,but society crumbles away almost insensibly beneath the mordant acid of contemptuous analysis4 ,so to-day goaded on the one side by the gibes of the machine-made proletariat1 and on the other1 by the raillery of the philosophic jester1 society staggers along like a wounded giant and is only too glad to creep into its cave and to forget its sorrows in drink4 ,as for #ahge1 ,many things have happened since then as ,beaconsfield used to say1 but of all that has happened nothing could have given more cynical pleasure to the ,old ,jew than the lack of faith in its own shibboleths which has seized the cocksure pompous society in which he disported himself4 ,the rhetoric of a ,gladstone based upon the eternal truths which constituted always the foundations of his political appeals would fail to affect the masses to-day with any other feeling than that of ridicule4 ,we have already arrived at the ,twilight of the ,idols at least so far as eternal truths are concerned4 ,they still find however an insecure roosting place in the pulpits of the protestant sects4 ,if blows have been showered upon the political eternal truths in the name of which the present epoch came into existence social and ethical ideals have by no means escaped attack4 ,revolt has been the watchword of artist and theologian alike4 ,the pre-,rafaelite school1 a not altogether unworthy child of the ,chartist movement1 raised the cry of artistic revolt against absolutism and the revolt spread in ever widening circles until it has exhausted itself in the sickly egotism of the art nouveau4 ,even ,engels1 with all his independence and glorification of change as a philosophy1 can find an opportunity to fling a sneer at ,wagner and the music of the future4 ,the remnants of early ,victorianism cling persistently to ,engels4 ,he cannot release himself altogether from the bonds of the bourgeois doctrine which he is so anxious to despise4 ,he is in many respects the revolutionist of '#dh1 a bourgeois politician possessed at intervals by a proletarian ghost1 such as he says himself ever haunts the bourgeois4 ,the younger generation without any claims to revolutionism has gone further than he in the denunciation of authority and without the same self consciousness4 ,the scorn of ,bernard ,shaw for the moguls of the academies and for social ideals is greater than the scorn of ,engels for eternal truths4 ,says ,mr4 ,shaw1 ,the great musician accepted by his unskilled listener is vilified by his fellow musician4 ,it was the musical culture of ,europe that pronounced ,wagner the inferior of ,mendelssohn and ,meyerbeer4 ,the great artist finds his foes among the painters and not among the men in the street4 ,it is the ,royal ,academy that places ,mr4 ,marcus ,stone above ,mr4 ,burne ,jones4 ,it is not rational that it should be so but it is so for all that4 ,the realist at last loses patience with ideals altogether and finds in them only something to blind us1 something to numb us1 something to murder self in us4 ,something whereby instead of resisting death we disarm it by committing suicide4 ,here is a note of modernity which ,engels was hardly modern enough to appreciate and yet it was written before he died4 ,nietzsche1 ,tolstoy and a host of minor writers have all had their fling at eternal truths and modern ideals4 ,the battle has long since rolled away from the ground on which ,engels fought4 ,his arguments on the dialectic are commonplaces to-day which it would be a work of supererogation to explain to anyone except the persistent victim of ,little ,bethel4 ,the world has come to accept them with the equanimity with which it always accepts long disputed truths4 ,the sacred right of nationality for which men contended in ,engels' youth1 as a direct consequence of political eternal truths has been ruthlessly brushed aside4 ,the philosopher talks of the shameful spoliation of the smaller by the larger nations1 a moral view of commercial progress1 which an age1 grown more impatient of eternal truths than ,engels himself simply ignores1 and moves on without a qualm to the destruction of free governments in ,south ,africa4 ,backward and unprogressive peoples jeer1 it is true1 and thereby show their political ineptitude1 for even the ,american ,republic1 having freed the negro under the banner of eternal truth annexes the ,philippines and raids ,panama in defiance of it4 ,and so since the days of #ahge the world has come to accept the general correctness of ,engels' point of view4 ,the enemy which ,engels was most anxious to dislodge was mechanical socialism1 a naive invention of a perfect system capable of withstanding the ravages of time1 because founded upon eternal principles of truth and justice4 ,that enemy has now obeyed the law of the dialectic and passed away4 ,nobody builds such systems1 nowadays4 ,they have ceased their building however not in obedience to the commands of ,friedrich ,engels but because the lapse of time and the change in conditions have proved the dialectic to the revolutionist4 ,with the annihilation of eternal truths1 system building ceased to be even an amusing pastime4 ,the revolutionist has been revolutionized4 ,he no longer fancies that he can make revolutions4 ,he knows better4 ,he is content to see that the road is kept clear so that revolutions may develop themselves4 ,your real revolutionist1 for example1 puts no obstacle in the path of the ,trust1 he is much too wise4 ,he leaves that to the corrosion of time and the development of his pet dialectic4 ,he sees the contradiction concealed in the system which apparently triumphs1 and in the triumph of the system he sees also the triumph of the contradiction4 ,he waits until that shadowy proletariat which haunts the system takes on itself flesh and blood and shakes the system with which it has grown up4 ,but this waiting for the development of the inevitable is weary work to those who want to realise forthwith1 so they1 unable to confound the logic of ,engels1 attack the abstractions on which his theory is founded4 ,they still oppose their eternal truths to the dialectic4 ,thus in ,england1 where the strife between the two parties in the socialist movement has lately been waged with a somewhat amusing ferocity1 ,engels is charged with a wholesale borrowing from ,hegel4 ,in any other country than ,england this would not be laid up against a writer1 but the ,englishman is so averse to philosophy that the association of one's name with that of a philosopher1 and a ,german philosopher in particular1 is tantamount to an accusation of keeping bad company4 ,but a glance at the following pages should tend to dispose of so romantic a statement which could1 in fact1 only have been made by those who know neither ,hegel nor ,engels4 ,that ,hegel furnished the original philosophic impetus to both ,marx and ,engels is true beyond question1 but the impetus once given1 the course of the founders of modern socialism tended ever further from the opinions of the idealistic philosopher4 ,in fact ,engels says somewhat self consciously1 not to say boasts1 that he and his followers were pioneers in applying the dialectic to materialism4 ,whatever accusation may be made against ,engels1 this much is certain that he was no ,hegelian4 ,in fact both in the present work and in ,feuerbach he is at great pains to show the relation of the socialist philosophy as conceived by himself and ,marx to that of the great man for whom he always kept a somewhat exaggerated respect1 but from whom he differed fundamentally4 ,engels' attack upon the philosophy of ,duehring is based upon dislike of its idealism1 the fundamental thesis upon which the work depends being entirely speculative4 ,duehring insisted that his philosophy was a realist philosophy and ,engels' serious arguments1 apart from the elaborate ridicule with which he covers his opponent and which is by no means a recommendation to the book1 is directed to show that it is not realist1 that it depends upon certain preconceived notions4 ,of these notions some are axiomatic1 as ,duehring claims1 that is they are propositions which are self evident to ,herr ,duehring but which will not stand investigation4 ,others again are untrue and are preconceptions so far as they are out of harmony with established facts4 ,much of ,engels' work is out of date judged by recent biological and other discoveries1 but the essential argument respecting the interdependence of all departments of knowledge1 and the impossibility of making rigid classifications holds good to-day in a wider sense than when ,engels wrote4 ,scientific truths which have been considered absolute1 theories which have produced approximately correct results1 have all been discredited4 ,the dogmas of science against which the dogmatic ecclesiastics have directed their scornful contempt have shared the same fate as the ecclesiastical dogmas4 ,nothing remains certain save the certainty of change4 ,there are no ultimates4 ,even the atom is suspect and the claims of the elements to be elementary are rejected wholesale with something as closely resembling scorn as the scientist is ever able to attain4 ,a scientific writer has recently said ,what is undeniable is that the ,daltonian atom has within a century of its acceptance as a fundamental reality suffered disruption4 ,its proper place in nature is not that formerly assigned to it4 ,no longer 'in seipso totus1 teres1 atque rotundus' its reputation for inviolability and indestructibility is gone for ever4 ,each of these supposed 'ultimates' is now known to be the scene of indescribable activities1 a complex piece of mechanism composed of thousands of parts1 a star-cluster in miniature1 subject to all kinds of dynamical vicissitudes1 to perturbations1 accelerations1 internal friction1 total or partial disruption4 ,and to each is appointed a fixed term of existence4 ,sooner or later the balance of equilibrium is tilted1 disturbance eventuates in overthrow2 the tiny exquisite system finally breaks up4 ,of atoms1 as of men1 it may be said with truth ',quisque suos patitur manes4' ,the discovery of radium was in itself sufficient to revolutionise the heretofore existing scientific theories and the revolution thereby effected has been enough to cause ,sir ,william ,crookes to say1 ,there has been a vivid new start1 our physicists have remodelled their views as to the constitution of matter4 ,in his address to the physicists at ,berlin the same scientist said1 ,this fatal quality of atomic dissociation appears to be universal1 and operates whenever we brush a piece of glass with silk2 it works in the sunshine and raindrops in lightnings and flame2 it prevails in the waterfall and the stormy sea and a writer in the ,edinburgh ,review 7,december1 #aijc7 remarks in this connection ,matter he 7,sir ,william ,crookes7 consequently regards as doomed to destruction4 ,sooner or later it will have dissolved into the 'formless mist' of protyle and 'the hour hand of eternity will have completed one revolution4' ,the 'dissipation of energy' has then found its correlative in the 'dissolution of ,matter4' ,the scope of this revolution may only be gauged by the fact that one writer 7,the ,alchemy of the ,sea1 ,london ,outlook1 ,feb4 #aa1 #aije7 has ventured to say1 and this is but one voice in a general chorus3 ,to-day no one believes in the existence of elements2 no one questions the possibility of a new alchemy2 and the actual evolution of one element from another has been observed in the laboratory--observed by ,sir ,william ,ramsey in ,london1 and confirmed by a chemist in ,st4 ,petersburg4 ,helium being an evolution of radium and it is expected furthermore that radium will prove to be an evolution of uranium and so there is a constant process as the writer points out of what was formerly called alchemy the transmutation of one metal into another4 ,it is clear that in face of these facts the arguments of ,engels possess even greater force at the present day than when they were enunciated and that the old hard and fast method of arguing from absolute truths is dead and done for4 ,only statesmen see fit to still harp on the same phrases which have become as it were a part of the popular mental structure and by constant appeals to the old watchwords to obscure the fact of change4 ,were one not acquainted with the essential stupidity of the political mind and the lack of grasp which is the characteristic of statesmen1 it might be imagined that all this was done with malice aforethought and that there was a sort of tacit conspiracy on the part of the politicians to delude the people4 ,but experience of the inexcusable blunders and the inexplicable errors into which statesmen are continually driven forces the conclusion that they are in reality no whit in advance of the electorate and that only now and then a ,beaconsfield appears who can understand the drift of events4 ,such a man is the revolutionist which ,beaconsfield claimed himself to be4 ,but what shall we say of the ,president of the country that has attained the highest place in industrial progress among the nations1 whose whole history is a verification of the truth of the dialectic and who can still appeal to individualism as a guiding principle of political action8 ,it is a wanton flying in the face of the experience of the last quarter of a century and such rashness will require its penalty4 ,back to ,kant appears to be the hope of reactionary politicians as well as of reactionary philosophers4 ,,chapter ,,ii ,,prefaces ,i ,the following work is by no means the fruit of some inward compulsion1 quite the contrary4 ,when three years ago1 ,herr ,duehring suddenly challenged the world1 as a scholar and reformer of socialism1 friends in ,germany frequently expressed the wish that ,i should throw a critical light upon these new socialist doctrines1 in the central organ of the ,social ,democratic ,party1 at that time the ,volkstaat4 ,they held it as very necessary that new opportunity for division and confusion should not be afforded in a party so young and so recently definitely united4 ,they were in a better condition than myself to comprehend the condition of affairs in ,germany1 so that ,i was compelled to trust to their judgment4 ,it appeared furthermore that the proselyte was welcomed by a certain portion of the socialist press1 with a warmth1 which meant nothing more than kindliness to ,herr ,duehring1 but it was seen by a portion of the party press that a result of this kindly feeling towards ,herr ,duehring was the introduction unperceived of the ,duehring doctrine4 ,people were found who were soon ready to spread his doctrine in a popular form among the workingmen1 and finally ,herr ,duehring and his little sect employed all the arts of advertisement and intrigue to compel the ,volksblatt to change its attitude respecting the new teachings which put forth such tremendous claims4 ,however1 a year elapsed before ,i could make up my mind to engage in so disagreeable a business to the neglect of my other labors4 ,it was the sort of thing one had to get through as quickly as possible1 once it was begun4 ,and it was not only unpleasant but quite a task4 ,the new socialist theory appeared as the last practical result of a new philosophic system4 ,it therefore involved an investigation of it in connection with this system and therefore of the system itself4 ,it was necessary to follow ,herr ,duehring over a wide expanse of country where he had dealt with everything under the sun1 yea1 and more also4 ,so there came into existence a series of articles which appeared from the beginning of #ahgg in the successor of the ,volkstaat1 the ,vorwaerts of ,leipsic1 and are collected here4 ,it was my object which extended the criticism to a length out of all proportion to the scientific value of the matter and1 therefore1 of ,herr ,duehring's writings4 ,there are two further reasons in extenuation of this lengthiness4 ,in the first place it gave me an opportunity of developing my views1 in a positive fashion1 with respect to matters which are connected with this1 though very different1 and which are of more general scientific and practical interest to-day4 ,i have taken the opportunity to do so in every chapter1 and1 as this book cannot undertake to set up a system in opposition to that of ,herr ,duehring1 it is to be hoped that the reader will not overlook the real significance of the views which ,i have set forth4 ,i have already had sufficient proof that my labors have not been altogether in vain in this regard4 ,on the other hand the system-shaping ,herr ,duehring is by no means an exceptional phenomenon in ,germany these days4 ,nowadays in ,germany systems of cosmogony1 of natural philosophy in particular1 of politics1 of economics1 etc41 are in the habit of shooting up over night like mushrooms4 ,the most insignificant ,doctor of ,philosophy1 nay1 even the student1 has no further use for a complete system4 ,in the modern state1 it is predicated that every citizen is able to pass judgment on all the questions upon which he is called upon to vote2 in political economy it is assumed that every consumer is thoroughly acquainted with all commodities1 which he has occasion to buy to maintain himself withal1 and the same idea is also held as regards knowledge4 ,freedom of knowledge demands that a person write of that which he has not learned and proclaim this as the only sound scientific method4 ,but ,herr ,duehring is one of the most conspicuous types of those absurd pseudo-scientists1 who to-day occupy so conspicuous a place in ,germany and drown everything with their noisy nonsense4 ,noisy nonsense in poetry1 in philosophy1 in political economy1 in writing history3 noisy nonsense in the professor's chair and tribune2 noisy nonsense too in the claims to superiority and intellectuality above the vulgar noisy nonsense of other nations1 noisy nonsense the most characteristic and mightiest product of ,german intellectual activity1 cheap and bad1 like other ,german products1 along with which1 ,i regret to say1 they were not exhibited at ,philadelphia4 ,so1 ,german socialism1 particularly since ,herr ,duehring set the example1 beats the drum1 and produces here and there one who prides himself upon a science of which he knows nothing4 ,it is this1 a sort of child's disease which marks the first conversion of the ,german university man to social democracy and is inseparable from him1 but it will soon be thrust aside by the remarkable sound sense of our working class4 ,it is not my fault that ,i am obliged to follow ,herr ,duehring into a realm in which ,i can at the very most only claim to be a dilettante4 ,on such occasions ,i have for the most part limited myself to placing the plain incontrovertible facts in contrast with the false or crooked assertions of my opponent1 as in relation to jurisprudence and many instances with regard to natural science4 ,in other places he indulges in universal views on the subject of natural science theories and therefore on a field where the professional naturalist must range out of his own particular specialty to neighboring regions1 where he1 according to ,herr ,virchow's confessions is just as good a half-knower as the rest of us4 ,for slight deficiencies and unavoidable errors in the publication ,i hope that the same indulgence will be extended to me as has been shown the other side of the controversy4 ,just as ,i was completing this preface ,i received the publishers' notice of a new important book by ,herr ,duehring4 ,new ,foundations for rational ,physics and ,chemistry4 ,although ,i am very well aware of my deficiencies in physics and chemistry ,i still believe that ,i know my ,duehring well enough1 without having read the book1 to venture to say that the laws of physics and chemistry there set forth are worthy of being placed alongside of ,herr ,duehring's former discoveries and the laws of economics1 scheme of the universe1 etc41 examined in my writings and proved to be misunderstood or commonplace1 and that the rhigometer1 an instrument constructed by ,herr ,duehring for measuring temperature will be found to serve not only as a measure for high or low temperature but of the ignorance and arrogance of ,herr ,duehring4 ,london1 #aa ,june1 #ahgh4 ,,ii ,it came to me as quite a surprise that a new edition of this work was called for4 ,the special views which it criticised are practically forgotten to-day4 ,the work itself has not only been placed before many thousands of readers by its serial publication in ,vorwaerts of ,leipsic in #ahgg and #ahgh1 but it has also been published in large editions in its entirety4 ,how then can there be any further interest in what ,i have to say about ,herr ,duehring8 ,in the first place1 ,i fancy1 that it is owing to the fact that this book1 as indeed1 all my writings at that time1 was prohibited in ,germany soon after the publication of the anti-,socialist laws4 ,whosoever was not fettered by the inherited officialdom of the countries of the ,holy ,alliance should have clearly seen the effect of this measure--the double and treble sale of the prohibited books1 and the advertisement of the impotence of the gentlemen in ,berlin1 who issued injunctions and could not make them effective4 ,indeed the amiability of the ,government was the cause of the publication of several new editions of my shorter writings1 as ,i am able to affirm4 ,i have no time for a proper revision of the text and so allow it to go to press1 just as it is4 ,but there is still an additional circumstance4 ,the system of ,herr ,duehring here criticised spreads over a very extensive theoretical ground and ,i was compelled to pursue him all over it and to place my ideas in antagonism to his4 ,negative criticism thereupon became positive2 the polemic developed into a more or less connected exposition of dialectic methods and the socialist philosophy1 of which ,marx and myself are representative1 and this in quite a number of places4 ,these our philosophic ideas have had an incubation period of about twenty years since they were first given to the world in ,marx's ,misere de la ,philosophie and the ,communist ,manifesto until they obtained a wider and wider influence through the publication of ,capital and now find recognition and support far beyond the limits of ,europe in all lands where a proletariat exists together with progressive scientific thinkers4 ,it seems that there is also a public whose interests in this matter are sufficient to induce them to purchase the polemic against ,duehring's opinions1 in spite of the fact that it is now without an object1 and who evidently derive pleasure from the positive development4 ,i must call attention to the fact1 by the way1 that the views here set out were1 for by far the most part1 developed and established by ,marx1 and only to a very slight degree by myself1 so that it is understood that ,i have not represented them without his knowledge4 ,i read the entire manuscript to him before sending it to press and the tenth chapter of the section on ,political ,economy was written by ,marx and unfortunately had to be somewhat abbreviated by me4 ,it was our wont to mutually assist each other in special branches of work4 ,the present edition is with the exception of one chapter an unchanged edition of the former4 ,i had no time for revision although there was much in the mode of presentation which ,i wanted altered4 ,but there is incumbent upon me the duty of preparing for publication the manuscripts which ,marx left1 and this is much more important than anything else4 ,then my conscience rebels against making any changes4 ,the book is controversial and ,i have an idea that it is unfair to my antagonist for me to alter anything when he cannot do so4 ,i could only claim the right to reply to ,herr ,duehring's answer4 ,but what ,herr ,duehring has written with respect to my attack ,i have not read and shall not do so1 unless obliged4 ,i am theoretically done with him4 ,besides ,i must observe the rules of literary warfare all the more closely as a despicable wrong has since been inflicted upon him by the ,university of ,berlin4 ,it has been chastised for this1 indeed4 ,a university which so degrades itself as to refuse permission to ,herr ,duehring to teach under the known circumstances should not be surprised if a ,herr ,schwenninger is forced upon it under circumstances just as well known4 ,the one chapter in which ,i have permitted myself any explanations is the ,second of the ,third ,section ,theory4 ,here where the sole concern is the presentation of a most important part of the philosophy which ,i represent1 my antagonist cannot complain if ,i put myself to some trouble to speak popularly and to generalise4 ,this was undoubtedly a special occasion4 ,i had made a ,french translation of three chapters of the book 7the ,first of the ,introduction and the ,first and ,second of the ,third ,section7 into a separate pamphlet for my friend ,lafargue1 and the ,french edition afterwards served as a basis for one in ,italian and one in ,polish4 ,a ,german edition was provided under the title ,the ,development of ,socialism from ,utopia to ,science4 ,the latter has exhausted three editions in a few months and has also made its appearance translated into ,russian and ,danish4 ,in all these publications only the chapter in question was added to and it would have been pedantic in me if ,i had confined myself to the actual wording of the original in the new edition in spite of the later and international form which it had assumed4 ,where ,i wished to make changes had particular reference to two points4 ,in the first place with regard to primitive history1 as far as known1 to which ,morgan was the first to give us the key in #ahgg4 ,in my book ,the ,origin of the ,family1 ,private ,property and the ,state1 ,zurich1 #ahhd1 ,i have since had an opportunity of working up material more lately accessible which ,i employed in this later work4 ,in the second place1 as far as that portion which is concerned with theoretical science is concerned1 the presentation of the subject is very defective and a much more definite one could now be given4 ,if ,i did not allow myself the right of improving it now1 ,i should be in duty bound to pass criticism on myself instead of the other4 ,marx and ,i were probably the first to import the well known dialectic of the ,german idealistic philosophy into the materialistic view of nature and history4 ,but to a dialectical and at the same time materialistic view of nature there pertains an acquaintance with mathematics and natural science4 ,marx was a sound mathematician but the sciences we only knew in part1 by fits and starts1 sporadically4 ,after ,i retired from mercantile pursuits and went to ,london and had time1 ,i made as far as possible a complete mathematical and scientific molting1 as ,liebig calls it1 and spent the best part of eight years on it4 ,i was occupied with this molting process when it chanced that ,i was called upon to busy myself with ,herr ,duehring's so-called philosophy4 ,if1 therefore1 ,i often fail to find the correct technical expression1 and am a little awkward in the field of natural science it is only too natural4 ,on the other hand the consciousness of insecurity which ,i have not yet got over has made me cautious4 ,actual blunders respecting facts up to the present known1 and incorrect presentations of theories thus far recognised cannot be proved against me4 ,in this relation just one great mathematician1 who is laboring under a mistake1 has complained to ,marx in a letter that ,i have made a mischievous attack upon the honor of the square root of minus one4 ,as regards my review of mathematics and the natural science it was necessary for me to reassure myself on some special points--since ,i had no doubts about the truth of the general proposition--that in nature the same dialectic laws of progress fulfill themselves amid all the apparent confusion of innumerable changes as dominate the apparently accidental in nature2 the same laws whose threads traverse the progressive history of human thought1 and little by little come to the consciousness of thinking men4 ,these were first developed by ,hegel in a comprehensive fashion but in a mystical form4 ,our efforts were directed towards stripping away this mystical form and making them evident in their full simplicity and universal reality4 ,it was self evident that the old philosophies of nature--in spite of all their actual value and fruitful suggestiveness--could be of no value to us4 ,there was an error in the ,hegelian form1 as shown in this book1 in that it recognised no progression of nature in time1 no one after another 7,nacheinander7 but merely one besides another 7,nebeneinander74 ,this was due on the one hand to the ,hegelian system itself which ascribed to the ,spirit 7,geist7 alone a progressive historical development1 but on the other hand1 the general attitude of the natural sciences was responsible4 ,so ,hegel fell far behind ,kant in this respect for the latter had already by his nebular hypothesis proclaimed the origin and1 by his discovery of the stoppage of the rotation of the earth through the tides1 the destruction of the solar system4 ,and finally1 ,i could not undertake to construct the dialectical laws of nature but to discover them in it and to develop them from it4 ,to do this entirely and in each separate division is a colossal task4 ,not only is the ground to be covered almost immeasurable but on this entire ground natural science is involved in such tremendous changes that even those who have all their time to give can hardly keep up with it4 ,since the death of ,marx however my mind has been occupied by more pressing duties and so ,i had to interrupt my work4 ,i must1 for the moment1 confine myself to the hints in the work before us and wait for a later opportunity to correct and publish the results obtained1 probably together with the most important manuscripts on mathematics left behind by ,marx4 ,but the advance of theoretical science makes my work in all probability1 in a great measure1 or altogether1 superfluous4 ,since the revolution which overturned theoretical science the necessity of arranging the accumulation of purely empirical discoveries has caused the opposing empiricists to pay more and more attention to the dialectical character of the operations of nature4 ,the old stiff antagonisms1 the sharp impassable frontier lines are becoming more and more abolished4 ,since the last true gases have been liquefied1 since the proof that a body can be put in a condition in which liquid and gaseous forms cannot be differentiated1 aggregate conditions have to the last remnant lost their earlier absolute character4 ,with the statement of the kinetic theory of gases that1 in gases1 the squares of the speeds with which the separate gas molecules move are in inverse ratio to the molecular weights1 under the same temperature1 heat takes its place directly in the series of such measurable forms of motion4 ,ten years ago the newly discovered great fundamental law of motion was still understood as a mere law of the conservation of energy1 as a mere expression of the indestructibility and uncreatibility of motion1 and therefore merely on its quantitative side4 ,that narrow negative expression has been more and more subordinated to the transformation of energy1 in which the qualitative content of the process is duly recognised and the last notion of an extramundane ,creator is destroyed4 ,that the quantity of motion 7of energy1 so called7 is not changed when it is transformed into kinetic energy 7mechanical force1 so called71 into electricity1 heat1 potential static energy need not now be preached any longer as something new1 it served as the foundation1 once attained1 of many valuable investigations of the process of transformation itself1 of the great fundamental process1 in the knowledge of which is comprehended the knowledge of all nature4 ,and since biology has been treated in the light of the theory of evolution it has abolished one stiff line of classification after another in the realm of organic nature4 ,the entirely unclassified intermediate conditions increase in number every day4 ,later investigations throw organisms out of one class into another1 and marks of distinction which have become articles of faith lose their individual reality4 ,we have now mammals which lay eggs and1 if the news is established1 birds also which go on all fours4 ,it was already observed1 before the time of ,virchow1 as a conclusion of the discovery of the cell1 that the identity of the individual creature is lost1 scientifically and dialectically speaking1 in a federation of cells1 so the idea of animal 7and therefore human7 individuality is still further complicated by the discovery of the amoeba in the bodies of the higher animals constituting the white blood corpuscles4 ,and these are just the things which were considered polar opposites1 irreconcilable and insoluble1 the fixed boundaries and differences of classification1 which have given modern theoretical science its limited and metaphysical character4 ,the knowledge that these distinctions and antagonisms actually do occur in nature1 but only relatively1 and that on the other hand that fixity and absoluteness are the products of our own minds--this knowledge constitutes the kernel of the dialectic view of nature4 ,the view is reached under the compulsion of the mass of scientific facts1 and one reaches it the more easily by bringing to the dialectic character of these facts a consciousness of the laws of dialectic thought4 ,at all events1 the scope of science is now so great that it no longer escapes the dialectic comprehension4 ,but it will simplify the process if it is remembered that the results in which these discoveries are comprehended are ideas1 that the art of operating with ideas is not inborn1 moreover1 and is not vouchsafed every day to the ordinary mind1 but requires actual thought1 and this thought has a long history crammed with experiences1 neither more nor less than the accumulated experiences of investigation into nature4 ,by these means1 then1 it learns how to appropriate the results of fifteen hundred years development of philosophy1 it gets rid of any separate natural philosophy which stands above or alongside of it and the limited method of thought brought over from ,english empiricism4 ,london1 #bbnd ,september1 #ahhe4 ,,iii ,the following new edition is1 with the exception of a very few changes in form of expression1 a reproduction of the former4 ,only in one chapter1 namely in the ,xth4 of the ,second ,section 7that on ,critical ,history7 ,i have allowed some important emendations1 for the following reasons4 ,as has been stated already in the preface to the second edition1 this chapter is in all its essentials1 the work of ,marx4 ,in its first form1 which was intended as an article in a review1 ,i was compelled to abbreviate the manuscript of ,marx very much1 particularly in those points in which the criticism of ,herr ,duehring's propositions is subordinate to the particular development of the history of economics4 ,but these are just the portions of the manuscript which constitute the greatest and most important of1 as regards its permanent interest1 part of the work4 ,the places in which ,marx gives their appropriate place in the genesis of political economy to such writers as ,petty1 ,north1 ,locke and ,hume1 ,i consider myself obliged to give as literally and completely as possible1 and still more so1 his explanation of the economic tableaux by ,quesnay1 the insoluble riddle of the sphinx to all economists4 ,i have omitted however that part which dealt solely with the writings of ,herr ,duehring as far as the connection permitted4 ,for the rest1 ,i am perfectly well satisfied with the extent to which the views represented in this work1 have made their way into the minds of the working class and the scientists throughout the world since the publication of the former edition4 ,f4 ,,engels4 ,london1 #bc;d ,may1 #ahid4 ,,chapter ,,iii ,,introduction ,i4 ,in ,general4 ,modern socialism is in its essence the product of the existence on the one hand of the class antagonisms which are dominant in modern society1 between the property possessors and those who have no property and between the wage workers and the bourgeois2 and1 on the other1 of the anarchy which is prevalent in modern production4 ,in its theoretical form however it appears as a development of the fundamental ideas of the great ,french philosophers of the eighteenth century4 ,like every new theory it was obliged to attach itself to the existing philosophy however deeply its roots were embedded in the economic fact4 ,the great men in ,france who cleared the minds of the people for the coming revolution were themselves uncompromisingly revolutionary4 ,they did not recognise outside authority of any kind whatsoever4 ,religion1 natural science1 society1 the state1 all were subjected to the most unsparing criticism1 and everything was compelled to justify its existence before the judgment seat of reason or perish4 ,reason was established as the one and universal measure4 ,it was the time when1 as ,hegel said1 the world was turned upside down1 first in the sense that the human mind and the principles arrived at by process of thought were claimed as the foundations of all human actions and social relations1 but later also1 in the wider sense1 that the reality which contradicted these theories had indeed to be turned upside down4 ,all forms of society and the state existent heretofore1 all survivals of old notions1 were thrown into the lumber room as unreasonable4 ,up to that time the world had only allowed itself to be led by prejudice4 ,all that had been done deserved merely pity and contempt4 ,now for the first time day broke3 from now on1 superstition1 injustice1 tyranny and privilege should be replaced by eternal truth1 eternal justice1 equality founded on natural rights and the inalienable rights of man4 ,we now know that the rule of reason was nothing more than the rule of the bourgeoisie idealised1 that eternal right found its realisation in bourgeois justice1 that equality was materialised in bourgeois equality before the law1 that when the rights of man were proclaimed bourgeois rights of property were proclaimed at one and the same time1 and that the state of reason1 ,rousseau's ,social ,contract1 could only come into existence as the bourgeois democratic republic4 ,to such a slight extent could the great thinkers of the eighteenth century1 just as their predecessors1 prevail over the limits which their own epoch had placed upon them4 ,but besides the antagonism between feudal baron and bourgeois there existed the general antagonism between the robbers and the robbed1 between the rich idlers and the toiling poor4 ,it was just this antagonism which made it possible for the leaders of the bourgeoisie to pose as the representatives not merely of a special class but of the whole of suffering humanity4 ,furthermore the bourgeoisie was saddled with an antithesis right from the start4 ,capitalists cannot exist without laborers1 and1 in proportion1 as the members of the gilds in the ,middle ,ages developed into the modern bourgeois1 the journeymen of the gilds and the day laborers1 on their part1 developed into the proletariat4 ,and though the bourgeois1 as a general rule1 might claim to represent also the interests of the different working classes of the period1 still1 independent movements of the latter classes broke out in connection with each great movement on the part of the bourgeoisie2 such working classes being the more or less developed predecessors of the modern proletariat4 ,thus there came into being at the time of the ,german ,reformation and the ,peasant ,war the party of ,thomas ,munzer1 in the great ,english ,revolution the ,levellers1 and in the great ,french ,revolution1 ,baboeuf4 ,besides these revolutionary demonstrations of a class still undeveloped1 occurred certain theoretical manifestations of a corresponding nature4 ,thus in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries1 utopian pictures of an ideal social condition1 in the eighteenth century1 absolutely communistic theories 7,morelly and ,mably74 ,the demand for equality was confined no longer to political rights1 it had to be extended to the social condition of individuals2 the demand was made for the abolition not merely of class privileges but of class distinctions also4 ,an ascetic communism patterned on that of ,sparta was the first form which the new teachings assumed4 ,then came the three great utopians--,saint ,simon1 in whose eyes bourgeois aims possessed a certain merit as well as those of the proletariat3 then ,fourier and ,owen1 who1 in the land of the most highly developed capitalistic production1 and under the influence of the antagonisms which arise therefrom1 developed in direct relation to ,french materialism their proposals which tended to the abolition of class distinctions4 ,one common feature pertaining to all the three is the fact that they did not appear as the representatives of the interests of the proletariat which had been in the meantime developed through the historical process4 ,like the philosophers1 their ambition is not to free a particular class but the whole world4 ,like them they wish to introduce the government of reason and eternal justice4 ,but there is a world of difference between their government and that of the philosophers4 ,according to the philosophers1 the bourgeois world as it exists is unreasonable and unjust and is destined for the rubbish heap1 just as feudalism and all other earlier forms of society4 ,the reason that true justice and reason have not dominated the world is because up to the present man has not properly comprehended them4 ,that a man of genius has appeared and that the truth concerning these things should have now been made clear are not results arising from a combination of historical progress and necessity1 but a mere piece of luck4 ,he might just as well have been born five hundred years earlier and saved mankind the mistakes1 conflicts and sorrows of five hundred years4 ,this is actually the idea of all ,english and ,french socialists and of the earlier ,german socialists1 ,weitling included4 ,according to this view1 socialism is the expression of absolute truth1 reason1 and justice1 and only has to be perceived in order to vanquish the world by reason of its truth4 ,hence1 absolute truth1 reason1 and justice vary according to each founder of a school1 and therefore with each one1 the variety of absolute truth1 reason and justice is dependent1 in turn1 upon the subjective temperament of that founder1 his conditions of life1 the extent of his knowledge and mental discipline1 so that in this conflict of absolute truths there is no possible solution save that they rub each other smooth by mutual contact4 ,hence nothing could result from it except a sort of eclectic1 average socialism1 which is1 as a matter of fact1 up to the present1 the prevailing notion in the minds of the great majority of socialist agitators in ,france and ,england--a mixture admitting of manifold shades1 of a few notable critical utterances1 economic teachings and pictures of a future state of society by leaders of different sects1 a mixture which flows all the easier in proportion as the sharp precise corners are rubbed off the separate notions in the stream of debates1 just as pebbles become round in a brook4 ,in order that a science can be made out of socialism it is first necessary that it be placed on a sound basis4 ,meanwhile1 close to and just after the ,french philosophy of the eighteenth century1 the new ,german philosophy arose and culminated in ,hegel4 ,its greatest service was the restoration of the dialectic as the highest form of thought4 ,the old ,greek philosophers were all natural dialecticians1 and the most universal intellect among them1 ,aristotle1 was already the discoverer of the essential forms of dialectic thought4 ,on the other hand1 subsequent philosophy although in it there were brilliant exponents of the dialectic 7e4g4 ,descartes and ,spinoza71 was more and more involved in the so-called metaphysical mode of thought1 chiefly owing to ,english influence which completely mastered the ,french philosophers1 at least of the eighteenth century4 ,outside of the strict frontiers of philosophy1 masterpieces of the dialectic might be found occasionally of which ,i can only recall ,rameau's ,nephew by ,diderot1 and the treatise upon the origin of human inequality by ,rousseau4 ,we now give briefly the essential features of the two modes of thought3 we will return to them more fully later4 ,if we examine nature1 the history of man or our own intellectual activities1 we have presented to us an endless coil of interrelations and changes in which nothing is constant whatever be its nature1 time or position1 but every thing is in motion1 suffers change1 and passes away4 ,this original1 naive and very nearly correct philosophy of the world is that of the old ,greek philosophers and was first put in a very clear form by ,heraclitus4 ,everything is and yet is not1 since everything is in a state of flux1 is comprehended as undergoing constant modification1 as eternally existing and disappearing4 ,but this philosophy1 correct as it is as regards phenomena in general1 viewed as a picture1 is insufficient to explain the individual phenomena of which the picture of the universe is composed1 and as long as we cannot do that we are not clear about the general picture4 ,in order to study these individual phenomena we are obliged to take them out of their natural or social connection1 and examine each of them by itself according to its own form and its particular origin and development4 ,this is the task of natural science and historical investigation1 branches of discovery to which the ,greeks of classical times assigned a subordinate place for very good reasons1 since they1 first of all1 had to collect the material4 ,the beginning of an exact observation of nature was made first by the ,greeks of the ,alexandrine period1 and was later developed further by the ,arabs in the ,middle ,ages4 ,true natural science hence dates from the second half of the fifteenth century1 and from then on has advanced at a constantly growing rate4 ,the dissection of nature into its separate parts1 the separation of different natural events and natural conditions into certain classes1 the examination of the interiors of organic bodies with respect to their manifold anatomical forms1 furnished the fundamental reasons for the progress in a knowledge of nature which the last four hundred years have brought in their train4 ,but it has caused us occasionally to drop into the habit of regarding natural phenomena and events as entities1 apart from the great universal interrelations1 and therefore not as moving but quiescent1 not as changeable in their essence but fixed and constant1 not in their life but in their death4 ,and hence1 just as happened with ,bacon and ,locke1 this point of view has been carried over from science into philosophy1 and has constituted the specially narrow view of the last century1 the metaphysical mode of thought4 ,for the metaphysician1 things and their pictures in the minds1 concepts1 are separate entities1 one following the other without any regard to each other1 stable1 rigid1 eternally fixed objects of investigation4 ,the metaphysician thinks in antitheses4 ,his conversation is ,yea1 yea2 ,nay1 nay and whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil4 ,for him a thing exists or it does not exist1 a thing can never be itself and something else at the same time2 positive and negative are mutually exclusive1 cause and effect stand in stiff antagonism to each other4 ,this method of thought seems at the first glance to be quite plausible because it is in accordance with sound common sense4 ,but sound common sense1 respectable fellow though he may be in his own home surrounded by his four walls1 meets with strange adventures when he betakes himself into the wide world of investigation2 and the metaphysical way of looking at things1 sound and useful as it is1 under given conditions1 runs sooner or later into a stone wall1 beyond which it is one-sided1 stupid and abstract1 and loses itself in insoluble contradictions4 ,because it omits to notice the interrelations of the individual phenomena1 their existence1 their coming and their going1 their static and mobile conditions1 and so to speak does not see the forest for trees4 ,we know for example1 with sufficient certainty for every day affairs1 whether an animal is alive or dead1 but1 on closer examination1 we find that this is sometimes no easy matter to decide1 as jurists know very well and have gone indeed to great pains to discover a rational border line beyond which the killing of a child in the womb of its mother is murder4 ,it is just as impossible too to fix the precise moment of death1 for physiology shows that death is not a single and sudden event but a very slow process4 ,just so is every organic being at the same moment itself and not itself4 ,every moment it takes up matter coming to it from the outside and throws off other matter1 every moment its body-cells die and are recreated4 ,indeed after a longer or shorter period the whole material of the body is renewed through the taking up of other particles of matter so that each organic being is at the same time itself and something else4 ,we find also if we look at the matter more closely that the two poles of an antithesis1 positive and negative1 are just as inseparable as they are antagonistic1 and that they1 in spite of all their fixed antagonisms permeate each other1 also that the cause and effect are concepts which can only realise themselves in relation to a particular case4 ,however when we come to examine the separate case in its general relation to the world at large they come together and dissolve themselves in face of the working out of the universal problem1 for1 here1 cause and effect exchange places1 what was at one time and place effect becoming cause and vice versa4 ,all these phenomena and thought-concepts do not fit into the frame of metaphysical philosophy4 ,according to the dialectic method of thinking which regards things and their concepts in relation to their connection with each other1 their concatenation1 their coming into being and passing away1 phenomena1 like the preceding1 are so many confirmations of its own philosophy4 ,nature is the proof of the dialectic1 and we must give to modern science the credit of having furnished an extraordinary wealth and daily increasing store of material towards this proof1 and thereby showing in the last instance things proceed dialectically and not in accordance with metaphysical notions4 ,but as the scientists who have learned to think dialectically may be still easily counted1 the chaos arising from the confusion between actual results and an antiquated mode of thought is thus explained1 and this confusion is to-day dominant in theoretical science1 and drives teachers and pupils1 writers and readers to despair4 ,a correct notion of the universe1 of the human race1 as well as of the reflection of this progress in the human mind can only be had by means of the dialectic method1 together with a steady observation of the change and interchange which goes on in the universe1 the coming into existence and passing away1 progressive and retrogressive modification4 ,and the later ,german philosophy has proceeded from this standpoint4 ,kant began his career in this way by abolishing ,newton's conception of a stable solar system which persisted after receiving its first impulse1 in favor of a historical process1 to wit1 the origin of the sun and all the planets from a rotating mass of nebulae4 ,from this concept he drew the conclusion that1 granted this origin1 the future dissolution of the solar system is inevitable4 ,his theory was mathematically proved by ,laplace half a century later1 and half a century later still the spectroscope discovered the existence of such glowing masses of gas in space in different stages of condensation4 ,this later ,german philosophy found its conclusion in the philosophy of ,hegel where for the first time1 and this is his greatest service1 the entire natural1 historical and spiritual universe was regarded as a process1 that is1 as in constant progress1 change1 transformation and development1 and the attempt was made to show the more subtle relations of this process and development4 ,from this historical point of view the history of mankind no longer appeared as a barren confusion of mindless forces1 all alike subject to rejection before the judgment seat of the most recently ripened philosophy1 and which1 at the very best1 man puts out of his mind as soon as possible1 but as the development-process of humanity itself1 to follow the process of which1 little by little1 through all its ramifications1 and to establish the essential laws of which1 in spite of all apparent accidents1 is now the task of philosophic thought4 ,it is immaterial at this place that ,hegel did not solve this problem4 ,his epoch-making service was to have proposed it4 ,it is a problem1 moreover1 which no individual can solve4 ,though ,hegel1 next to ,saint ,simon1 was the most universal intellect of his time he was still limited1 in the first place1 through the necessarily narrow grasp of his own knowledge and in addition through the limitations of the contemporary conditions of knowledge4 ,there was a third reason1 too4 ,hegel was an idealist1 that is he regarded thought not as a mere abstract representation of real phenomena1 but1 on the contrary1 phenomena and their development appeared to him as the representations of the ,idea which existed before the world4 ,the result was an inversion of everything1 the actual interrelations of the universe were turned completely upside down1 and though of these interrelations1 many single ones were set out justly and correctly by ,hegel1 much of the detail is patched1 labored1 made up1 in short1 incorrect4 ,the ,hegelian system was1 to speak briefly1 a colossal miscarriage1 and the last of its kind4 ,it rested on an incurable contradiction2 on the other hand1 it actually proclaimed the historical conception according to which human history is a process of development1 which1 in its very nature1 cannot find its intellectual conclusion in the discovery of a so-called absolute truth1 on the other hand it declared itself to be the central idea of just such an absolute truth4 ,an all embracing and determined knowledge of nature and history is in absolute contradiction with the foundations of dialectic thought1 but it is not denied1 on the contrary1 it is strongly affirmed1 that the systematic knowledge of the entire external world may from age to age make giant strides4 ,the total perversion of modern ,german idealism of necessity drove men to materialism1 but not1 and this is well worth noting1 to the mere metaphysical mechanical materialism of the eighteenth century4 ,in contradiction to the naively simple revolutionary pushing on one side of all earlier history1 modern materialism sees in history the process of the development of society1 to discover the laws of whose development is its task4 ,in contradistinction to the conception of nature which prevailed among the ,french philosophers1 as well as with ,hegel1 as something moving in a narrow circle with an eternal and unchangeable substantial form1 as ,newton conceived it1 and with invariable species of organic beings1 as ,linnaeus thought1 materialism embraces the more recent discoveries of natural science1 according to which nature has also a history in time4 ,for the forms of the worlds1 like the species of organisms by which they are inhabited under suitable conditions1 come into being and pass away1 and the cycles of their progress1 in so far as it is permissible to use the term1 take on eternally more magnificent dimensions4 ,in either case it is entirely dialectic and no longer forces a static philosophy upon the other sciences4 ,as soon as the demand is made upon each separate branch of science that it make clear its relation to things in general1 and science as a whole1 the individual science thereupon becomes superfluous4 ,of all philosophy up to the present time the only peculiar property which remains as its characteristic is the study of thought and the formal laws of thought--logic and the dialectic4 ,all else belongs to the positive sciences of nature and history4 ,while the revolution in natural science was only able to be completely carried out in proportion as investigation furnished the necessary positive material1 there were known a multitude of earlier historical facts which gave a distinct bias to the philosophy of history4 ,in #ahca in ,lyons the first purely working class revolt occurred4 ,the first national working class movement1 that of the ,english ,chartists1 reached its height between #ahch and #ahdb4 ,the class war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie proceeded historically in the most advanced ,european countries just in proportion as the newly developed greater industry has progressed1 on the one hand1 and the political power of the bourgeoisie on the other4 ,the teachings of the bourgeois economists with respect to the identity of the interests of capital and labor and with respect to the universal peace and well being which would follow as a matter of course from the adoption of free trade were more and more contradicted by facts4 ,all these things could be as little ignored as the ,french and ,english socialism which was their theoretical though very insufficient expression4 ,but the old idealistic philosophy of history which was as yet by no means laid aside knew nothing of class wars dependent upon material interests1 and nothing of material interests1 specially4 ,production1 like all economic phenomena only occupied a subordinate position as a secondary element of the history of civilisation4 ,the new facts1 moreover rendered necessary a new investigation of all preceding history and then it became evident that all history up to then had been a history of class struggles and that these mutually conflicting classes are the results of a given method of production and distribution at a given period1 in a word1 of the economic conditions of that epoch4 ,hence1 that the economic structure of society at a given time furnishes the real foundations upon which the entire superstructure of political and juristic institutions as well as the religious1 philosophical and other abstract notions of a given period are to be explained in the last instance4 ,idealism was thereupon driven from its last refuge1 the philosophy of history2 a materialistic philosophy of history was set up1 and the path was discovered by which the consciousness of man could be shown as springing from his existence rather than his existence from his consciousness4 ,but the socialism which had existed so far was just as incompatible with the materialistic conception of history as was the naturalistic ,french materialism with the dialectic and the modern discoveries in natural science4 ,the then existing socialism criticised the prevailing capitalistic methods of production and their results but it could not explain them and thus could not match itself against them1 it could only brush them on one side as being bad4 ,but it was necessary to show1 on the one hand1 the capitalistic methods of production in their historical connection1 and their necessity at a given historical epoch and therefore the necessity of their ultimate disappearance4 ,on the other hand their inner character had to be explained and this was all the more concealed for criticism had up to then been chiefly engaged in pointing out the evil results flowing from them rather than in destroying the thing itself4 ,this was made clear by the discovery of surplus value4 ,it was shown that the appropriation of unpaid labor is the basis of the capitalistic mode of production and the robbery of the worker is carried out by its means2 that the capitalist1 although he buys the labor-force of the worker at the full value which it possesses in the market as a commodity1 yet derives more from it than he has paid for it1 and that in the last instance this surplus creates the total amount of value from which the capital steadily increasing in the hands of the capitalistic class is amassed4 ,the phenomenon not only of capitalistic production but of the creation of capital has thus been explained4 ,for these two great discoveries1 the materialistic conception of history and the disclosure of the mystery of capitalistic production we must thank ,marx4 ,granted these1 socialism became a science1 which thereupon had to busy itself in the working out of these ideas in their individual aspects and connections4 ,thus matters stood in the realm of theoretical socialism and the dead philosophy 7of metaphysics ,ed47 when ,herr ,eugene ,duehring1 with no slight impressement sprang up before the public and announced that he had accomplished a complete revolution in political economy and socialism4 ,let us now see what ,herr ,duehring promises and--how he keeps his promises4 ,,ii4 ,what ,herr ,duehring ,has to ,say4 ,up to now1 the notable writings of ,herr ,duehring are his ,course of ,philosophy1 his ,course of ,political and ,social ,science and his ,critical ,history of ,political ,economy and ,socialism4 ,the first work is the one which particularly claims our attention4 ,right on the first page ,herr ,duehring announces himself as one who claims to represent this power 7of philosophy7 at the present time and its unfolding in the undiscoverable future4 ,he discovers himself1 therefore1 as the one true philosopher for the present and the hidden future4 ,whoso differs from him differs from truth4 ,many people even before ,herr ,duehring1 have thought this about themselves or something like it1 but1 with the exception of ,richard ,wagner1 he is the first who has allowed himself to say it right out4 ,and1 as a matter of fact1 the truth1 as it is handled by him is a final truth of the last instance4 ,herr ,duehring's philosophy is the natural system1 or the philosophy of reality4444 ,reality is so understood as to exclude every sudden impulse towards an unreal and subjectively limited comprehension of the universe4 ,the philosophy is therefore so shaped as to exclude ,herr ,duehring himself from the somewhat obvious limitations of his own personal1 subjective narrowness4 ,it is quite necessary to explain how this miracle is worked1 if he is in a position to lay down unquestionable truths of the last instance1 though1 for our part1 we cannot discover any particular merit in them4 ,this natural system of valuable knowledge has with great profundity established the foundation forms of existence4 ,out of his real critical attitude proceed the elements of a real critical philosophy1 based on the realities of nature and life1 which does not allow of any merely imaginary horizon but in its mighty revolutionary progress opens up the earth and heaven of external and inner nature2 it is a new method of thought and its results are from the bottom up1 peculiar results and philosophies 444 system-shaping ideas 444 fixed truths4 ,we have in it before us a work which must seek its force in the concentrated initiative1 whatever that may mean2 an investigation reaching to the roots 444 a rooted science 444 a severely scientific conception of things and men 444 a comprehensive thorough effort of the mind 444 a creative sketch of suppositions and conclusions from overmastering ideas 444 the absolute fundamental4 ,in the realm of political economy he gives us not only historical and systematic comprehensive efforts of which the historical are moreover distinguished by my presentation of history in the grand style and those in political economy have produced creative movements1 but closes with a special completely elaborated scientific scheme for a future society which is the actual fruit of a clear and basic theory1 and is therefore just as free from the possibility of error and as individual as ,duehring's philosophy 444 for only in that socialistic structure which ,i have disclosed in my ,course of ,political and ,social ,science can a true ownership arise in place of the present apparent private property which rests on force such an ownership as must be recognised in the future4 ,these flowers of rhetoric from the praises of ,herr ,duehring by ,herr ,duehring might be increased tenfold with ease4 ,they must cause a doubt to arise in the mind of the reader whether he is reading the words of a philosopher or of a--but we must ask him to withhold his judgment until he shall have learnt the aforesaid grasp of the root of things by a closer acquaintance4 ,we only quote the foregoing flowery remarks to show that we have to do with no ordinary philosopher and socialist who simply speaks what he thinks and leaves the future to decide with respect to their value1 but with an extraordinary personality like the ,pope whose individual teachings must be received if the damnable sin of heresy is to be avoided4 ,we have not by any means to deal with the kind of work which abounds in all the socialist writings1 and the later ,german ones1 in particular1 works in which people of varying calibre seek to explain in the most naive fashion their notions of things in general and for an answer to whom there is more or less material available4 ,but whatever may be the literary or scientific deficiencies of these works their goodwill towards socialism is always manifest4 ,on the other hand1 ,herr ,duehring presents us with statements which he declares to be final truths of the last instance1 exclusive truths1 according to which any other opinion is absolutely false4 ,thus he owns the only scientific methods of investigation1 and all others are unscientific in comparison4 ,either he is right and we are face to face with the greatest genius of our time1 the first superhuman1 because infallible1 man2 or he is wrong1 and then1 since our judgment may always be at fault1 benevolent regard for his possible good intentions would be the deadliest insult to ,herr ,duehring4 ,when one is in possession of final truths of the last instance and the only absolutely scientific knowledge one must have a certain contempt for the rest of erring and unscientific humanity4 ,we cannot therefore be surprised that ,herr ,duehring employs very abusive terms with regard to his predecessors1 and that only a few exceptional people1 recognised by him as great men1 find favor in face of his comprehension of fundamental truths4 7,then follows a list of the epithets applied by ,duehring to philosophers1 naturalists1 ,darwin1 in particular1 and to the socialist writers4 ,this list has been omitted as it contributes nothing of value to the general discussion and is only useful for the particular controversial matter in hand4 ,ed47 ,and so on--and this is only a hastily gathered bouquet of flowers from ,herr ,duehring's rose garden4 ,it will be understood that if these amiable insults which should be forbidden ,herr ,duehring on any grounds of politeness1 are found somewhat disreputable and unpleasant1 they are1 still1 final truths of the last instance4 ,even now we shall guard against any doubt of his profundity because we might otherwise be forbidden to discover the particular category of idiots to which we belong4 ,we have but considered it our duty on the one hand to give what ,herr ,duehring calls ,the quintessence of a modest mode of expression1 and on the other hand1 to show that in ,herr ,duehring's eyes the objectionableness of his predecessors is no less firmly established than his own infallibility4 ,accordingly if all this is actually true we bow in reverence humbly before the mighty genius of modern times4 ,,chapter ,,iv ,,philosophy ,apriorism4 ,philosophy is1 according to ,herr ,duehring1 the development of the highest forms of consciousness of the world and life1 and embraces1 in a wider sense1 the principles of all knowledge and volition4 ,wherever a series of perceptions1 or motives or a group of forms of life becomes a matter of consideration in the human mind the principles which underly these forms1 of necessity1 become an object of philosophy4 ,these principles are single1 or1 up to the present1 have been considered as single ingredients out of which are composed the complexities of knowledge and volition4 ,like the chemical composition of material bodies1 the entire universe may be also resolved into fundamental forms and elements4 ,these elementary constituents and principles serve1 when once discovered1 not only for the known tangible world but for that also1 which is unknown and inaccessible4 ,philosophical principles therefore constitute the last complement required by the sciences in order that they may become a uniform system by means of which nature and human life are explained4 ,in addition to the examination of the fundamental forms of all existence1 philosophy has only two particular objects of investigation1 ,nature and ,humanity4 ,hence our material may be classified into three main groups1--a general scheme of the universe1 the teaching of the principles of nature and finally the principles which regulate ,humanity4 ,this arrangement at the same time comprises an inner logical order1 for the formal principles which are true for all existence take precedence1 and the concrete realms in which these principles display themselves follow in the gradation of their successive arrangements4 ,so far1 this is ,herr ,duehring's conception of things given almost in his very words4 ,he is therefore engaged with principles1 formal conceptions1 which are subjective and not derived from the knowledge of external phenomena1 but which are applied to ,nature and ,humanity1 as the principles according to which ,nature and ,humanity must regulate themselves4 ,but how are these subjective principles derived8 ,from thought itself8 ,no1 for ,herr ,duehring himself says3 the purely ideal realm is limited to logical arrangements and mathematical conceptions 7which latter as we shall later see is false74 ,logical arrangements can only be referred to forms of thought1 but we are engaged here only with forms of existence1 the external world1 and these forms can never be created by thought nor derived from it but only from the external world4 ,hereupon the entire matter undergoes a change4 ,we see that principles are not the starting point of investigation but the conclusion of it1 they are not to be applied to nature and history but are derived from them4 ,nature and ,humanity are not steered by principles1 but principles are1 on the other hand1 only correct so far as they correspond with nature and history4 ,that is just the materialistic conception of the matter1 and the opposite1 that of ,herr ,duehring is the idealistic conception1 it turns things upside down and constructs a real world out of the world of thought1 arrangements1 plans and categories existing from everlasting before the world1 just like ,hegelianism4 ,as a matter of fact1 we prefer ,hegel's ,encyclopedia1 with all its fever phantoms1 to the final truths of the last instance of ,herr ,duehring4 ,in the first place1 according to ,herr ,duehring we have the general scheme of the universe which by ,hegel is called logic4 ,then according to both of them we have the application of this scheme to nature by means of the logical categories1 the philosophy of nature1 and finally their application to ,humanity1 by what ,hegel calls the ,philosophy of the ,spirit4 ,the inner logical arrangement of ,duehring's scheme brings us therefore logically back to ,hegel's ,encyclopedia from which it is taken with a fidelity which would move that ,wandering ,jew of the ,hegelian school1 ,professor ,michelet of ,berlin1 to tears4 ,such a result follows if one takes it for granted that consciousness1 thought1 is something which has existed from the beginning in contradistinction to nature4 ,it would then be of the greatest importance to bring consciousness and ,nature1 thought and existence1 into harmony1 to harmonise the laws of thought and the laws of ,nature4 ,but one enquires further what are thought and consciousness and whence do they originate4 ,it is consequently discovered that they are products of the brain of man1 and that ,humanity is itself a product of nature which has developed in and along with its environment2 wherefore it becomes self-apparent that the products of the brain of man being themselves1 in the last instance1 natural products1 do not contradict all the rest of ,nature but correspond with it4 ,but ,herr ,duehring cannot allow so simple a treatment of the subject4 ,he thinks not only in the name of ,humanity which would be quite a large affair1 but in the name of the conscious and thinking beings of the whole universe4 ,indeed1 it would be a degradation of the foundation concepts of knowledge and consciousness if one should wish to exclude or even to throw suspicion upon their sovereign value and undoubted claims to truth by means of the epithet 'human4' ,in order that there may be no suspicion that upon some heavenly body or other twice two may make five1 ,herr ,duehring does not venture to call thought a human attribute1 and therefore he is obliged to separate it from the only true foundation on which it rests1 as far as we are concerned1 namely1 from man and nature1 and thereby falls1 without any possibility of getting out1 into an ideology which causes him to play baby to ,hegel4 ,it is self-evident that one cannot build materialistic doctrines on foundations so ideological4 ,we shall see later that ,herr ,duehring is compelled to push nature to the front as a conscious agent and1 therefore1 as that1 which people in plain ,english call ,god4 ,indeed1 our philosopher had other motives in shifting the foundation of reality from the material world to that of thought4 ,the knowledge of this general scheme of the universe1 of these formal principles of being is just the foundation of ,herr ,duehring's philosophy4 ,if we derive the scheme of the universe not from our own brain1 but merely by means of our own brain1 from the material world1 we need no philosophy1 but simply knowledge of the world and what occurs in it1 and the results of this knowledge likewise do not constitute a philosophy1 but positive science4 ,in such a case1 however1 ,herr ,duehring's entire book would have been love's labor lost4 ,further1 if no philosophy1 as such1 is longer required there is no longer the necessity of any philosophy of nature even4 ,the view that all the phenomena of nature stand in systematic mutual relations compels science to prove this systematic interconnection in all respects1 in single cases as well as in the entirety4 ,but an appropriate creative1 scientific representation of this mutual connection in such a way as to show the composition of an exact thought-picture of the system of the universe in which we live remains not only for us but for all time an impossibility4 ,should such a final conclusive system of the interconnection of the various activities of the universe1 physical1 as well as intellectual and historical1 ever be brought to completion at any point of time in the history of the human race1 human knowledge would forthwith come to an end and future historical progress would be cut off from the very moment in which society was directed in accordance with the system1 which would be an absurdity1 mere nonsense4 ,man is therefore confronted by a contradiction1 on the one hand he is obliged to study the interconnections of the world-system exhaustively1 and1 on the other hand1 he is unable to fully accomplish the task either as regards himself or as regards the system of nature4 ,this contradiction1 however1 does not consist solely in the nature of the two factors ,world and ,man2 it is the main lever also of universal intellectual progress and is solved every day and for ever in an endless progressive development of humanity1 just as mathematical problems find their solution in an endless progression of a recurring decimal4 ,as a matter of fact also every concept of the universe is subject to objective limitations owing to the conditions of historical knowledge1 and subjectively in addition owing to the physical and mental make up of the author of the concept4 ,but ,herr ,duehring exhibits a mode of thought which is confined in its application to a limited and subjective idea of the universe4 ,we saw earlier that he was omnipresent1 in all possible forms of the universe1 now we see that he is omniscient4 ,he has solved the final problems of science and has nailed up tight all future knowledge4 ,herr ,duehring considers that he can1 as with the fundamental forms of existence1 produce aprioristically by means of his own cogitations the whole of pure mathematics without making any use of the experience which is afforded us in the objective world4 ,in pure mathematics the understanding is engaged in its own free creations and imaginations2 the concepts of number and form are self-sufficient objects proceeding from themselves and so have a value independent of individual experience and actual objective reality4 ,that pure mathematics has a significance independent of particular individual experience is quite true as are also the established facts of all the sciences and indeed of all facts4 ,the magnetic poles1 the formation of water from oxygen and hydrogen1 the fact that ,hegel is dead and that ,herr ,duehring is alive1 are facts independent of my experience or that of any other single individual1 and will be independent of that of ,herr ,duehring himself1 as soon as he shall sleep the sleep of the just4 ,but in pure mathematics the mind is not by any means engaged with its own creations and imaginings4 ,the concepts of number and form have only come to us by the way of the real world4 ,the ten fingers on which men count and thereby performed the first arithmetical calculations are anything but a free creation of the mind4 ,to count not only requires objects capable of being counted but the ability1 when these objects are regarded1 of subtracting all qualities from them except number and this ability is the product of long historical development of actual experience4 ,the concept form is1 like that of number1 derived exclusively from the external world and is not a purely mental product4 ,to it things possessed of shape were necessary and these shapes men compared until the concept form was arrived at4 ,pure mathematics considers the shapes and quantities of things in the actual world1 very real objects4 ,the fact that these objects appear in a very abstract form only superficially conceals their origin in the world of external nature4 ,in order to understand these forms and qualities in their purity it is necessary to separate them from their content and thus one gets the point1 without dimensions1 the line1 without breadth and thickness1 a and b1 x and y1 constants and variables1 and we finally first arrive at independent creations of the imagination and intellect1 imaginary magnitudes4 ,also the apparent derivation of mathematical magnitudes from each other does not prove their aprioristic origin1 but only their rational interconnection4 ,before one attained the concept that the form of a cylinder was derived from the revolution of a rectangle round one of its sides1 he must have examined a number of rectangles and cylinders even if of imperfect form4 ,like all sciences1 mathematics has sprung from the necessities of men1 from the measurement of land and the content of vessels1 from the calculation of time and mechanics4 ,but1 as in every department of thought1 at a certain stage of development1 laws are abstracted from the actual phenomena1 are separated from them and set over against them1 as something independent of them1 as laws1 which apparently come from the outside1 in accordance with which the material world must necessarily conduct itself4 ,so1 it has happened in society and the state1 so1 and not otherwise1 pure mathematics though borrowed from the world is applied to the world1 and though it only shows a portion of its component factors is all the better applicable on that account4 ,but as ,herr ,duehring imagines that the whole of pure mathematics can be derived from the mathematical axioms1 which according to purely logical concepts are neither capable of proof nor in need of any1 and without empirical ingredients anywhere and that these can be applied to the universe1 he likewise imagines1 in the first place1 the foundation forms of being1 the single ingredients of all knowledge1 the axioms of philosophy1 to be produced by the intellect of man2 he imagines also that he can derive the whole of philosophy or plan of the universe from these1 and that his sublime genius can compel us to accept this1 his conception of nature and humanity4 ,unfortunately nature and humanity are not constituted like the ,prussians of the ,manteuffel regime of #ahej4 ,the axioms of mathematics are expressions of the most elementary ideas which mathematics must borrow from logic4 ,they may be reduced to two4 7#a7 ,the whole is greater than its part2 this statement is mere tautology1 since the quantitatively limited concept1 part1 necessarily refers to the concept1 whole1--in that part signifies no more than that the quantitative whole is made up of quantitative parts4 ,since the so-called axiom merely asserts this much we are not a step further4 ,this can be shown to be a tautology if we say ,the whole is that which consists of several parts--a part is that several of which make up a whole1 therefore the part is less than the whole4 ,where the barrenness of the repetition shows the lack of content all the more strongly4 7#b7 ,if two magnitudes are equal to a third they are equal to one another2 this statement is1 as ,hegel has shown1 a conclusion1 upon the correctness of which all logic depends1 and which is demonstrated therefore outside of pure mathematics4 ,the remaining axioms with regard to equality and inequality are merely logical extensions of this conclusion4 ,such barren statements are not enticing either in mathematics or anywhere else4 ,to proceed we must have realities1 conditions and forms taken from real material things2 representations of lines1 planes1 angles1 polygons1 spheres1 etc41 are all borrowed from reality1 and it is just naive ideology to believe the mathematicians1 who assert that the first line was made by causing a point to progress through space1 the first plane by means of the movement of a line1 and the first solid by revolving a plane1 etc4 ,even speech rebels against this idea4 ,a mathematical figure of three dimensions is called a solid--corpus solidum--and hence1 according to the ,latin1 a body capable of being handled4 ,it has a name derived1 therefore1 by no means from the independent play of imagination but from solid reality4 ,but to what purpose is all this prolixity8 ,after ,herr ,duehring has enthusiastically proclaimed the independence of pure mathematics of the world of experience1 their apriorism1 their connection with free creation and imagination1 he says it will be readily seen that these mathematical elements 7number1 magnitude1 time1 space1 geometric progression71 are therefore ideal forms with relation to absolute magnitudes and therefore something quite empiric1 no matter to what species they belong4 ,but mathematical general notions are1 apart from experience1 nevertheless capable of sufficient characterization1 which latter proceeds1 more or less1 from each abstraction1 but does not by any means prove that it is not deprived from the actual4 ,in the scheme of the universe of our author pure mathematics originated in pure thought1 in his philosophy of nature it is derived from the external world and then set apart from it4 ,what are we then to believe8 ,the ,scheme of the ,universe4 ,all-comprehending existence is sole4 ,it is sufficient to itself and has nothing above or below it4 ,to associate a second existence with it would be to make it just what it is not1 a part of a constituent or all-embracing whole4 ,when we conceive of our idea of soleness as a frame there is nothing which can enter into this1 nothing which retains twofoldness can enter into this concept of unity4 ,but nothing can alienate itself from this concept of unity4 ,the essence of all thought consists in uniting the elements of consciousness in a unity4 ,the indivisible concept of the universe has arisen by comprehending everything1 and the universe1 as the word signifies1 is recognised as something in which everything is united into one unity4 ,so far ,herr ,duehring is quoted4 ,the mathematical method1 ,everything must be decided on simple axiomatic foundation principles1 just as if it were concerned with the simple principles of mathematics1 this method is for the first time here applied4 ,the all-embracing existence is sole4 ,if tautology1 simple repetition in the predicate of what has been stated in the subject1 if this constitutes an axiom1 then we have a splendid specimen4 ,in the subject ,herr ,duehring tells us that existence comprehends everything1 in the predicate he explains intrepidly that there is nothing outside it4 ,what a system-shaping thought4 ,it is indeed system-shaping until we find six lines further down that ,herr ,duehring has transformed the soleness of being by means of our idea of unity into its one-ness4 ,as the work of all thought consists in the bringing together of all thought into a unity so is existence1 as soon as it is conceived1 thought of as a unity1 an indivisible concept of the universe1 and because existence so conceived is the sole universal concept1 so is real existence1 the real universe1 just as much an indivisible unity1 and consequently the beings in the beyond have no further place as soon as the mind has learned to comprehend existence in the homogeneous universality4 ,that is a campaign with which in comparison ,austerlitz and ,jena1 ,koeniggratz and ,sedan sink in insignificance4 ,in a couple of expressions after we have set the first axiom moving we have abolished1 put away1 and destroyed all the inhabitants of the spirit-world1 ,god1 the heavenly hierarchies1 heaven1 hell and purgatory as well as the immortality of the soul4 ,how do we arrive at the idea of the unity of existence from that of its soleness8 ,as a matter of fact1 we generally conceive it4 ,as we spread out our idea of unity as a frame around it the concept of existence becomes the concept of unity1 for the existence of all thought consists in the bringing of elements of consciousness into unity4 ,this last statement is simply false4 ,in the first place thought consists in the decomposition of objects of consciousness into their elements as well as in the uniting of mutually connected elements into a unity4 ,there can be no synthesis without analysis4 ,in the second place1 thought can1 without error1 only bring those elements of consciousness into a unity in which or in the actual prototypes of which this unity already existed beforehand4 ,if ,i comprehend a shoebrush under the class mammal1 it does not thereupon become a milk-giver4 ,the unity of existence is therefore just the thing which had to be proved in order to justify his concept of thought as a unity1 and if ,herr ,duehring assures us that he regards existence as a unity and not as twofold he tells us nothing more than that he himself personally thinks so4 ,to give a clear explanation of his method of reasoning1 it is as follows1 ,i begin with existence4 ,therefore ,i think of existence4 ,the idea of existence is an idea of unity4 ,thought and existence must therefore belong together1 they answer one another1 they mutually cover each other4 ,therefore existence is in reality a unity and there are no beings beyond4 ,but if ,herr ,duehring had spoken thus plainly instead of entertaining us with oracular statements1 the ideology of his argument would have been completely exposed4 ,to attempt to undertake to prove from the identity of thought and existence the reality of the result of thought1 that indeed were one of the fever-phantoms of a ,hegel4 ,if his entire method of proof were really correct ,herr ,duehring would not have gained a single point over the spiritists4 ,the spiritists would curtly reply1 ,the universe is simple from our standpoint also4 ,the division into the hither and the beyond only exists from our special earthly original sin standpoint4 ,in its essence1 that is ,god1 the entire universe is a unity4 ,and they will take ,herr ,duehring with them to his beloved heavenly bodies1 and will show him one or more where no original sin can be found1 and where there is therefore no antagonism between the hither and the beyond1 and the oneness of the universe is a demand of faith4 ,the most comical thing about the matter is that ,herr ,duehring in order to prove the non-existence of ,god from his concept of existence1 furnishes the ontological proof of ,god's existence4 ,this runs as follows--,if we think of ,god we think of ,him as the concept of complete perfection4 ,to the idea of perfection existence is a first essential1 since a non-existent being is of necessity imperfect4 ,we must therefore add existence to the perfections of ,god4 ,therefore ,god must exist4 ,thus ,herr ,duehring reasons exactly4 ,if we think of existence we think of it as a concept4 ,what is united into a concept is a unity1 therefore existence would not correspond with its concept if it were not a unity4 ,therefore it must be a unity1 therefore there is no ,god1 etc4 ,if we speak of existence and merely of existence1 the unity can only consist in this that all objects with which it is concerned are--exist4 ,they are comprised under the unity of this common existence1 and no other1 and the general dictum that they all exist cannot give them any further qualities1 common or not common1 but excludes all such from consideration in advance4 ,for as soon as we take a step beyond the simple fact that existence is common to all things1 the distinctions between these separate things engage our attention1 and if these differences consist in this that some are black1 some white1 some alive1 others not alive1 some hither and some beyond1 we cannot conclude therefrom that mere existence can be imputed to all of them alike4 ,the unity of the universe does not consist in its existence1 although its existence is a presumption of its unity1 since it must first exist before it can be a unit4 ,existence beyond the boundary line of our horizon is an open question4 ,the real unity of the universe consists in its materiality1 and this is established1 not by a pair of juggling phrases but by means of a long and difficult development of philosophy and natural science4 ,with respect to the subject in hand2 the existence which ,herr ,duehring presents to us is not that pure existence which is self sufficient and without any other qualities1 in fact1 only representing the antithesis of no-idea or absence-of-idea4 ,now we shall very soon see that the universe of ,herr ,duehring has its origin simultaneously with an existence which is without essential differentiation1 progress or change1 and is therefore merely in fact a contradiction of absence of thought1 therefore really nothing4 ,from this non-existence is developed the present differentiated1 changeable universe which represents progressive growth2 and when we grasp this idea1 only by virtue of this eternal change do we arrive at the concept of the self sufficing1 universal existence4 ,we have therefore now the concept of existence on a higher plane where it comprises within itself stability as well as change1 being as well as development4 ,arrived at this point we find that species and genera in fact the special and the general1 are the simplest forms of differentiation1 without which the constitution of things cannot be grasped4 ,but this is a means of distinguishing quality and after a discussion of this part of the subject we proceed ,over against the idea of species stands the idea of the whole1 a homogeneity1 as it were1 in which no differentiation of species can longer be found1 so we pass from quality to quantity and this is always capable of measurement4 ,let us compare this clear analysis of the actual1 universal scheme of things and its real1 critical standpoint with the fever-phantasies of a ,hegel4 ,we find that ,hegel's ,logic begins with existence as does that of ,herr ,duehring2 that existence displays itself as nothing1 as with ,herr ,duehring2 that out of this not-being1 a leap is made into being1 and that existence is the result of this1 that is a more complete and higher form of being1 as with ,herr ,duehring4 ,being leads to quality1 quality to quantity1 just as with ,herr ,duehring4 ,and in order that no essential shall be lacking ,herr ,duehring tells us elsewhere from the realm of absence of sensation man leaps to that of sensation in spite of all the quantitative steps with but one qualitative leap 444 from which we can show that he is entirely differentiated from the mere gradation of one and the same quality4 ,this is just the ,hegelian standard of measurement according to which mere quantitative expansion or contraction causes a sudden qualitative change at a given point1 as for example with heated or cooled water1 there are points where the spring into a new set of conditions is fulfilled under normal circumstances1 and where therefore quantity suddenly changes into quality4 ,our investigation has likewise sought to penetrate to the deepest roots1 and discovers the rooted ,duehring foundations to be the fever-phantasies of a ,hegel1 the categories of the ,hegelian logic1 in the first place1 teachings in regard to existence after the antique ,hegelian method1 and an ineffective cloak of plagiarism4 ,and not content with purloining the whole scheme of existence from his despised predecessors1 ,herr ,duehring after giving the above example of a change of quantity into quality has the coolness to say of ,marx1 ,is it not comical1 this appeal 7of ,marx7 to ,hegelian confusion and mistiness1 that quantity changes into quality4 ,confused mixture1 who changes his ground1 who is a comical fellow ,herr ,duehring8 ,all these pretty little statements are not only not axiomatic utterances according to label1 but are simply taken from foreign sources1 that is1 from ,hegel's ,logic4 ,of a truth there is not revealed in the whole chapter the shadow of any inner connection1 except so far as it is borrowed from ,hegel1 and the whole talk about stability and change finally runs out into mere garrulity on the subject of time and space4 ,from existence ,hegel comes to substance1 to the dialectic4 ,here he treats of reflex-movements1 antagonisms and contradictions1 positive and negative for example1 and thence proceeds to causality1 or the conditions of cause and effect and closes with necessity4 ,herr ,duehring does not vary this method4 ,what ,hegel calls the doctrines of existence ,herr ,duehring has translated into logical properties of existence4 ,these exist1 above all else in the antagonism of forces1 in antithesis1 ,herr ,duehring denies the antithesis in toto1 but we shall return to this matter later4 ,then he proceeds to causality and thence to necessity4 ,if ,herr ,duehring says of himself1 ,i do not philosophise from a cage1 he must mean that he philosophises in a cage1 the cage of the ,hegelian arrangement of categories4 ,,chapter ,v ,,natural ,,philosophy ,time and ,space4 ,we now come to natural philosophy4 ,here again ,herr ,duehring takes it upon himself to be dissatisfied with his predecessors4 ,he says ,natural philosophy sank so low that it became barren dregs of poetry and had fallen into the degraded rubbish of the sham philosophy of a ,schelling and the like1 grubbing in priest-craft and mystifying the public4 ,disgust has rid us of these deformities1 but up to the present it has been succeeded by instability1 and what is of concern to the public at large is that the disappearance of a particularly great charlatan merely gives an opportunity to a smaller but more expert successor who repeats the production in another form4 ,naturalists have little desire for a flight into the kingdom of the universe-comprehending ideas1 and therefore indulge too freely in speculations which go to pieces4 ,thus complete salvation must be found1 and1 fortunately1 ,herr ,duehring is at hand4 ,in order to comprehend aright the following conclusions respecting the unfolding of the universe in time and its limitation in space1 we must again turn our attention to certain portions of the scheme of the universe4 ,eternity is ascribed to existence1 in agreement with ,hegel1 what ,hegel calls tiresome 7schlecht7 eternity1 and this eternity is now investigated4 ,the plainest form of an incontrovertible idea of eternity is the piling up of numbers unlimitedly in arithmetical progression4 ,just as we can give a complete unity to each number without the possibility of repetition1 so at every stage of its being it progresses still further and eternity consists in the unlimited manifestation of this condition4 ,this sufficiently conceived eternity has but one single beginning with one single direction4 ,although it is not material to our concept to imagine a direction opposite to that in which the progression piles up1 this notion of a backward moving eternity is only a hasty picture drawn by the imagination4 ,since it must necessarily run in a contrary direction1 it would have behind it in each instance an endless succession of numbers4 ,but this would be inadmissible as constituting the contradiction of a calculated infinity of numbers1 and so it seems absurd to imagine a second direction of eternity4 ,the first conclusion to be drawn from this conception of eternity is that the chain of cause and effect in the universe must once have had a beginning3 an endless number of causes which have followed one another endlessly is therefore unthinkable1 because innumerability is thus considered as enumerated1 therefore a final cause is proved4 ,the second conclusion is the law of the definite number3 the accumulation of identical independent objects of an actual species is only thinkable as being made up of a definite number of these individual objects4 ,not only must the actual number of the heavenly bodies be definite at a given time1 but the total number of all existent objects1 the smallest independent particles of matter4 ,this last necessity constitutes the real reason why no composite body is thinkable except as made up of atoms4 ,all actual division has a fixed limit and must have it1 if the contradiction of a numerated innumerability is to be avoided4 ,on the same grounds not only must the revolutions of the sun and earth be fixed as they have occurred up to the present1 even if they cannot be indicated1 but all the periodical processes of nature must have had a beginning somewhere1 and all the distinctions and complexities of nature which succeed each other must similarly have had an origin4 ,this must indisputably have existed from eternity1 but such an idea would be excluded if time consisted of real parts and was not arbitrarily divided to accommodate the possibilities of our understanding4 ,it is different with time1 self regarded1 but the facts and phenomena of which time is made up being capable of differentiation can be enumerated4 ,let us conceive of a condition in which no change occurs and which undergoes no alteration in its stable identity2 the time concept then becomes transformed into the general notion of existence4 ,what is the result of piling up an empty duration of time is not discoverable4 ,so far1 ,herr ,duehring writes and he is not a little edified concerning the significance of these discoveries4 ,he hopes that it is perceived as a not insignificant truth1 and later on says1 ,one should note the very simple phrases by which we have helped the concept of immortality and the criticism of it to a point at present unknown1 through the sharpening and deepening of the simple elements of the universal conception of time and space4 ,we have helped6 ,this deepening and sharpening6 ,who are we8 ,in what are we manifest8 ,who deepens and who sharpens8 ,thesis--the world has a beginning in time and is bounded by space4 ,proof--,if one suppose that the world has no beginning in time he is bound to grant infinity to each point of time1 and so an infinite succession of things has passed away in the universe4 ,but infinity of a series consists in the impossibility of its completion by successive syntheses4 ,therefore an eternal progression of the world is impossible4 ,hence a beginning of the world is a necessary condition of its existence1 which was to be proved4 ,let us take the other concept4 ,the world now appears as an eternal given whole consisting of things which have a simultaneous existence4 ,now we can conceive of the mass of a quantity1 which can only be regarded under certain conditions1 in no other way than by means of the synthesis of its parts1 and we conceive the totality of the quantity by means of the completed synthesis or repeated additions of the unity to itself4 ,thus1 in order to conceive of the universe as a whole which fills all space1 the successive syntheses of the parts of an infinite universe must be regarded as being completed1 that is an eternity of time must in calculating all coexisting things1 be regarded as having existed1 but this is impossible4 ,therefore an unending aggregate of actual things cannot be regarded as a given whole and therefore also not as coexistent4 ,a world is therefore extension in space which is not unlimited and which has therefore bounds4 ,and this was the second thing to be proved4 ,these statements are copied from a well-known book which made its appearance in #agha and is entitled ,the ,critique of ,pure ,reason1 by ,immanuel ,kant4 ,they can be read there in ,part ,i1 ,division #b1 second section1 second part4 ,first ,antinomy of ,pure ,reason4 ,to ,herr ,duehring alone remains the name and fame of having pasted the law of fixed numbers on one of the published thoughts of ,kant and of having made the discovery that there was once a time when time did not exist but only a universe4 ,for the rest1 therefore1 when we come across anything sensible in ,herr ,duehring's exposition ,we means ,immanuel ,kant1 and the present is only ninety-five years old4 ,quite simple indeed1 and unknown until now6 ,but ,kant does not establish the above statement by his proof4 ,on the other hand1 he shows the reverse1 namely1 that the universe has no beginning in time and no end in space1 and he fixes his antinomy in this1 the unsolvable contradiction that the one is just as capable of proof as the other4 ,people of small calibre might be inclined to think that here ,kant had found an insuperable difficulty1 not so our bold author of fundamental results especially his own4 ,he copies all that he can use of ,kant's antinomy and throws the rest away4 ,the matter solves itself very simply4 ,eternity in time and endlessness in space signify from the very words that there is no end in either direction1 forwards or backwards1 over or under1 right or left4 ,this infinity is quite different from an endless progression1 since the latter always has some beginning1 a first step4 ,the inapplicability of this progression idea to our object is evident directly we apply it to space4 ,infinite progression translated in terms of space is a line produced continuously in a given direction4 ,is infinity in space expressed in this way1 even remotely8 ,on the contrary it requires six of these lines drawn from this point in three opposite directions to express the dimensions of space and we should have accordingly six of these dimensions4 ,kant saw this so plainly that he employed his progression merely indirectly in a round about way to express the extent of the universe4 ,herr ,duehring on the contrary forces us to accept his six dimensions of space and at the same time has no words in which to express his contempt of the mathematical mysticism of ,gauss who would not content himself with the three dimensions of space4 ,applied to time1 the series or row of objects1 infinite at both extremities1 has a certain figurative significance4 ,but let us picture time as proceeding from unity or a line proceeding from a fixed point4 ,we can say then that time has had a beginning4 ,we assume just what we wanted to prove4 ,we give a one-sided half-character to infinity of time4 ,but a one-sided eternity split in halves is a contradiction in itself1 the exact opposite of a hypothetical infinity1 incapable of contradiction4 ,we can only overcome this contradiction by assuming that the unity which we began to count the progression from1 the point from which we measure the line1 is a unity taken at pleasure in the series1 a point taken at pleasure in the line4 ,hence as far as the line or series is concerned it is immaterial where we put it4 ,but as for the contradiction of the counted endless progression we shall be in a position to examine it more closely as soon as ,herr ,duehring has taught us the trick of reckoning it4 ,if he has accomplished the feat of counting from minus infinity to zero1 we shall be glad to hear from him again4 ,it is clear that wherever he begins to count he leaves behind him an endless progression1 and with it the problem which he had to solve4 ,let him only take his own infinite progression #a #b #c #d etc4 and try to reckon back to #a again from the infinite end4 ,he evidently does not comprehend the requirements of the problem4 ,and furthermore1 if he affirms that the infinite progression of past time is capable of calculation he must affirm that time has a beginning for otherwise he could not begin to calculate4 ,therefore he again substitutes a supposition for what he had to prove4 ,the idea of the calculated infinite series1 in other words ,duehring's all-embracing law of the fixed number1 is therefore a contradiction in adjecto1 is a self contradiction1 and an absurd one1 moreover4 ,it is clear that an infinity which has an end but no beginning is neither more nor less than an infinity which has a beginning but no end4 ,the least logical insight would have compelled ,herr ,duehring to the statement that beginning and end are mutually necessary to each other1 like ,north ,pole and ,south ,pole1 and that if one omit the end the beginning becomes the end1 the one end which the series has and vice versa4 ,the entire fallacy would not be possible if it were not for the mathematical practice of operating with an infinite series4 ,because in mathematics one must proceed from the given and finite to that which is not given and infinite1 all mathematical series whether positive or negative1 begin with a fixed point otherwise one cannot calculate4 ,the ideal necessities of the mathematician however are very far from being a law compulsory upon the universe4 ,besides ,herr ,duehring will never succeed in imagining an infinity without contradiction4 ,in the first place1 infinity is a contradiction and full of contradictions4 ,for example it is a contradiction that infinity should be made up of finite things and yet such is the case4 ,the notion of a limited universe leads to contradictions just as much as the notion of its unlimitedness1 and each attempt to abolish these contradictions leads1 as we have seen1 to new and worse contradictions4 ,but just because infinity is a contradiction1 it is without end1 endlessly developing itself in time and space4 ,the abolition of the contradiction would be the end of infinity4 ,hegel saw that very clearly1 and covers the people who entered upon intricate arguments about this contradiction with merited scorn4 ,let us proceed4 ,now1 time has had a beginning4 ,what was before this beginning8 ,the unchangeable universe incomparable with anything else4 ,and as no changes occur in this condition the particular concept time is transformed into the general concept existence4 ,in the first place we have nothing to do with the transformation which goes on in the brain of ,herr ,duehring4 ,we are not engaged with a concept of time1 but with actual time of which ,herr ,duehring cannot so easily dispose4 ,in the second place no matter how much the concept of time is transformed into the general concept existence it does not bring us one step nearer the goal4 ,for the fundamental forms of all existence are space and time1 and a thing existing outside of time is as silly an idea as that of a being outside of space4 ,the ,hegelian past existence in which there was no time and the neo-,schelling being beyond the scope of thought are rational conceptions compared with this being outside of time4 ,for this reason ,herr ,duehring goes to work very cautiously intrinsically it may be called time1 but one cannot really call it time1 as time does not consist in itself of real parts but is merely divided by us into parts to suit our own convenience1 only a real filling up of time with distinct facts makes it capable of calculation4 ,it is impossible to see the significance of piling up an empty duration4 ,but it does not matter anyway4 ,the question is whether the universe in this presupposed condition continues1 that is persists1 through a period of time4 ,we have long known that it is useless to try and measure such empty space and to calculate without plan or aim and just because of the tiresomeness of such a proceeding ,hegel calls this infinity miserable4 ,according to ,herr ,duehring time exists only by virtue of change1 not change in and through time4 ,because time is different from change and independent of it1 we can measure it by the changes1 because in order to measure we need something different from that which is to be measured4 ,and the time in which no recognisible changes take place is very far from being no time1 on the other hand since it is free from other ingredients1 it is pure1 that is to say1 true time4 ,indeed if we want to contemplate time as a pure concept separated from all foreign admixture1 we are obliged to eliminate all the various events which occur in time1 either successively or simultaneously1 and thus imagine a time in which nothing occurs4 ,by this means we have not permitted the concept time to be overcome by the general concept of existence1 but we have thereby arrived at a pure time concept4 ,all these contradictions and impossibilities are mere child's play compared with the confusion into which he plunges the universe with its self-sufficient commencement4 ,if the universe was in a condition in which no change occurred in it1 how did it ever manage to get from that state to one of change8 ,moreover1 an absolute condition of absence of change existing from eternity cannot possibly get out of that state unaided so as to pass over to a condition of progress and change4 ,a first cause of motion must therefore have come from the outside1 from beyond the universe1 which caused the movement4 ,this first cause of motion is clearly only another term for ,god1 ,the ,god and the ,beyond of which ,herr ,duehring fancied that he had so nicely settled in his scheme of the universe1 return sharpened and deepened in his natural philosophy4 ,further ,herr ,duehring says3 ,where a fixed element of existence is capable of measurement1 it will remain in unalterable stability4 ,this is evident from material and mechanical force4 ,the former quotation gives1 it may be incidentally mentioned1 a good example of ,herr ,duehring's axiomatic grandiloquence4 ,fixed quantities remain exactly the same1 the quantity of mechanical force1 once in the universe1 is always the same4 ,we will not dwell on this1 so far as it is true1 ,descartes knew and said it three hundred years ago as regards philosophy1 while in mechanical science the doctrine of the conservation of energy has been preached for the last twenty years4 ,herr ,duehring has not improved upon it in so far as he limits it to mechanical energy4 ,but where was mechanical energy at the period of unchangeableness8 ,to this question ,herr ,duehring stubbornly refuses an answer4 ,where was the unchangeable mechanical force then1 ,herr ,duehring1 and what was it busy about8 ,answer3 ,the original state of the universe1 or1 better1 the existence of unchangeable matter1 not allowing of any changes in time1 is a question which no mind can pass except one which sees the acme of wisdom in the destruction of its own powers4 ,therefore you must either take my original condition with your eyes shut1 or ,i1 the lusty ,eugene ,duehring1 brand you as an intellectual eunuch4 ,some people might be quite alarmed about this1 but we who have seen a few examples of ,herr ,duehring's powers1 can let the elegant abuse pass and reiterate the question1 ,but how about that mechanical energy1 ,herr ,duehring1 if you please8 ,herr ,duehring is staggered at once4 ,in fact1 he stammers1 ,there is no proof of the actual existence of that original condition4 ,let us remember that this is also the case with each new step in the series with which we are acquainted4 ,he therefore who will make difficulties in the foregoing case may see that he does not avoid them in the smaller apparent cases4 ,besides1 the possibility exists that there are successively graduated intermediate states inserted1 and thus there is a stable bridge by the means of which we can work backwards to the solution of the problem4 ,as a matter of fact this notion of stability does not assist the main thought1 but it is for us the fundamental form of regular progression1 and of each transition known so far1 so that we have a right to consider it as intermediate between the first original state and its disturbance4 ,but if we consider the independent condition of equipoise from the point of view of mathematical concepts as1 admittedly1 without independent existence1 there is no need of indicating the mode in which matter came into a dynamic condition4 ,outside of the mechanics of matter a change in movement of matter depends upon a change in the movement of the most insignificant particles4 ,up to the present we have no universal principle of knowledge and we must therefore not be surprised if we are somewhat in the dark as to these matters4 ,that is all that ,herr ,duehring has to say1 and we should seek the very pinnacle of wisdom not alone in a mutilation of the creative faculty1 but in blind superstition1 if we were to let the matter pass with these foolish evasions and statements4 ,absolute stability has no power of change in itself1 ,herr ,duehring admits this4 ,the absolute condition of equipoise possesses no means by which it can pass into a dynamic state4 ,what have we then8 ,just three false and foolish phrases4 ,in the first place1 ,herr ,duehring says that to show the transition from each most insignificant step in the chain of things with which we are acquainted to the next presents the same difficulty4 ,he seems to think that his readers are infants4 ,the proof of the transitions and interrelations of the most insignificant links in the chain of existence is just what constitutes the subject matter of natural science4 ,if there is an impediment anywhere1 nobody1 not even ,herr ,duehring1 thinks to explain the development as proceeding from nothing1 but on the other hand as only proceeding from transition1 change1 and forward movement from a completed evolutionary stage4 ,here1 however1 he undertakes to show with reference to matter that it proceeds from absence of movement and therefore from nothing4 ,in the second place1 we have the stable bridge4 ,this does not help us appreciably over the difficulty1 but we have a right to use it as a bridge between rigid stability and motion4 ,unfortunately stability consists in absence of motion1 and the question as to the generation of motion remains as dark a secret as before4 ,and if ,herr ,duehring shifts his no-movement at all to universal movement in infinitely small particles and ascribes to this ever so long a duration of time1 we are still not the thousand part of an inch further from the place whence we started4 ,without a creative act we can get nothing from nothing1 not even anything as small as a mathematical differential4 ,the bridge of stability is therefore not even a pons asinorum4 ,herr ,duehring is the only person able to cross it4 ,thirdly1 as long as the present theories of mechanics prevail1 this constitutes one of ,herr ,duehring's most reliable props1 we cannot indicate how anything passes from a state of quiescence to one of motion4 ,but the mechanical theory of heat teaches us that the movement of the mass depends upon the movements of the molecules1 7so that even in this case movement proceeds from other movement and not from lack of movement7 and this ,herr ,duehring shyly points out might serve as a bridge between the entirely static 7the state of equipoise7 and the dynamic 7self-movement74 ,but here ,herr ,duehring leaves us entirely in the dark4 ,all his deepening and sharpening has dug a pit of folly and we are brought up necessarily in darkness4 ,but ,herr ,duehring troubles himself very little about that4 ,he says right on the next page1 with considerable audacity that he has been able to endow the self contained stability with real significance by means of the properties of matter and the mechanical forces4 ,in spite of all these errors and confused statements we have still an inspiring faith remaining that ,the mathematics of the inhabitants of other planets cannot rest on any axioms other than our own4 ,cosmogony1 ,physics1 and ,chemistry4 ,proceeding we come to theories respecting the mode by which the world1 as it is to-day1 came into being4 ,a universal separation of matter from one element was the notion of the ,ionic philosophers1 but1 since ,kant1 the conception of an original nebulous state has played a new role and according to this gravitation and heat expansion have built up the worlds1 little by little and one by one4 ,the mechanical theory of heat of our time has fixed the origin of the earlier condition of the universe with much greater precision4 ,in spite of all this the universal condition of the gaseous form can only be a point of departure for serious conclusions if one can define the mechanical system of it more precisely beforehand4 ,if not1 the idea becomes not only very cloudy1 but the original nebula becomes really in the progress of those conclusions denser and more impenetrable4444 ,for the present everything remains in the vagueness and formlessness of an indefinite idea1 and so with regard to the gaseous universe we have only an insubstantial conception4 ,the theory of ,kant that all existing worlds were created from a mass of rotating vapor was the greatest advance made by astronomy since the days of ,copernicus4 ,the idea that nature had no history in time was then shaken for the first time4 ,up to then the worlds were fixed in bounds and conditions from their very beginning1 and though the individual organisms on the separate worlds were transient1 the species remained unalterable4 ,nature was conceived as an apparently limited movement and its motion seemed to be the repetition of the same movements perpetually4 ,it was in this conception which is entire accord with the metaphysical mode of thought that ,kant made the first breach and so scientifically that most of his grounds of proof stand good to-day4 ,really the theory of ,kant is a mere hypothesis even to-day4 ,the ,copernican theory of the universe has no longer any weight and since the spectroscope discovered such glowing gaseous matter in space all objections have been disposed of and scientific opposition to ,kant's theory has been silenced4 ,even ,herr ,duehring cannot produce his universe without the nebulous state and he takes his revenge by asking to be shown the mechanical system of this nebulous state and because this cannot be done he inflicts all sorts of contemptuous remarks upon this nebulous state4 ,unfortunately modern science cannot show this system and please ,herr ,duehring4 ,but there are many other questions which it cannot answer4 ,for example regarding the question why toads have no tails it can only answer so far ,because they have lost them4 ,but if people get angry and say that this is all vague and formless1 a mere fanciful idea1 incapable of being made definite and a very poor notion1 such views would not carry us a step further1 scientifically4 ,such insults and exaggerations are sufficiently numerous4 ,what is there to hinder ,herr ,duehring himself from discovering the mechanical system of the original nebular state8 ,fortunately we are informed that the nebular hypothesis of ,kant is far from showing a fully distinct condition of the world-medium or of explaining how matter arrived at a similar state4 ,this is really very fortunate for ,kant who is to be congratulated on having been able to trace the existing celestial bodies to the nebular condition1 and who yet does not allow himself to dream of the self-contained unchanged condition of matter4 ,it is to be remarked by the way that although the nebular condition of ,kant is supposed to be the original vapor-form of matter1 this is to be understood merely relatively4 ,it is to be understood on the one hand as the original vapor form of the heavenly bodies1 as they are at present1 and on the other hand as the earliest form of matter to which we have been able to trace our way backwards4 ,the fact that matter passed through an endless series of other forms before arriving at the nebular state is not excluded from this conception but is on the other hand rather included in it4 ,herr ,duehring is at an advantage here4 ,whereas science comes to a halt at the existence of the nebulous state his quack science carries him back to that ,condition of the development of the world which cannot be called actually static in the present sense of the word but most emphatically cannot be called dynamic4 ,the unity of matter and mechanical force which we call the world is1 so to speak1 a formula of pure logic1 to signify the self-contained condition of matter as the point of departure of all enumerable stages of material progress4 ,we have obviously not yet got away from the original self-contained condition of matter4 ,here it is explained as consisting of mechanical force and matter1 and this as a formula of pure logic1 etc4 ,as soon then as the unity of matter and mechanical force is at an end evolution proceeds4 ,the formula of pure logic is nothing but a lame attempt to make the ,hegelian categories an ,sich and fuer ,sich of use in a philosophy of realism4 ,in an ,sich according to ,hegel the original unity of a thing consists2 in fuer ,sich begins the differentiation and movement of the concealed elements1 the active antithesis4 ,we shall therefore depict the original condition as one in which there is a unity of matter and mechanical force and the transition to movement as the separation and antithesis of these two elements4 ,but we have not thereby established the proof of the real existence of the fantastic original condition but only this much that it exists according to the ,hegelian category an ,sich and just as fantastically disappears according to the ,hegelian category fuer ,sich4 ,matter1 says ,duehring1 implies all that is real1 therefore there is no mechanical force outside of matter4 ,mechanical force is furthermore a condition of matter4 ,in the original condition where no change occurred matter and its mechanical force were a unity4 ,afterwards when the change commenced there was a differentiation from matter4 ,thus we are obliged to be satisfied with these mystical phrases and with the assurance that the self contained original state was neither static nor dynamic1 neither in a state of rest nor of motion4 ,we are still without information with regard to the whereabouts of mechanical force at that period and how we arrived at a condition of motion from one of rest without a push from the outside1 that is without ,god4 ,before the time of ,herr ,duehring materialists were wont to speak of matter and motion4 ,he reduces motion to mechanical force as its necessary original form and so renders incomprehensible the real connection between matter and motion which was also not evident to the earlier materialists4 ,yet the thing is easy enough4 ,matter has never existed without motion1 neither can it4 ,motion in space1 the mechanical motion of smaller particles to single worlds1 the motion of molecules as in the case of heat1 or as electric or magnetic currents1 chemical analysis or synthesis1 organic life1 each single atom of the matter of the world--they all discover themselves in one or other of the forms of motion or in several of them together at any given moment4 ,all quiescence1 all rest1 is only significant in relation to this or that given form of motion4 ,a body for example may be upon the ground in mechanical quiescence1 in mechanical rest4 ,this does not prevent its participation in the movements of the earth and of the whole solar system1 just as little does it prevent its smallest component parts from completing the movements conditioned by the temperature or its atoms from going through a chemical process4 ,matter without motion is just as unthinkable as motion without matter4 ,motion is just as uncreatable or indestructible as matter itself1 the older philosophy of ,descartes proclaimed precisely that the quantity of motion in the world has been fixed from the beginning4 ,motion cannot be generated therefore it can only be transferred4 ,if motion is transferred from one body to another1 one may as far as it is regarded as transferring itself1 as active1 consider it as the original cause of motion1 but so far as it is transferred1 as passive4 ,this active motion we call force2 the passive1 expression of force4 ,it is therefore just as clear as noon that force is just as great as its expression because the same motion fulfils itself in both4 ,a motionless condition of matter is therefore one of the hollowest and most absurd notions1 a mere delirium4 ,in order to arrive at it one is obliged to consider the relative absence of motion in the case of a body lying on the ground1 as absolute rest1 and then to transfer this idea to the entire universe4 ,this is made easier by the reduction of motion in general to mere mechanical force4 ,by the limitation of motion to mere mechanical force we can conceive of a force as at rest1 as confined1 as momentarily ineffective4 ,if for example in the transference of motion which transference is very frequently a somewhat complicated process in the carrying out of which various intermediate steps are necessary1 one may stay the actual transference at a chosen point and stop the process1 as for example if one loads a gun and delays the moment when the charge shall be set at liberty by the pull of the trigger1 through the firing of powder4 ,therefore one may conceive of matter as being loaded with force in the unprogressive static period1 and this ,herr ,duehring appears to mean by his unity of matter and force if indeed he means anything at all4 ,this notion is absurd1 since it pictures as absolute for the entire universe a condition which is by nature only relative and to which therefore only a portion of matter can be subjected at one and the same time4 ,let us look at it from this point of view and we do not escape the difficulty of explaining first how the universe came to be loaded and in the second place1 whose finger drew the trigger4 ,we may revolve all we please but under the guidance of ,herr ,duehring we always come back over and over again to the finger of ,god4 ,from astronomy our realist philosopher passes on to mechanics and physics and complains that the mechanical theory of heat has brought us no further in the course of a generation than the point which ,robert ,mayer reached by his own efforts4 ,moreover the whole thing is very obscure4 ,we must always remember that with conditions of the movement of matter statical conditions are also given and that these last are not measured in mechanical work4 ,if we have earlier typified nature as a great workwoman1 and we still hold to the statement1 we must now add that the static condition1 the condition of rest1 does not imply any mechanical labor4 ,we are again without the bridge from the static to the dynamic and if latent heat1 so called1 is up to the present a stumbling block to the theory we can recognise a lack which may be denied in the cosmic process4 ,this whole oracular utterance is again merely an outpouring of bad science which very clearly perceives that it has got itself into a place from which it cannot be saved by creating motion from a state of absolute freedom from motion1 and is ashamed to call upon its only saviour1 the ,creator of heaven and earth4 ,if in mechanics1 heat included1 there is no bridge to be found from statics to dynamics1 from equipoise to motion1 why should ,herr ,duehring be obliged to find a bridge from his condition of absence of motion to motion8 ,thus he would have the luck to escape from his dilemma4 ,in ordinary mechanics the bridge from statics to dynamics is--the push from the outside4 ,if a stone of the weight of a hundred grammes be lifted ten meters high and then flung free so that it should remain hanging in a self-contained condition and in a state of rest1 you would have to appeal to a public of sucking infants to declare that the existing condition of that body represents no mechanical labor and that its removal from its earlier condition has no measure in mechanical work4 ,any passerby would tell ,herr ,duehring that the stone did not come on the string by its own efforts and the first good hand book in mechanics would inform him that if he let the stone fall again1 the latter in its fall does just as much mechanical work as is necessary to lift it to the height of ten meters4 ,the very simple fact that the stone is suspended represents mechanical force in itself1 since if it remain long enough1 the string breaks1 as soon as it1 as a result of its chemical constitution1 is no longer strong enough to hold the stone4 ,all mechanical phenomena1 may1 we must inform ,herr ,duehring1 be reduced to just such simple fundamental forms1 and the engineer is still unborn who cannot discover the bridge from statics to dynamics as long as he has sufficient initial force at his disposal4 ,it is quite a hard nut and bitter pill for our metaphysician that motion should find its measure in its opposite rest4 ,it is such a glaring contradiction1 and every contradiction is an absurdity in the eyes of ,herr ,duehring4 ,it is nevertheless true that the hanging stone by reason of its weight and its distance from the ground represents a means of mechanical movement sufficiently easily measured in different ways1 as for example through gravity direct1 through glancing on an incline or through the undulation of a wave--and it is just the same with a loaded gun4 ,the expression of motion in terms of its opposite rest presents no difficulty at all to the dialectic philosophy4 ,the whole contradiction in its eyes is merely relative1 for absolute rest1 complete equipose does not exist4 ,the movement of the particles strives towards equipose1 the movement of the mass in turn destroys the equipose1 so that rest and equipose where they occur are the results of arrested motion1 and it is evident that this motion is capable of being measured in respect of its results1 of being expressed in itself and of being restored in some form or other external to itself4 ,but ,herr ,duehring would never be satisfied with such a simple explanation of the matter4 ,like a good metaphysician he creates a yawning gulf between motion and equipose which does not really exist and then wonders if he can find no bridge across the self-created chasm4 ,he might just as well bestride his metaphysical ,rosinante and hunt the ,ding an ,sich of ,kant since it is in the last analysis nothing else than this which stands behind the undiscoverable bridge4 ,but what about the mechanical theory of heat and of latent heat which is a stumbling block in the path of the theory8 ,if one convert a pound of ice at freezing point under normal atmospheric pressure into a pound of water of the same temperature by means of heat there vanishes a quantity of heat which could heat the same pound of water from #j deg4 centigrade to #gi deg4 centigrade1 or seventy-nine pounds of water one degree centigrade4 ,if one heat this pound of water to boiling point1 that is1 to one hundred degrees centigrade and change it into steam of the heat of one hundred degrees centigrade there vanishes up to the time when the last of the water is changed into steam a seven fold greater quantity of heat1 capable of raising the temperature of #ecg4b pounds of water one degree4 ,this dissipated heat is called latent4 ,it is transformed1 by cooling the steam1 into water again1 and the water into ice1 so the same mass of heat which was formerly latent1 is again set free1 that is1 as heat capable of being felt and measured4 ,this setting free of heat by the condensation of steam and the freezing of water is the reason that steam if it is cooled off at #ajj deg4 transforms itself little by little into water1 and that a mass of water at freezing point is but slowly transformed into ice4 ,these are the facts4 ,the question is what becomes of the heat while it is latent8 ,the mechanical theory of heat according to which the heat of a body at a certain temperature is dependent upon the greater or less vibration of the smallest physical parts 7molecules7 a vibration which can1 under certain conditions1 be transformed into some other form of motion1 shows the whole thing completely1 that the latent heat has performed work1 has been expended in work4 ,by the melting of the ice the close connection of the separate particles is broken asunder and changed into a loose relationship2 by the conversion of water into steam at boiling point a condition is entered where the separate molecules exercise no noticeable influence upon each other1 and under the influence of heat fly from one another in all directions4 ,it is now evident that the separate molecules of a body in the gaseous state are endowed with much greater energy than in the fluid state1 and in the fluid state than in the solid4 ,latent heat is therefore not dissipated1 it is merely transformed and has taken on the form of molecular elasticity4 ,as soon as conditions are at an end under which the molecules can exercise this relative freedom with regard to each other as soon namely as the temperature falls below one hundred degrees to zero1 this elasticity becomes released and the molecules come together with the same force with which they formerly flew apart1 but only to appear again as heat1 as exactly the same quantity of heat as was latent before4 ,this explanation is of course a hypothesis1 as is the whole mechanical theory of heat1 in so far as no one has yet seen a molecule1 much less a molecule in motion4 ,like all recent theories1 this hypothesis is full of flaws but it can at least offer an explanation which does not conflict with the uncreatability and indestructibility of motion and it is able to give an account of the whereabouts of the heat in the transformation4 ,latent heat is therefore by no means an obstacle in the way of the mechanical theory of heat4 ,on the contrary this theory for the first time provides a rational explanation of the subject and an obstacle arises from the fact in particular that the physicists make use of the old and ineffective expression latent heat to signify the heat transformed into some other shape by molecular energy4 ,the static conditions of the solid1 liquid and gaseous states therefore represent mechanical work in so far as mechanical work is a measure of heat4 ,thus the solid crust of the earth1 like the water of the ocean1 represents in its present form a certain quantity of heat set free which implies the same quantity of mechanical force4 ,by the passing of the vaporous state which was the original form of the earth into the fluid state and later into a condition1 for the most part solid1 a certain quantity of molecular energy was set free in space1 the difficulty of which ,herr ,duehring whispers does not therefore exist4 ,we are frequently brought to a stop in our cosmic observations by lack of knowledge1 but nowhere by insuperable theoretical difficulties4 ,the bridge from statics to dynamics is therefore the push from the outside caused by the cooling or heating occasioned by other bodies which influence certain objects in equipoise4 ,the further we explore ,herr ,duehring's philosophy1 the more impossible appear all his attempts to explain rotation from absence of rotation1 or to discover the bridge by which that which is purely static1 self-contained1 can without disturbance come to be the dynamic1 in motion4 ,we should here be glad to get rid of the whole self-contained condition business4 ,herr ,duehring1 however1 goes to chemistry and gives us three permanent natural laws established by the philosophy of realism as follows1 #a4 ,the constant amount of matter in the universe4 #b4 ,the simple chemical elements1 and #c4 ,the mechanical forces are unchangeable4 ,therefore the impossibility of creating or destroying matter1 the simple forms of its existence as far as they exist1 and motion1 these old1 well known facts1 inadequately expressed1 that is the only positive thing which ,herr ,duehring is in a position to offer us as a result of his real philosophy of the inorganic world4 ,all these things we have long known4 ,but what we have not known is that they are permanent laws and as such natural properties of the system of things4 ,it is just the same thing over again as in the case of ,kant4 ,herr ,duehring takes some universally known expressions1 pastes the ,duehring label on them and calls them fundamentally original results and views1 system shaping thoughts1 profound science4 ,we have not long to hesitate on this account4 ,whatever deficiencies the most profound science and the best contrived social theories may have1 for once ,herr ,duehring can say precisely ,the quantity of gold in the universe must always remain the same and cannot be increased or diminished any more than matter in general4 ,but unfortunately ,herr ,duehring does not tell us what we may buy with this gold4 ,the ,organic ,world4 ,from mechanics in rest and motion to the relation of sensation and thought there is a uniform progression of interruptions4 ,with this assurance ,herr ,duehring spares himself from saying anything further about the origin of life1 though one might reasonably expect that a thinker who has followed the development of the world from its self-contained condition1 and who is so much at home with the other heavenly bodies would be here at home also4 ,besides this assurance is only half true in so far as it is not yet completed by means of the log line of ,hegel1 of which mention has been made already4 ,in all its gradations the transition from one form of evolution to another remains a leap1 a differentiating movement4 ,so in the transition from the mechanics of the worlds to those of the smaller amounts of matter in each single world1 just so also in that from the mechanics of the mass to that of the molecule--the motion which we examine particularly in physics1 so-called1 heat1 light1 electricity1 magnetism1 just in the same way also the transition from the physics of the molecule to the physics of the chemical atom is completed by a differentiating leap1 and it is just the same with the transition from ordinary chemical action to the chemistry of albumen which we call life4 ,within the sphere of life the changes become less frequent and less remarkable4 ,therefore ,hegel must again correct ,herr ,duehring4 ,the idea of purpose furnishes ,herr ,duehring with his conception of the transition to the organic world4 ,this is again borrowed from ,hegel1 who in his logic--teachings of the concept--mingled with teachings of teleology or of purpose1 passes over from chemistry to life4 ,whichever way we look we discover ,herr ,duehring to be in possession of ,hegelian lore which he gives forth without any embarrassment as his own fundamental philosophy4 ,it would be too long a task to find out here just how far the application of the ideas of purpose is correctly stated and applied to the organic world4 ,the application of the ,hegelian inner purpose at all events is evident1 that is1 of a purpose which is imported into nature not through a consciously acting third party1 like the wisdom of ,providence1 but which is inherent in matter itself1 which among people who are not well versed in philosophy proceeds to the unthinking supposition of a conscious and all-wise agent2 the same ,herr ,duehring who breaks out into unmeasured moral indignation at the least tendency towards spiritism on the part of other people1 tells us that sex sensations are certainly mainly directed towards the gratification which is bound up in their exercise4 ,he tells us moreover that poor ,nature must always hold the objective world in order and it has besides to perform acts which require more subtlety from ,nature than we usually attribute to her4 ,but nature knows not only why she does this and that4 ,she has not only her housemaid's duties to perform1 she has not only subtlety1 which is a very pretty accomplishment1 in subjective conscious thought1 she has also a will1 for we must regard the additional natural desires which occur1 such as feeding and propagation1 not as directly but as indirectly willed4 ,we now arrive at a consciously thinking and acting nature1 and we therefore stand right at the bridge1 not indeed between the static and dynamic but between pantheism and deism1 or perhaps ,herr ,duehring is pleased to indulge himself in a little natural-philosophical half-poetry4 ,impossible4 ,all that the realistic philosophy has to say on organic nature is limited to a war against this natural philosophical half-poesy against ,charlatanism with its wanton superficialities and pseudo-scientific mysticism1 against the poetic features of ,darwinism4 ,darwin comes in for a share of blame chiefly because he transferred the ,malthusian theory of population from political economy to natural science1 because he is entangled by his notions of breeding1 so that his work is a sort of unscientific half-poetic attack against design in creation1 and that the whole of ,darwinism1 after what he has borrowed from ,lamark has been deducted1 is a piece of brutality aimed against humanity4 ,darwin had brought home with him as the result of his scientific journeys the conclusion that species of plants and animals are not fixed but are subject to variations4 ,in order to pursue this idea he entered upon experiments in the breeding of plants and animals4 ,just for this reason ,england has become a classic land4 ,the scientists of other countries1 ,germany1 for example1 have nothing to offer comparable with ,england in this respect4 ,moreover1 most of the conclusions belong to the last century so that the establishment of the facts presented few difficulties4 ,darwin found that this artificial breeding produced differences in the species of plants and animals greater than occur among those which are universally recognised as belonging to different species4 ,therefore it was1 up to a certain point1 proved that species can change and furthermore there was established the possibility of a common ancestry for organisms which partake of the characteristics of different species4 ,darwin now examined the question whether there were not in nature causes--which without the conscious intention of the breeder--might in the course of time1 by means of heredity1 produce changes in the living animal analogous to those produced by scientific breeding4 ,these causes he found in the disproportion between the enormous number of germs made by nature and the small number of beings which actually come to maturity4 ,but as the germ struggles for its own development there is of necessity a consequent struggle for existence1 which not only shows itself directly in the wear and tear of the body1 but also as a struggle for space and light1 as in the case of plants4 ,and it is evident that in this fight those individuals have the best prospect of coming to maturity and reproducing themselves which possess certain qualities1 perhaps insignificant1 but advantageous in their fight for existence4 ,there is a tendency towards the inheritance of these individual properties1 and if they occur in several individuals of the same species towards development in the direction once taken1 by virtue of the accumulated heredity1 while the individuals which are not possessed of these qualities succumb more easily and little by little disappear in the struggle for existence4 ,thus a species naturally changes by the survival of the fittest4 ,against this theory of ,darwin ,herr ,duehring urges that the origin of the idea of the struggle for existence is1 as ,darwin himself confessed1 based on the views of the political economist and theorist1 ,malthus1 on the population question1 and he covers it with all the abuse appropriate to the clerical ,malthusian views on keeping down the population4 ,now it happens that ,darwin never said that the cause of the struggle for existence theory was to be sought from ,malthus4 ,he only said that his theories respecting the struggle for existence are the theories of ,malthus applied to the entire vegetable and animal world4 ,how great a blunder ,darwin made when he so naively accepted the teachings of ,malthus without examination may be seen from the fact that there is no need to employ the spectacles of ,malthus in order to detect the struggle for existence in nature1--the contradiction between the innumerable mass of germs which nature produces in such prodigality and the slight number which can manage to reach maturity1 a contradiction which resolves itself into an apparently grim fight for existence4 ,and with regard to the law of wages the ,malthusian doctrines are widely advertised and ,ricardo based his contentions upon them1--so the struggle for existence in nature may find a standing even without the ,malthusian interpretation4 ,besides the organisms of nature have their law of population1 the establishment of which would decide the theories of the development of species4 ,and who gave the decisive impetus in that direction8 ,nobody but ,darwin4 ,herr ,duehring is on his guard against entering upon the positive side of this question4 ,instead he must again find fault with the struggle for existence4 ,there can be no argument about a struggle for existence between plants and the genial eaters of plants in a sufficiently accurate sense the struggle for existence only occurs within the sphere of brutality1 in so far as nourishment depends upon robbery and consumption4 ,and after he has reduced the concept struggle for existence to these narrow limits he gives his wrath free play as regards the brutality of this conception which he himself has narrowed down to a brutal conception4 ,but this moral wrath simply reacts on ,herr ,duehring himself1 the inventor of this sort of struggle for existence4 ,it is not ,darwin therefore who seeks among the lower animals the conditions of the operations of nature 7as a matter of fact ,darwin would have included the whole of organic nature in the struggle71 but one of ,herr ,duehring's bugaboos4 ,the expression struggle for existence in particular excites ,herr ,duehring's lofty moral scorn4 ,that this actually exists among plants every meadow1 every cornfield and every wood can show him4 ,we need not trouble about the name1 whether one call it struggle for existence or lack of the conditions of existence and want of mechanical realisation1 but as to how this fact operates as regards the maintenance or transformation of species4 ,with regard to this ,herr ,duehring persists in a characteristically stubborn silence4 ,we cannot trouble ourselves any more about natural selection4 ,but ,darwinism produces its changes and differentiations out of nothing4 ,darwin thoroughly understands that he is engaged with the causes which have produced changes in individuals and in the second place he is engaged with the mode in which such individual differentiations tend to mark off a race1 a genus1 or a species4 ,darwin moreover was less occupied in discovering these causes1 which up to the present are either entirely unknown or on which there is only general information1 than in discovering a rational form in which to establish their reality1 to embrace their permanent significance4 ,but ,darwin ascribed too wide a reach to his discovery in this that he made it an exclusive means of variation in species and neglected the causes of individual differentiations from the general form4 ,this mistake however is common to most people who make a step forwards4 ,next1 if ,darwin produces his changes in individual types out of nothing and thereby excludes the wisdom of the breeder1 the breeder on his part must not only display his wisdom but he must produce out of nothing real changes in plant and animal forms4 ,but who has given the impetus to the investigation as to whence these variations and differentiations proceed8 ,it is again no one but ,darwin4 ,lately the conception of natural selection has been broadened1 by ,haeckel1 in particular1 and the variation of species has been shown to be the result of actual change owing to adaptation and inheritance1 whereby adaptation is considered as the source of variations and heredity as the conserving element in the process4 ,even this is not correct in ,herr ,duehring's eyes4 ,peculiar adaptation to the circumstances of life as they are offered or withheld by nature supposes impulses and facts which answer to the conception4 ,hence adaptation is only apparent and actual causality does not elevate itself above the lowest steps of physical1 chemical and plant physiology4 ,it is again the name which provokes ,herr ,duehring4 ,but how does he deal with the matter8 ,the question is if such changes do take place in the species of organic beings or not4 ,and again ,herr ,duehring has no reply4 ,if a plant in the course of its growth takes a direction by which it gets the most light the result is nothing but a combination of physical forces and chemical agents1 and if we are to call it an adaptation1 not metaphorically but strictly1 confusion is certain to arise in the motion4 ,this man is so exacting with other people because he is quite well acquainted with the intentions of nature and speaks of the subtlety of nature1 even of its will4 ,there is confusion1 indeed1 but with whom1 with ,haeckel or with ,herr ,duehring8 ,and the confusion is not only spiritual but logical4 ,we have seen that ,herr ,duehring put forth all his efforts to make the purpose idea in nature real4 ,the relation of means and end does not by any means show a conscious intention4 ,but what is adaptation without conscious intention1 without any intrusion of design of which he complains so loudly1 but an unconscious teleology8 ,if the color of tree frogs and leaf eating insects is as a rule green and that of beasts that inhabit the desert sandy-yellow1 and that of polar animals white1 they have certainly not come into possession of this coloring intentionally or through any kind of mental process1 on the contrary the coloring can only be explained by means of the operation of physical substances and chemical agents4 ,and yet it cannot be denied that by these colors these animals are particularly adapted to the conditions in which they are and it is certain that they are by their means rendered less visible to their enemies4 ,just of a similar nature are the organs by which certain plants seize and consume certain insects 7the means being on their under side1 suited to this purpose and adapted to this end74 ,now if ,herr ,duehring insists that the adaptation must be realised through the operation of thought1 he only says that the purpose must be carried out through mental operation1 must be conscious and intentional4 ,thus again1 just as in the philosophy of realism we arrive at the ,creator with a purpose1 at ,god4 ,formerly this kind of declaration was called deism and ,herr ,duehring says that we had not much regard for it1 but it now appears that the world has gone backwards in this respect also4 ,from adaptation we come to heredity and here according to ,herr ,duehring ,darwinism is quite out4 ,the whole organic world1 ,darwin explained1 came from a single germ1 is1 so to speak1 the brood of a single being4 ,independent similar products of nature according to ,darwin do not exist without heredity and his retrogressive philosophy must come to a full stop when the end of the thread of ancestry is reached1 or the original vegetable form4 ,the statement that ,darwin traced all existing organisms from one original germ is to put it politely a piece of pure imagination on the part of ,herr ,duehring4 ,darwin says distinctly on the last page of the ,origin of ,species1 ,sixth ,edition1 that he regards all living beings not as separate creations but as the descendants in a direct line from some fewer beings and ,haeckel makes a distinct advance on this ascribes an entirely distinct source for plants and another for the animal kingdom and on and between both of them a number of original stems each of which has developed independently from one single primary monistic form4 7,history of ,creation page #cig47 ,this original form of life ,herr ,duehring discovers solely to bring it into contempt by paralleling it with the first man according to ,jewish tradition1 ,adam4 ,here1 unfortunately for ,herr ,duehring1 he does not know how this original ,jew turns out1 according to ,smith's ,assyrian discoveries to have been the original ,semite1 and that the entire ,biblical story of the ,creation and the ,flood has been shown to have been taken from a legendary store common to the ,jews1 ,babylonians1 ,chaldeans1 and ,assyrians4 ,it is brought forward as a severe and irrefutable reproach to ,darwin that he is at an end where the thread of descent fails him4 ,unfortunately the whole of our science deserves the same reproach4 ,when the thread of descent fails it it is at an end4 ,it has not yet come to the point of creating organic beings without an ancestry1 not even once has it been able to make simple protoplasm or other albuminous bodily forms out of the chemical elements4 ,it can only say therefore with any certainty regarding the origin of life1 that it must have come about by a chemical process4 ,but perhaps the philosophy of realism can give us some assistance here since it is engaged with independent organic natural products1 without any descent one from another4 ,how can these come into being8 ,by original creation8 ,but up to the present not even the most audacious advocates of spontaneous generation have claimed to create in this way anything except bacteria1 fungi1 or other very elementary organisms1 but not insects1 birds1 fish or mammals4 ,if these homogeneous products of nature--it is understood for all this discussion that they are organic--are not related through descent1 they or their ancestors1 then where the thread of descent breaks they must have been placed in the world by a separate act of creation1 and this again requires a creator1 what we call deism4 ,herr ,duehring further explains that it was a piece of superficiality on the part of ,darwin to make the mere fact of the sex-composition of qualities the foundation for the existence of these qualities4 ,here we have again a piece of pure imagination on the part of our profound philosopher4 ,on the contrary ,darwin says that natural selection has to do only with the maintenance of variations and not with their origin4 ,this new supposition however of things which ,darwin did not say serves to assist us to this deep idea of ,duehring4 ,if a principle of individual variation had been sought in the inner scheme of creation it would have been an entirely rational idea4 ,for it is natural to unite the idea of universal generation with that of sex propagation1 and to regard the so-called original creation from the higher point of view1 not as absolutely antagonistic to reproduction but even as reproduction itself4 ,and the man who could write this is not ashamed to reproach ,hegel with writing jargon4 ,let us call a halt to the vexatious and contradictory babble with which ,herr ,duehring proclaims his wrath against the advance given to science by the theory of ,darwin4 ,neither ,darwin nor his followers among the natural scientists have any idea of belittling ,lamark's tremendous services1 in fact they are the very people who first restored his fame4 ,but we are unable to ignore the fact that in the time of ,lamark science was still far from supplied with competent material to enable it to answer the question of the origin of species other than in a prophetic or1 as it were anticipatory1 manner4 ,in addition to the enormous amount of material in the realm of general1 as well as of that of anatomical1 botany and zoology1 accumulated since that time1 two entirely new sciences have since come into existence--the investigation of the development of plant and animal germs 7embryology71 and the investigation of the organic survivals in the earth's crust which still remain4 ,there is a distinct similarity between the steps in the development of the organic germ to mature organism1 and the successive steps by which plants and animals succeed each other in the history of the world4 ,it is just this similarity which has placed the evolution theory on its most secure foundations4 ,the theory of evolution is however still very young and it is beyond question that upon further investigation the rigid ,darwinian ideas upon the origin of species will be considerably modified4 ,but what has the realist philosophy of a positive nature to contribute with respect to the evolution of organic life8 ,the variation of species is an acceptable supposition1 but there exists1 in addition1 the independent order of the products of nature belonging to the same species without any intervention of descent4 ,according to this we are to conclude that products of unlike species1 that is species which vary1 are descended from one another1 but those of similar species not4 ,but even this is not altogether correct1 for he ventures to say of the varying species1 ,the part played by descent is on the contrary a very secondary activity of nature4 ,there is heredity1 then1 but it is only to be reckoned as a factor of the second class4 ,let us be glad that heredity of which ,herr ,duehring has said so much that is evil and mysterious is at least let in by the back door4 ,it is just the same with natural selection1 since after all his moral indignation with respect to the struggle for existence by means of which natural selection fulfils itself he suddenly exclaims1 ,the most important constituent is to be found in the conditions of life and cosmic conditions1 while natural selection as set forth by ,darwin may be considered as secondary4 ,natural selection still exists1 even if a factor of the second class1 like the struggle for existence1 and the clerical malthusian surplus-population theory4 ,that is all1 for the rest ,herr ,duehring refers us to ,lamark4 ,finally1 he warns against misuse of the terms metamorphosis and evolution4 ,metamorphosis1 he says1 is a very obscure notion1 and the concept of evolution is only admissible in so far as a law of evolution can be really proved4 ,instead of either of these expressions we should employ the term composition and then everything would be all right4 ,it is the same old story over again1 ,herr ,duehring is satisfied if we change the names4 ,if we speak of the evolution of the chicken in the egg we give rise to confusion because we have only an incomplete knowledge of the law of evolution4 ,but if we speak of its composition everything becomes clear4 ,we must therefore say no longer this child is growing nicely but1 he composes himself splendidly1 and we congratulate ,herr ,duehring upon the fact that he is not only a peer of the author of the ,niebelungen ,ring in his opinion of himself but in his own particular capacity is also a composer of the future4 ,organic ,world 7,conclusion74 ,one reflects upon our natural philosophical portion of positive knowledge in order to fix it relatively to all one's scientific hypotheses4 ,next in importance come all the actual acquisitions of mathematics as well as the leading principles of exact science in mechanics1 physics and chemistry and particularly the scientific results in physiology1 zoology1 and antiquarian investigation4 ,herr ,duehring speaks in this confident and decided fashion with respect to the mathematical and scientific scholarship of ,herr ,duehring4 ,one cannot detect in its meager shape and in its scanty and audacious results the extent of positive knowledge which lies behind4 ,every time the oracle is consulted for a definite statement as regards physics or chemistry we get nothing as regards physics but the equation which expresses the mechanical equivalent of heat1 and concerning chemistry only this that all bodies are divisible into elements and combinations of elements4 ,he who can speak as ,duehring does about gravitating atoms shows at once that he is quite at a loss to understand the difference between an atom and a molecule4 ,atoms1 of course1 exist1 not with respect to gravitation or any other physical or mechanical form of motion1 but only as concerns chemical action4 ,and if the last chapter on organic nature is read1 the empty1 self-contradictory1 assertive1 oracular1 stupid1 circuitous absolute nothingness of the final result lead one to the conclusion that ,herr ,duehring talks about things of which he knows very little and this conclusion becomes a certainty when we come to his proposal in the course of his writing on organic life 7biology7 to use the term composition instead of evolution4 ,he who can make such a suggestion as that gives evidence that he is not acquainted with the building up of organic bodies4 ,all organic bodies1 the very lowest excepted1 develop from small cells by the increment of visible pieces of albumen with a central cell4 ,the cell generally develops an outer skin and the contents are more or less fluid4 ,the lowest cell-bodies develop from one cell2 the enormous majority of organic beings are many-celled and among the lower forms these take on similar1 and among the higher forms greater variations of1 groupings and activities4 ,in the human body for example are bones1 muscles1 nerves1 sinews1 ligaments1 cartilage1 skin1 all either made up of cells or originating in them4 ,but for all organic bodies1 from the amoeba which is a simple and for the most part unprotected piece of albumen with a cell centre in the midst to man1 and from the smallest one-celled desmidian to the highest developed plant1 the mode is one and the same by which the cells propagate themselves1 that is by division4 ,the cell centre is first laced across its midst1 the lacing which separates the centre into two knobs becomes stronger and stronger and at last they become separated and two cell centres are formed4 ,the same occurrence takes place in the cell itself4 ,each of the cell centres becomes the middle point of a collection of cell stuff which by knitting ever closer becomes combined with the other1 and finally both of them part and live on as separate cells4 ,through such repeated cell divisions the full sized animal gradually develops from the germ of the animal egg after fructification and the substitution of used up cells in the full grown animal is brought about similarly4 ,to call such a process composition and to speak of the term evolution as a purely imaginary term belongs to one who does not know anything of the matter1 hard as it is to imagine such ignorance at this date4 ,we have still somewhat to say with respect to ,herr ,duehring's views of life in general4 ,elsewhere he sets forth the following statement with respect to life4 ,even the inorganic world is a self-regulated system but one may undertake to speak of life in the proper sense first when the organs and the circulation of matter through special separate channels from a central point to another germ collection of a minor formation begin4 ,if life begins where the separate organs begin then we must hold all ,haeckel's protozoa 7,protistenreich7 and probably many others as dead2 all organisms at least up to those composed of one cell and those included are not capable of life4 ,if the means of circulation of matter through different channels is the distinguishing mark of life we must place outside of this definition all the upper classes of the colenterata entirely1 with the exception of the medusae1 and therefore all the polypi and other plant animals are also to be considered as being outside the class of living creatures4 ,and if the circulation of matter through different canals from an inner point is the distinguishing characteristic of life we must reckon all animals as dead which either have no heart or several hearts4 ,besides these there belong also to this category all worms1 starfish and ringed creatures 7annuloids and annulous according to ,huxley's definition7 a portion of the shell fish1 crabs1 and finally a vertebrate animal1 the lancelet 7amphioxus7 and all plants4 ,when ,herr ,duehring therefore undertakes to distinguish life narrowly and strictly1 he gives four mutually contradictory modes of distinguishing life1 one of which condemns not only the whole of plant life but about half the animal kingdom to eternal death4 ,no one can accuse him of having deceived us when he promised us peculiar results based on individual ideas4 ,in another place he says ,there is a simple fundamental type in nature belonging to all organisms from the lowest to the highest and this type is to be met in the subordinate movements of the most undeveloped plants4 ,this is again an absolutely false statement4 ,the simplest type in the whole of organic nature is the cell1 and it lies universally at the foundation of the highest organisms4 ,on the other hand there is a substance among the lowest organisms lower even than the cell1 the protomoeba1 a single piece of undifferentiated protoplasm1 without any differentiation1 a complete series of monads and the entire class of siphoneae4 ,all of these are connected with the higher organisms only by virtue of the fact that protoplasm is its substantial foundation1 and that they fulfill the functions of protoplasm1 that is they live and die4 ,further ,herr ,duehring tells us physiologically the concept of existence consists in this1 that it embraces a single nerve apparatus4 ,sensation is therefore the characteristic of all animal organisms that is the capacity of conscious subjective recognition of circumstances4 ,the sharp line of differentiation between plants and animals consists in the leap to sensation4 ,this distinguishing line cannot any more be abolished by known forms of transition than it can be brought into existence by the logical necessity of externally distinguishable characteristics4 ,and further ,plants are totally and eternally without sensation and are devoid of the faculty for it4 ,in the first place ,hegel says that sensation is the specific differentiation1 the distinguishing mark of the animal4 ,thus one of ,hegel's erudite statements becomes an indubitable truth of the last instance merely by being copied into ,herr ,duehring's book4 ,in the second place we now arrive for the first time at the forms of transition between animals and plants4 ,that these intermediate forms exist1 that there are organisms concerning which we are unable to say flatly whether they are plants or animals1 that we are therefore unable to fix accurately the frontiers between plant and animal life1 all these things make ,herr ,duehring logically anxious to fix a decisively distinguishing line1 which in the next breath he declares cannot be thoroughly relied on4 ,but there is no need for us to go to the doubtful region2 intermediate between plants and animals are sensitive plants which at the least contact fold their leaves or close their petals4 ,are insect eating plants utterly without sensation8 ,even ,herr ,duehring cannot make such an assertion without indulging in unscientific half-poetry4 ,in the third place ,herr ,duehring is again giving free rein to his imagination when he says that sensation is psychologically existent1 even when the nerve apparatus is exceedingly simple4 ,this is found regularly among reptiles yet ,herr ,duehring is the first to say that they have no sensation because they have no nerves4 ,sensation is not necessarily bound up with nerves but it is bound up with some albuminous substance the true nature of which has not yet been discovered4 ,in addition1 the biological knowledge of ,herr ,duehring becomes exceedingly evident in that he is not ashamed to fling at ,darwin the question do animals develop from plants8 so that it is a question whether he is more ignorant with regard to plants or animals4 ,of life in general ,herr ,duehring can only tell us ,the change in the form of matter which fulfills itself by plastic constructive arrangement remains a distinguishing characteristic of the individual life-process4 ,that is all that we learn of life and with respect to the plastic creative arrangement we sink knee deep in the nonsense of ,duehring's jargon4 ,if we want to learn what life is we shall have to look at the problem a little more closely on our own account4 ,that organic change in matter is the most universal and distinctive evidence of life has been declared by physiological chemists and chemical physiologists times without number during the last thirty years and their utterances are translated by ,herr ,duehring into his own clear and elegant language4 ,but to define life as an organic change of matter is simply to define life as life1 for organic change of matter1 or change of matter with plastic creative arrangement is a statement which must itself be explained by life1 and the explanation in its turn by the difference between organic and inorganic1 that is between that which is alive and that which is not alive4 ,so that with this explanation we do not get at the problem4 ,organic change1 as such1 is frequently found where life does not exist4 ,there are whole series of processes in chemistry1 which by the proper combination of the elements1 produce again their own conditions1 so that thereby a certain body is the creator of a process4 ,thus in the manufacture of sulphuric acid by the burning of sulphur1 there is created in this process sulphuric dioxide ,,so#b1 and if one add steam and nitric acid thereto1 the sulphuric dioxide takes up the water and the oxygen and becomes ,h#b ,,so#d4 ,nitric acid gives off oxygen and becomes nitric oxide1 this nitric oxide simultaneously takes up new oxygen from the atmosphere and is transformed into a higher oxide of nitrogen and from this acid sulphuric dioxide is again given off and made by the same process1 so that1 theoretically1 an infinitely small amount of nitric acid should be effective to transform an unlimited quantity of sulphuric dioxide1 oxygen and water into sulphuric acid4 ,change in matter regularly occurs through the passing of fluids through dead organic and inorganic membranes as in the artificial cells of ,traube4 ,it therefore appears that there is no progress by the way of organic change for the quality of organic change which was to explain life must itself be explained by life4 ,we must therefore seek it elsewhere4 ,life is a mode of existence of protoplasm and consists essentially in the constant renewal of the chemical constituents of this substance4 ,protoplasm is here understood in the modern chemical sense and comprises under this name all substances analogous to the white of an egg1 otherwise called protein substances4 ,the name is not satisfactory1 for the ordinary white of egg plays the least active role of all transformed substances1 since it only serves as mere nourishment for the yolk1 for the self-developing germ4 ,as long however as so little is known of the chemical constituents of protoplasm the name is better than any other because more inclusive4 ,whenever we discover life we also find it bound up with protoplasm1 and when we find a piece of protoplasm not in solution there we find also life1 without exception4 ,doubtless the presence of other chemical constituents is necessary to a living body1 to produce the various differentiations of these elements of life4 ,they are not necessary to life in itself1 hence they enter as food and become transformed into protoplasm4 ,the lowest forms of life with which we are acquainted are nothing but simple pieces of protoplasm and yet they have all the appearance of living objects4 ,but in what consist these signs of life which are common to all living objects8 ,in this1 that the protoplasm takes from its surroundings other matter suitable to itself and assimilates it while other former portions of the body become decomposed and are thrown off4 ,other things1 not living bodies1 decompose or make combinations1 but cease thereby to be what they were4 ,the rock worn by atmospheric action is no longer rock1 the metal which becomes oxidised goes off in rust4 ,but what causes the destruction of dead bodies is the essential of the existence of living protoplasm4 ,from the very moment when the unbroken interchange in the constituents of protoplasm ceases1 the continual interchange of receiving and throwing off1 from that moment the protoplasmic substance itself ceases1 becomes decomposed1 that is1 dies4 ,life1 the mode of existence of protoplasmic substance1 therefore consists in this1 that at one and the same moment it is itself and something else1 and this is not the result of a process to which it is compelled by external agency1 since this may happen also with objects which are dead4 ,on the contrary life1 which is change of matter1 is consequent upon nourishment and throwing off1 is a self-fulfilling process inherent in its medium1 protoplasm1 without which it cannot exist4 ,hence1 it follows that if chemistry should ever discover how to make protoplasm artificially1 this protoplasm must show some signs of life1 even if very insignificant4 ,it is1 of course1 doubtful if chemistry will discover the proper food for this protoplasm at the same time as the protoplasm4 ,through the changes in matter produced by nourishment and throwing off1 as actual functions of the protoplasm1 and through its own plasticity1 proceed all the other most simple factors of life1 sensibility which consists in the interchange between the protoplasm and its food1 contractibility which shows itself at a very low stage in the consumption of food1 possibility of growth which is shown in the lowest stages of development by splitting1 and internal motion without which neither the consumption nor assimilation of food is possible4 ,our definition of life is1 of course1 very incomplete since in order to include all the widely differing manifestations of life it must confine itself to the most universal and simple4 ,definitions are of little scientific worth4 ,in order to determine what life is we must examine all forms of its manifestation from the lowest to the highest4 ,for ordinary use such definitions are very convenient and in a certain sense indispensable1 and they can do no harm as long as their inevitable deficiencies are not forgotten4 7,the remainder of this section simply teases ,herr ,duehring47 ,,chapter ,,vi ,,morals ,,and ,,law ,eternal ,truths4 ,we refrain from offering examples of the hodge podge of stupidity and sham solemnity with which ,herr ,duehring regales his readers for fifty full pages as fundamental knowledge on the elements of consciousness4 ,we merely quote the following3 ,he who merely conceives of thought through the medium of speech has never understood what is signified by abstract and true thought4 ,hence1 animals are the most abstract and true thinkers1 for their thought is never obscured by the importunate interference of speech4 ,with regard to ,herr ,duehring's thought in particular1 it may be perceived that they are but little suited to speech and that the ,german language in particular is quite inadequate to express them4 ,the fourth part of his book1 however1 possesses some redeeming features1 for here and there it offers us some comprehensible notions on the subject of morals and law in spite of the tedious and involved rhetoric4 ,right at the beginning we are invited to take a journey to the other heavenly bodies4 ,thus1 the elements of morality are to be found among superhuman beings among whom exist an understanding of things and a regular system of the harmonious conduct of life4 ,our share in such conclusions must then be small1 but there always remains a beneficent and enlarging idea in picturing that even in other spheres individual and social life follows one purpose which cannot be escaped or evaded by any intelligent living creature4 ,there is good reason for our altering the position of the statement that ,herr ,duehring's truth is good for all possible worlds from the close to the beginning of the chapter4 ,when once the correctness of ,herr ,duehring's notions of morals and law have been established so as to apply to all world the beneficent notion may easily be extended to all time4 ,here again1 however1 we run across another final truth of last instance4 ,the moral universe has just as well as that of universal knowledge its general principles and simple elements4 ,moral principles are beyond history and the national distinctions of to-day 444 the various truths from which in the course of development the fuller moral consciousness1 and1 so to speak1 conscience itself is derived1 can1 as far as their origin is investigated1 claim a similar acceptation and extent to that of mathematics and its applications4 ,real truths are immutable and it is folly to conceive of correct knowledge as liable to the attacks of time or of change in material conditions4 ,hence the certainty of sound knowledge and the sufficiency of general acceptation forbid to doubt the absolute correctness of the fundamental principles of knowledge4444 ,continual doubt is in itself an evidence of weakness and is merely the expression of a barren condition of confusion1 which although conscious of possessing nothing still seeks to maintain the appearance of holding on to something4 ,regarding morals1 it denies universal principles with respect to the manifold variations in moral ideas owing to geographical and historical conditions1 and thinks that with the admission of the unavoidable necessity of evil and wickedness there is no need for it to acknowledge the truth and efficiency of moral impulses4 ,this mordant scepticism which is not directed against any false doctrine in particular1 but against human capacity to recognise morality resolves itself finally into nothingness1 it is no more than mere nihilism4 ,it flatters itself that it can attain supremacy and give free rein to unprincipled pleasures by destroying moral ideas and creating chaos4 ,it is greatly deceived1 however1 if merely pointing at the inevitable fate of the intellect with respect to error and truth is sufficient to show by analogy that natural liability to error does not exclude the arriving at a correct decision but rather tends to that end4 ,up to now we have not commented upon ,herr ,duehring's pompous opinions on final truths of the last instance1 sovereignty of the will1 absolute certainty of knowledge1 and so forth1 until the matter could first be brought to an issue4 ,up to this point the investigation has been useful to show how far the separate assertions of the philosophy of realism had sovereign validity and unrestricted claim to truth but we now come to the question if any and what product of human knowledge can have in particular sovereign validity and unrestricted claims to truth4 ,if ,i speak of human knowledge ,i do not do so as an affront to the dwellers in other worlds whom ,i have not the honor to know1 but only because animals have knowledge also1 not sovereign1 however4 ,the dog recognises a divinity in his master1 who may1 however1 be a great fool4 ,is human thought sovereign8 ,before we can answer yes or no we must first examine what human thought is4 ,is it the thought of an individual man8 ,no4 ,it exists only as the individual thoughts of many millions of men1 past1 present and to come4 ,if ,i now say1 having comprehended the thought of all men in the future also under my concept1 that it is able to understand the entire universe1 if man only lasts long enough1 and the organs of perception are unlimited1 and the objects to be comprehended have no limits upon their comprehensibility1 my statement is banal and barren4 ,the most valuable result of such a conclusion would be to cause in us a tremendous distrust of present day knowledge4 ,because1 to all appearance1 we are just standing at the threshold of human history and the generations which will correct us will be much more numerous than those whose knowledge--often with little enough regard1--we ourselves correct4 ,herr ,duehring himself explains the necessity of consciousness1 knowledge and perception only becoming apparent in a collection of separate individuals4 ,we can only apply the word sovereignty to the thought of these individuals in so far as we do not know of any force which can defeat thought4 ,but we all know that there is no significance to nor power of interpretation of the sovereign power of the knowledge of the thought of each individual1 and1 according to our experience1 there is much more that requires improvement and correction in it than not4 ,in other words1 the sovereignty of thought is realised in a number of highly unsovereign men capable of thinking1 the knowledge which has unlimited pretensions to truth is realised in a number of relative blunders2 neither the one nor the other can be fully realised except through an endless eternity of human existence4 ,we have here again the same contradiction as above between the necessary1 as an absolute conceived characteristic of human thought1 and its reality in the very limited thinking single individual1 a contradiction which can only be solved in the endless progression of the human race1 that is endless as far as we are concerned4 ,in this sense human thought is just as sovereign as not--sovereign1 and its possibility of knowledge just as unlimited as limited4 ,it is sovereign and unlimited as regards its nature1 its significance1 its possibilities1 its historical end1 it is not sovereign and limited with respect to individual expression and its actuality at any particular time4 ,it is just the same with eternal truths4 ,if mankind only operated with eternal truths and with thought which possessed a sovereign significance and unlimited claims to truth1 mankind would have arrived at a point where the eternity of thought becomes realised in actuality and possibility4 ,thus the famous miracle of the enumerated innumerable would be realised4 ,but what about those truths which are so well established that to doubt them is to be1 as it were1 crazy8 ,that twice two is four1 that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles1 that ,paris is in ,france1 that a man will die of hunger if he does not receive food1 etc48 ,do we not perceive then that there are eternal truths1 final truths of last instance8 ,quite so4 ,we can divide the entire field of knowledge in the old-fashioned way into three great divisions4 ,the first includes all the sciences which are concerned with inanimate nature and which can be treated mathematically1 more or less--mathematics1 astronomy1 mechanics1 physics and chemistry4 ,if one like to use big words to express simple things1 it may be said that certain results of these sciences are eternal truths1 final truths of last instance1 whence they are called the exact sciences4 ,but all the results are by no means of this character4 ,with the introduction of variable quantities and the extension of the variability to the infinitely small and the infinitely large1 mathematics1 otherwise erect1 meets with its fall1 it has eaten of the apple of knowledge and there has been opened up to it the path of limitless progress as well as that of error4 ,the virgin condition of absolute purity1 the undisturbable certainty of all mathematics has vanished forever1 a period of controversy has intervened1 and we have now arrived at the state of affairs in which most people carry on the operations of multiplication and division not because they really understand what they are engaged in1 but from mere belief because the operation has so far always given correct results4 ,astronomy and mechanics1 physics and chemistry are in a still more confused state1 and hypotheses crowd one another thick as a swarm of bees4 ,it cannot be otherwise4 ,in physics we investigate the movements of molecules1 in chemistry the development of molecules from atoms1 and if the theory of light waves should not be correct we have no absolute knowledge that we even see these interesting things4 ,the lapse of time produces a very thin crop of final truths of last instance4 ,in geology we are in a still more embarrassing situation for we are here involved in the study of preceding epochs in which1 as a matter of fact1 neither we ourselves nor any other human being ever existed4 ,here there is much labor spent in the harvesting of truths of last instance1 and they are a scanty crop withal4 ,the second division of knowledge is occupied in the investigation of living organisms4 ,in this field the changes and causalities are so complex that not only does the solution of each question bring about the rise of an unlimited number of new questions1 but the solution of each of these separate new questions depends upon years1 frequently centuries1 of investigation1 and can then be only partially completed4 ,so that the need of systematic arrangement of the various interrelations continually surrounds the final truths of the last instance with a prolific and spreading growth of hypotheses4 ,look at the long succession of progressive steps from ,galen to ,malpighi necessary to establish correctly so simple a thing as the circulation of the blood of mammals1 yet how little we know of the origin of blood corpuscles and how many mistakes we make in1 for example1 rationally connecting the symptoms and cause of a disease4 ,besides there are frequently discoveries like those of the cell which compel us to entirely revise all hitherto firmly established truth of the last instance in biology1 and to lay numbers of such truths aside for good and all4 ,he who would therefore in this science undertake the proclamation of absolute and immutable truths must be content with such platitudes as the following3 ,all men must die2 all female mammals have mammary glands1 etc4 ,he will not even be able to say that the greater animals digest their food by means of the stomach and bowels and not with the head because the centralised system of nerves in the head is not adapted to digestion4 ,but things are worse with regard to final truths of last instance in the third group of sciences--the historical4 ,these are concerned with the conditions of human life1 social conditions1 forms of law and the state with their idealistic superstructure of philosophy1 religion1 art1 etc41 in their historic succession and in their present day manifestations4 ,in organic nature we have at least to do with a succession of regular phenomena which regularly repeat themselves as far as our immediate observation goes1 within very wide limits4 ,organic species have remained on the whole unaltered since the time of ,aristotle4 ,in social history1 on the other hand1 repetitions of conditions are the exception1 not the rule1 directly we leave behind the prehistoric conditions of humanity1 the stone-age1 so-called4 ,where such repetitions do occur1 moreover1 they never recur under precisely similar conditions1 as for example the occurrence of early tribal communism among all peoples anterior to civilisation and the form of its break up4 ,as regards human history1 then1 as far as science is concerned1 we are at a greater disadvantage than in biology4 ,furthermore1 when the intimate relations existing between a social and political phenomenon come to be recognised it is not1 as a rule1 perceived until the conditions are actually on the way to decay4 ,knowledge is therefore entirely relative1 since it is limited to a given people and a given epoch1 and their nature under transitory social and political forms1 when it examines relations and forms conclusions4 ,he who therefore is after final truths of last instance1 pure and immutable1 will only manage to catch flat phrases and the most arrant commonplaces1 like these--man cannot1 generally speaking1 live without working2 up to the present men have for the most part been divided into masters and servants2 ,napoleon died on ,may #eth1 #ahba1 and things of that sort4 ,it is worth noting that in this department of knowledge pretended final truths of last instance are met with most frequently4 ,only the person who wishes to show that there are eternal truth1 eternal morality1 and eternal justice in human history1 and that these are similar in scope and application to those of mathematics1 will proclaim that twice two is four and that birds have beaks and the like to be eternal truths4 ,we can also certainly rely upon the same friend of humanity taking the opportunity to explain that all former inventors of eternal truths have been more or less asses or charlatans1 that they have been circumscribed by error and have made mistakes4 ,the fact of their error1 however1 is natural and proves the existence of the truth1 and that it can be reached1 and the newly arisen prophet has a ready-to-hand stock of final truths of last instance1 eternal law and eternal justice4 ,this has happened hundreds1 nay1 thousands of times1 so that it is a wonder that men are still sufficiently credulous to believe it not only of others1 but even of themselves4 ,here we find a prophet clad in the armour of righteousness who proclaims in the old-fashioned way that whoever else may deny there is still one left to declare final truths of last instance4 ,denial1 nay1 doubt even1 is a weakness1 barren confusion1 mole-like scepticism1 worse than blank nihilism1 confusion worse confounded and other little amiabilities of this sort4 ,as with all prophets1 there is no scientific investigation1 but merely off-hand condemnation4 ,we might have made mention of the sciences which investigate the laws of human thought1 logic and dialectics4 ,here we are1 however1 no better off as regards eternal truths4 ,herr ,duehring explains that the dialectic proper is pure nonsense1 and the many books which have been and are still being written on logic prove clearly that final truths of last instance are more sparsely distributed than many believe4 ,moreover1 we are not at all alarmed because the step of science upon which we to-day stand is not a bit more final than any of the preceding steps4 ,already it includes an immense amount of material for investigation and offers a great chance for specialisation and study to anyone who desires to become expert in any particular branch4 ,whoever expects to find final and immutable truths in observations which in the very nature of things must remain relative for successive generations1 and can only be completed piecemeal1 as in cosmogony1 geology and human history1 which must always be incomplete owing to the complexity of the historical material1 shows perverse ignorance even where he does not1 as in the present case1 set up claims of personal infallibility4 ,truth and error1 like all such mutually antagonistic concepts1 have only an absolute reality under very limited conditions1 as we have seen1 and as even ,herr ,duehring should know by a slight acquaintance with the first elements of dialectics1 which show the insufficiency of all polar antagonisms4 ,as soon as we bring the antagonism of truth and error out of this limited field it becomes relative and is not serviceable for new scientific statements4 ,if we should seek to establish its reality beyond those limits we are at once confronted by a dilemma1 both poles of the antagonism come into conflict with their opposite2 truth becomes error and error becomes truth4 ,let us take1 for example1 the well-known ,boyle's law1 according to which1 the temperature remaining the same1 the volume of the gas varies as the pressure to which it is subjected4 ,regnault discovered that this law does not apply in certain cases4 ,if he had been a realist-philosopher he would have been obliged to say1 ,boyle's law is mutable1 therefore it does not possess absolute truth1 therefore it is untrue1 therefore it is false4 ,he would thus have made a greater error than that which was latent in ,boyle's law1 his little particle of truth would have been drowned in a flood of error2 he would in this way have elaborated his correct result into an error compared with which ,boyle's law with its particle of error fastened to it would have appeared as the truth4 ,regnault1 scientist as he was1 did not trouble himself with such childish performances4 ,he investigated further and found that ,boyle's law is only approximately correct1 having no validity in the case of gases which can be made liquid by pressure when the pressure approaches the point where liquefaction sets in4 ,boyle's law therefore is shown only to be true within specific bounds4 ,but is it absolute1 a final truth of last instance within specific bounds8 ,no physicist would say so4 ,he would say that it is correct for certain gases and within certain limits of pressure and temperature1 and even then within these somewhat narrow limits he would not exclude the possibility of a still narrower limitation or change in application as the result of further investigation4 ,this is how final truths of last instance stand in physics1 for example4 ,really scientific works as a rule avoid such dogmatic expressions as truth and error1 but they are constantly cropping up in works like the ,philosophy of ,reality1 where mere loose talking vaunts itself the supreme result of sovereign thought4 ,but a naive reader may say1 ,where has ,herr ,duehring expressly stated that the content of his philosophy of reality is final truth of the last instance8 ,well1 for example1 in his dithyramb on his system which we quoted above1 and again where he says ,moral truths as far as they are known are as sound as those of mathematics4 ,does not ,herr ,duehring explain that by reason of his powers of criticism and searching investigations1 the fundamental philosophy has been brought to light and that he has thus bestowed upon us final truths of last instance8 ,but if ,herr ,duehring does not set up such a claim either on his own behalf or that of his time1 if he says that some time in the misty future final truths of last instance will be established1 and that therefore his own statements are merely accidental and confused1 a kind of mole-like scepticism and barren confusion1 what is all the fuss about1 and what useful purpose is served by ,herr ,duehring8 ,if we gain no ground in the matter of truth and error we gain less in respect of good and evil4 ,here we have an antagonism of ethical significance1 and ethics is a department of human history in which final truths are but slight and few4 ,from people to people1 from age to age1 there have been such changes in the ideas of good and evil that these concepts are contradictory in different periods and among different peoples4 ,but some one may remark1 ,good is still not evil and evil is not good2 if good and evil are confused all morality is abolished1 and each may do what he will4 ,when the rhetoric is stripped away this is the opinion of ,herr ,duehring4 ,but the matter is not to be disposed of so easily4 ,if things were as easy as that there would be no dispute about good and evil4 ,everybody would know what was good and what was evil4 ,how is it to-day1 however8 ,what system of ethics is preached to us to-day8 ,there is first the ,christian-feudal1 a survival of the early days of faith1 which is as a matter of fact subdivided into ,catholic and ,protestant1 of which there are still further subdivisions1 from the ,jesuit-,catholic and orthodox ,protestant to loosely drawn ethical systems4 ,there figure also the modern or bourgeois1 and still further the proletarian future system of morality1 so that the progressive ,european countries alone present three contemporaneous and coexistent actual theories of ethics4 ,which is the true one8 ,no single one of them1 regarded as a finality1 but that system assuredly possesses the most elements of truth which promises the longest duration1 which existent in the present is also involved in the revolution of the future1 the proletarian4 ,but if we now see that the three classes of modern society1 the feudal aristocracy1 the bourgeoisie and the proletarian1 have their distinctive ethical systems1 we can only conclude therefrom that mankind consciously or unconsciously shapes its moral views in accordance with the material facts upon which in the last instance the class existence is based--upon the economic conditions under which production and exchange are carried on4 ,but in the three above mentioned systems of ethics there is much which is common to all three of them1 and might not this at least constitute a portion of an eternally stable system of ethics8 ,these ethical theories pass through three distinct steps in their historical development1 they have therefore a common historical basis and hence necessarily much in common4 ,further1 for approximately similar economic stages there must1 necessarily be a coincidence of similar stages of economic development1 and ethical theories must of necessity coincide with a greater or less degree of closeness4 ,from the very moment when private property in movables developed there had to be ethical sanctions of general effect in all communities in which private property prevailed1 thus3 ,thou shalt not steal4 ,is this commandment1 then1 an eternal commandment8 ,by no means4 ,in a society in which the motive for theft did not exist stealing would only be the practice of the weak-minded1 and the preacher of morals who proclaimed ,thou shalt not steal as an eternal commandment would only be laughed at for his pains4 ,we here call attention to the attempt to force a sort of moral dogmatism upon us as eternal1 final1 immutable moral law1 upon the pretext that the moral law is possessed of fixed principles which transcend history and the variations of individual peoples4 ,we state1 on the contrary1 that up to the present time all ethical theory is in the last instance a testimony to the existence of certain economic conditions prevailing in any community at any particular time4 ,and in proportion as society developed class-antagonisms1 morality became a class morality and either justified the interests and domination of the ruling class1 or as soon as a subject class became strong enough justified revolt against the domination of the ruling class and the interests of the subject class4 ,that1 by this means1 there is an advance made in morals as a whole1 just as there is in all other branches of human knowledge1 there can be no doubt4 ,but we have not yet advanced beyond class morals4 ,real human morality superior to class morality and its traditions will not be possible until a stage in human history has been reached in which class antagonisms have not only been overcome but have been forgotten as regards the conduct of life4 ,now the colossal egotism of ,herr ,duehring may be understood when it is seen that1 on the eve of a revolution which will bring about a state of society devoid of classes1 he claims from the midst of an old and class divided society to proclaim an eternal system of morals independent of time and material change4 ,he himself declares what up to the present has been hid from the rest of us that he understands the structure of this future society at least as regards its salient features4 ,in conclusion he makes a revelation which is essentially original but none the less fundamental respecting the origin of evil4 ,we have the fact that the type of the cat with its inherent treachery is pictured as the representative animal type1 and this also displays a form of character to be found also in man4 ,there is no mystery then about evil if one can detect a mysticism in the cat or any other beast of prey4 ,evil is--the cat4 ,goethe was evidently wrong when he introduced ,mephistopheles as a black dog instead of a cat similarly colored4 ,this is ethics suited not only to all worlds but to cats also4 ,equality4 ,by dint of experience we have come to learn ,herr ,duehring's method4 ,it consists in separating each department of knowledge into what are assumed to be its most simple elements1 then of making so called self evident axioms with regard to these simple elements1 and thereupon operating with the results obtained in this way4 ,thus a sociological question is to be decided on simple axiomatic principles just as if it were a matter of elementary mathematics4 ,thus the application of the mathematical method to history1 ethics and law gives mathematical certainty to the final results which appear as pure and immutable truths4 ,this is only another form of the old ideological1 a priori method so called1 which learned the properties of an object not from the object itself but derived them by proof from the concept of the object4 ,first you derive a concept of the object from the actual object1 then you turn the spit and measure the object in terms of its derivative the concept4 ,the concept is not shaped after the pattern of the object but the object after the pattern of the concept4 ,in ,herr ,duehring's method1 the simplest elements1 the last abstractions to which he can attain do duty for the concept which is unchangeable1 the simplest elements are under the best conditions purely imaginary in their nature4 ,the philosophy of realism hence appears to be mere ideology1 and has no derivation from real life but is absolutely dependent upon the imagination4 ,when such an ideologist proceeds to construct a system of morals and law from his concept of the so-called simplest elements of society instead of from the real social conditions of the men about him1 where does he get his material for construction8 ,the material evidently consists of two kinds--firstly1 the slim vestiges of reality which are still present in every fundamental abstraction1 and secondly in the actual content which our ideologist evolves from his own consciousness4 ,and what does he discover in his consciousness8 ,for the most part moral and ethical philosophic ideas and these constitute an expression corresponding more or less closely1 whether positive or negative1 harmonious or hostile1 with the social and political conditions which environ him4 ,besides he probably has notions derived from literature pertaining to these conditions1 and finally he has possibly personal idiosyncrasies4 ,let our ideologist dodge all that he can1 the historical reality which he has thrown out of doors comes in again at the window and although he may fancy that he is employed in the manufacture of moral and legal doctrines good for all worlds and all ages he is actually making a distorted1 counterfeit of the conservation or revolutionary tendencies of his time1 because torn from its real place1 as things seen in a concave mirror are upside down4 ,herr ,duehring therefore resolves society into its simplest elements and discovers accordingly that the most elementary society consists of at least two human beings4 ,he thereupon operates with these two human beings to produce his axiom4 ,then he delivers himself of the fundamental maxim of morals1 ,two human wills1 as such1 are entirely identical1 and the one can in consequence make no positive demands upon the other4 ,here the foundation of moral law is apparent1 so in order to develop the principal concepts of justice we require two human beings under absolutely simple and elementary conditions4 ,that two human wills or two human beings are just alike is not only no axiom1 it is a glaring exaggeration4 ,in the first place two human beings may differ as regards sex1 and this simple fact shows us1 if we look at childhood for a moment1 that the elements of society are not two men1 but a little man and a little woman1 which constitute a family1 the simplest and earliest form of association for productive purposes4 ,but ,herr ,duehring cannot by any means agree to this4 ,on the one hand the two constituents of society might very possibly be made alike and on the other ,herr ,duehring would not be able to construct the moral and legal equality of man and woman from the original family4 ,therefore one of two things must take place4 ,either the molecules of ,herr ,duehring's society from the multiplication of which all society is built up is merely a priori and destined to fail1 since two men cannot produce a child1 or we must consider them as two heads of families4 ,in this case the entire foundation is made its very opposite4 ,instead of the equality of man we have at the most the equality of two heads of families1 and since women are not comprehended we have the consequent subjection of women4 ,we are sorry to warn the reader that these two notorious men cannot be got rid of1 for a long time4 ,they take up in the realm of social conditions the role heretofore played by the dwellers in the other world with whom it is to be hoped we have now finished4 ,should any question of political economy1 of politics or any other such matter require solution1 out come the two men and make the thing axiomatic forthwith4 ,this is a remarkable1 clever1 and system-shaping discovery of our system-shaping philosopher4 ,but to give the truth its due we are regretfully bound to say that he did not discover the two men4 ,they are common to the whole of the eighteenth century4 ,they appear in ,rousseau's ,treatise on ,equality1 #aged1 where1 by the way1 they serve to prove axiomatically the direct opposite of ,herr ,duehring's contentions4 ,they play an important part in political economy from ,adam ,smith to ,ricardo1 but here they are so far unequal that they follow different trades1 principally hunting and fishing1 and they exchange their mutual products4 ,they serve through the entire eighteenth century principally as mere illustrative examples1 and the originality of ,herr ,duehring consists in the fact that he elevates this method of illustration to a fundamental method for all social science and to a measure of all historical instruction4 ,there is no easier way to arrive at a really scientific philosophy of things and men4 ,in order to create the fundamental axiom the two men and their wills are mutually equal and neither has any right to lord it over the other4 ,we cannot find two suitable men4 ,they must be two men who are so free from all national1 economic1 political and religious conditions1 from sex and personal peculiarities that nothing remains of either of them but the mere concept man and then they are entirely equal4 ,they are therefore two fully-equipped ghosts conjured up by that very ,herr ,duehring who particularly ridicules and denounces spiritistic movements4 ,these two phantoms must of course do all that their wizard wants of them and so their united productions are a matter of complete indifference to the rest of the world4 ,now let us follow ,herr ,duehring's axiomatic utterances a little further4 ,these two men cannot make positive demands upon each other4 ,the one who does so and enforces his demand thereupon performs an unjust act1 and with this idea as a foundation ,herr ,duehring explains the injustice1 the tyranny1 the servitude1 in short all the evil happenings of history up to the present time4 ,now ,rousseau has in the work above mentioned proved the contrary just as axiomatically1 by means of two men4 ,a4 cannot forcibly enslave ,b4 except by putting ,b4 in a place where he cannot do without ,a4 ,this is far too materialistic an idea for ,herr ,duehring4 ,he has accordingly put the same matter somewhat differently4 ,two shipwrecked men being by themselves on an island form a society4 ,their wills are1 theoretically speaking1 entirely equal and this is acknowledged by both4 ,but in reality the inequality is tremendous4 ,a4 is resolute and energetic1 ,b4 inert1 irresolute and slack4 ,a4 is sharp1 ,b4 is stupid4 ,how long will it be before ,a4 imposes his will upon ,b41 first by taking the upper hand1 and keeping it habitually1 under the pretence that ,b4's submission is voluntary4 ,whether the form of voluntariness continues or force is resorted to slavery still is slavery4 ,voluntary entering into a state of slavery lasted all through the ,middle ,ages in ,germany up to the ,thirty ,years ,war4 ,when serfdom was abolished in ,prussia after the defeats of #ahjf and #ahjg and with it the duty of the nobility to take care of their subjects in need1 sickness and old age the peasants thereupon petitioned to be allowed to remain in slavery--for who would care for them when they were in trouble8 ,the concept of the two men is just as applicable to inequality and slavery as it is to equality and mutual aid1 and since1 under the penalty of extinction1 men must assume the headship of a family1 hereditary slavery may be foreseen in it4 ,let us put this view of the case on one side for a moment4 ,we assume that we are convinced by ,herr ,duehring's maxim and that we are zealous for the full equalisation of the two wills1 for the universal sovereignty of man for the sovereignty of the individual1 magnificent expressions1 in comparison with which ,stirner's individual with his private property is a mere bungler though he might claim his modest part therein4 ,then we are all free and independent4 ,all8 ,no1 not even now4 ,there are still occasional dependent relations but these are to be explained on grounds which must be sought not in the action of two wills as such but in a third consideration1 in the case of children1 for example1 in the inadequateness of their self-assertion4 ,indeed1 the foundations of independence are not to be sought in the realisation of the two wills as such4 ,naturally not1 since the realisation of one of the wills is thus interfered with4 ,but they must be sought in a third direction4 ,and what is the third direction8 ,the actual fixing of a subjected will as an inadequate one4 ,so far has our realistic philosopher departed from reality that will1 the real content1 the characteristic determination of this will serves him as a third ground1 for abstract and indefinite speech4 ,however this may be we must agree that equality has its exceptions4 ,it does not apply to a will which is infected with inadequateness of self expression4 ,further1 ,where the animal and the human are intermingled in one person can one in the name of a second fully developed human being demand the same actions as in the case of a single human being 444 our supposition is here of two morally unequal persons of which one has a share of purely animal characteristics in a certain sense the typical fundamental conception which characterises the differences in and between groups of men4 ,now the reader may see by these modest excuses in which ,herr ,duehring turns and winds like a ,jesuit priest to establish a casuistical position1 how far the human human can prevail over the bestial human1 how far he can employ deceit1 warlike1 keen terrorising means of deceit against the latter without overstepping immutable ethical bounds4 ,therefore1 if two persons are morally unequal there is an end of equality4 ,it was therefore not worth while to conjure up two fully equal men1 since there are no two individuals who are morally equal4 ,but inequality consists in this that one is a human being and the other has some part of the animal in his composition4 ,it is evident that since man is descended from the animal creation he is not free from animality4 ,so that as regards man degrees of animality can only be differentiated to a greater or less degree4 ,a division of men into two sharply differentiated groups1 into humans and human beasts1 into good and bad1 into sheep and goats1 even ,christianity1 let alone the realist philosophy1 is aware1 implies a judge who makes the distinction4 ,but who shall be judge as regards the realist philosophy8 ,we must follow the practice of ,christians according to which the pious little sheep undertake to act as judges of the universe against their unworthy neighbors the goats1 with results which are too well known4 ,the sect of the realist philosophers supposing it ever comes into existence will certainly not give up anything quietly4 ,this is indeed a matter of small concern to us but we are interested in the confession that as a conclusion of the moral inequality between men equality no longer exists4 ,again ,if the one acted in accordance with truth and science but the other in accordance with a superstition or prejudice a mutual disagreement would generally occur4 ,at a certain stage of incapacity barbarism or an evil tendency of character must in all circumstances produce an antagonism4 ,force is the last resort not alone with children and incapables4 ,the peculiar characteristics of whole classes of men1 whether in a state of nature or civilised1 may render necessary the subjection of their inimical will1 due to their own impotency1 in order to bring them into harmony with social arrangements4 ,but such a man has challenged his own equality by the perversity of his inimical and hurtful actions1 and if he suffers at the hands of a superior force he only reaps the recoil of his own actions4 ,thus not only moral but spiritual inequality is sufficiently potent to do away with the full equality of two wills and to furnish an ethical rule by which all the shameful acts of civilised plundering states against backward peoples down to the atrocities of the ,russians in ,turkestan may be justified4 ,when ,general ,kaufmann1 in the summer of #ahgc1 fell upon the ,tartar tribes of the ,jomuden1 burnt their tents1 mowed down their wives and families1 as the command ran1 he explained that the destruction was due to the perversity1 the inimical minds of the people of the ,jomuden1 and was employed for the purpose of bringing them back to the social order1 and the means used by him had been the most efficient4 ,but he who wills the end wills also the means4 ,but he was not so cruel as to insult the ,jomuden people in addition and to say that he massacred them in the name of equality1 that he considered their wills equal to his own4 ,and again in this conflict the select1 those who pose as champions of truth and science1 the realist philosophers in the last instance must be able to distinguish superstition1 prejudice1 barbarism1 evil tendencies of character1 and when force and subjection are necessary to bring about equality4 ,so that equality now means equalisation by means of force1 and the will of one recognises the will of the other as equal by overthrowing it4 ,the phrase that an external will in its bringing about equalisation by force is only to be regarded as producing equality is nothing but a distortion of the ,hegelian theory that punishment is a right of the criminal4 ,that punishment is to be regarded as implying a right to it in accordance with which the criminal is respected as a rational being4 7,rechtsphil1 #ajj47 ,we may pause here4 ,it would be superfluous to follow ,herr ,duehring any further in the piecemeal destruction of his axiomatically established equality1 universal human sovereignty1 etc41 to observe how he brings society into existence with two men and produces yet a third in order to establish the state1 because to put the matter briefly1 no majority can be had without the third1 and without him1 that is1 without the domination of the majority over the minority1 no state can exist4 ,there is no need either for us to observe how he launches his future social state on the more peaceful waters of construction1 where we may have the honor some fine morning of beholding it4 ,we have seen so far that the complete equality of two wills only exists as long as they do not will anything4 ,that as soon as they cease to become human wills as such and to be converted into real individual wills1 into wills of real persons1 that is1 equality ceases2 that childhood1 idiocy1 animality so called1 superstition1 prejudice1 supposed lack of power on the one hand and supposed humanity and insight into truth and science on the other hand1 that therefore every difference in the quality of the two wills and in the degree of intelligence accompanying it justifies an inequality which may go as far as subjection4 ,why should we seek further since ,herr ,duehring has brought his own edifice of equality which he so laboriously constructed tumbling to the ground8 ,but if we are now prepared to meet ,herr ,duehring's silly and incompetent consideration of equality of rights we are not yet ready to take issue with the idea itself which through the influence of ,rousseau has played a theatrical part1 and since the days of the great ,revolution a practical and political part1 and now plays no insignificant role in the agitation carried on by the socialist movement of all countries4 ,the establishment of its scientific soundness has a value for the proletarian agitation4 ,the idea that all men have something in common as men and that they are equal with respect to that common quality is naturally older than history4 ,but the modern doctrine of equality is something quite different than that4 ,this derives from the property of humanity1 common to man1 the equality of man1 as man1 or at least of all citizens of a given state or of all members of a given society4 ,until the conclusion of equality of rights in the state and society was deduced from the original notion of relative equality1 and until this conclusion was to be stated as something natural and self evident1 many thousands of years had to pass and indeed have passed4 ,in the oldest and most elementary communities it may be said that equality of rights among the members existed in the highest degree1 women1 slaves1 and foreigners1 however1 being excluded4 ,among the ,greeks and ,romans inequality existed to a greater degree4 ,greeks and barbarians1 freemen and slaves1 citizens and subjects1 ,roman citizens and ,roman subjects 7to employ a comprehensive expression7 that these should have any claim to equality of political rights would have been regarded by the ancients necessarily as madness4 ,under the ,roman ,empire there was a complete elimination of all these distinctions with the exception of those of freemen and slaves4 ,there arose therefore as far as the freemen were concerned that equality of private individuals upon which ,roman law was founded and developed as the most perfect system of jurisprudence based on private property with which we are acquainted4 ,but while the contradiction of freemen and slaves existed there could be no statement based upon the universal equality of man as such1 as was recently shown in the slave states of the ,northern ,american ,union4 ,christianity recognised one equality on the part of all men1 that of an equal taint of original sin1 which entirely corresponded with its character as a religion of slaves and the oppressed4 ,in the next place it recognised completely the equality of the elect but it only declared this at the beginning of its teaching4 ,the traces of common property in possessions which may be found occasionally in the earliest days of the religion was based rather upon the mutual assistance which persecuted people hold out to each other1 than upon any real concepts of human equality4 ,very soon the establishment of the antithesis between the priesthood and the laity put an end to even this expression of ,christian equality4 ,the inundation of ,western ,europe by the ,germans abolished for centuries all concepts of equality by the creation of a universal1 social and political gradation of rank of a much more complicated nature than had existed up to that time4 ,contemporaneously with this ,western and ,middle ,europe entered upon a historical development1 shaped for the first time a compact civilisation1 and a system which was on the one hand dynamic and on the other conservative1 the leading national states4 ,thereupon a soil was prepared for the declaration of the equality of human rights so recently made4 ,the feudal middle ages moreover developed the class in its womb destined to be the apostle of the modern agitation for equality1 the bourgeois class4 ,in the beginning even under the feudal system the bourgeois class had developed the prevalent hand-industry and the exchange of products even within feudal society to a high degree considering the circumstances1 until with the close of the fifteenth century the great discoveries of lands beyond the seas opened before it a new and individual course4 ,the trade beyond ,europe which up to that time had been carried on between the ,italians and the ,levant was now extended to ,america and the ,indies and soon exceeded in amount the reciprocal trade of the ,european countries as well as the internal commerce of any particular land4 ,american gold and silver flooded ,europe and like a decomposing element penetrated all the fissures1 crevices and pores of feudal society4 ,the system of hand-labor was no longer sufficient for the growing demand1 it was replaced by manufacture in the leading industries of the most highly developed peoples4 ,a corresponding change in the political structure followed this powerful revolution in the economic conditions of society but by no means immediately4 ,the organisation of the ,state remained feudal in form while society became more and more bourgeois4 ,trade1 particularly international1 and to a greater degree world-commerce demanded for its development the free and unrestricted possessors of commodities1 who have equality of right to exchange commodities at least in one and the same place4 ,the transition from hand labor to manufacture presupposes the existence of a number of free laborers1 free on the one hand from the fetters of the gild and on the other free to employ their labor force in their own behalf1 who could make contracts for the hire of their labor force to the manufacturers and therefore face him as if endowed with equal rights as contracting parties4 ,at last then there arose equality of rights and actual equality of all human labor1 for labor force finds its unconscious but strongest expression in the law of value of modern bourgeois economy according to which the value of a commodity finds its measure in the socially necessary labor incorporated in it4 ,but where the economic circumstances render freedom and equality of rights necessary1 the political code1 gild restrictions and peculiar privileges oppose them at every step4 ,local provisions of a legal character1 differential taxation1 exceptional laws of every description1 interfere not only with foreigners or colonials but frequently enough also with whole categories of citizens in the nation itself4 ,gild privileges in particular constituted a continual impediment to the development of manufacture4 ,the course was nowhere open and the chances of the bourgeois victory were by no means equal1 but to make the course open was the first and ever more pressing necessity4 ,as soon as the demand for the abolition of feudalism and for the equality of rights was set on the order of the day it had necessarily to take an ever widening scope4 ,as soon as the claim was made in behalf of commerce and industry it had also to be made in behalf of the peasants who1 being in every stage of slavery from serfdom labored for the most part without any return for the feudal lords and were obliged in addition to perform innumerable services for them and for the ,state4 ,also it became desirable to abolish feudal privileges1 the immunity of the nobility from taxation1 and the superiority which attached to a certain status4 ,and as men no longer lived in a world empire like the ,roman1 but in an independent system with states which approximated to a similar degree of bourgeois development and which had intercourse with one another on an equal footing1 the demand took on necessarily a universal character reaching beyond the individual state1 and freedom and equality were thus proclaimed as human rights4 ,but as regards the special bourgeois character of these human rights1 it is significant that the ,american ,constitution which was the first to recognise these rights of man in the same breath established slavery among the colored people3 class privileges were cursed1 race privileges were blessed4 ,as is well known1 the bourgeois class as soon as it escaped from the domination of the ruling class in the cities1 by which process the medieval stage passes into the modern1 has been steadily and inevitably dogged by a shadow1 the proletariat4 ,so also the bourgeois demands for equality are accompanied by the proletarian demands for equality4 ,directly the demand for the abolition of class privileges was made by the bourgeois there succeeded the proletarian demand for the abolition of classes themselves4 ,this was first made in a religious form and was based upon early ,christianity1 but later derived its support from the bourgeois theories of equality4 ,the proletarians take the bourgeois at their word1 they demand the realisation of equality not merely apparently1 not merely in the sphere of government but actually in the sphere of society and economics4 ,since the ,french bourgeoisie of the great ,revolution placed equality in the foreground of their movement1 the ,french proletariat has answered it blow for blow with the demand for social and economic equality1 and equality has become the special battle cry of the ,french proletariat4 ,the demand for equality as made by the proletariat has a double significance4 ,either it is1 as was particularly the case at first1 in the ,peasants' ,war1 for example1 a natural reaction against social inequalities which were obvious1 against the contrast between rich and poor1 masters and slaves1 luxurious and hungry1 and as such it is simply an expression of revolutionary instinct finding its justification in that fact and in that fact alone4 ,on the other hand it may arise from reaction against the bourgeois claims of equality from which it deduces more or less just and far reaching claims1 serves as a means of agitation to stir the workers1 by means of a cry adopted by the capitalists themselves1 against the capitalists1 and in this case stands or falls with bourgeois equality itself4 ,in both cases the real content of the proletarian claims of equality is the abolition of classes4 ,every demand for equality transcending this is of necessity absurd4 ,we have already given examples and can furnish many more when we come to consider ,herr ,duehring's prophecies of the future4 ,so the notion of equality1 in its proletarian as well as in its bourgeois form1 is itself a historic product4 ,certain circumstances were required to produce it and these in their turn proceeded from a long anterior history4 ,it is therefore anything but an eternal truth4 ,and if the public regards it as self-evident in one sense or another if it1 as ,marx remarks already occupies the position of a popular prejudice it is not due to its being an axiomatic truth but to the universal broadening of conception in accordance with the spirit of the eighteenth century4 ,if ,herr ,duehring then can set up his two famous men in housekeeping on the grounds of equality1 it is apparent that the prejudices of the mass of men in its favor is an antecedent condition4 ,in fact ,herr ,duehring calls his philosophy the natural because it proceeds from generally recognised things1 which appear to him to be entirely natural4 ,but why they seem to him to be natural he does not take the trouble to enquire4 ,freedom and ,necessity4 7,the former part of this section is taken up with a criticism of ,herr ,duehring's knowledge of law of which he had boasted4 ,it is a purely technical discussion and is of merely local interest4 ,having disposed of ,duehring's juristic claims ,engels proceeds to discuss ,freedom and ,necessity as follows47 ,one cannot deal properly with the question of morals and law without a discussion of free will1 human responsibility1 and the limits of necessity and freedom4 ,the realistic philosophy has not only one but two solutions of these questions4 ,one must substitute for false theories of freedom the actual conditions in which reason on the one hand and instinct on the other unite upon a middle ground4 ,the fundamental facts of this sort of dynamics are to be learned from observation and as regards the calculation in advance of phenomena which have not yet occurred1 we must judge of them in general terms according to their special qualities4 ,in this way the silly speculations with respect to the freedom of the will which have wasted thousands of years are not only entirely removed but are replaced by something positive1 something useful for practical life4 ,so freedom of the will consists in this that reason impels men to the right and irrationality to the left and according to this parallelogram of forces the true direction is that of the diagonal4 ,freedom would therefore be the average between insight and impulse1 between understanding and lack of understanding1 and its degree would to use an astronomical expression be empirically established by the personal equation4 ,but a few pages later we read ,we establish moral responsibility upon freedom by which we only mean susceptibility to known motives according to the measure of natural and acquired reason4 ,all such motives in spite of antagonism realise themselves in action with the inevitability of natural law1 but we count upon this inevitable necessity when we deal with morals4 ,this second definition of freedom which is quite opposed to the first is nothing but a very weak paraphrase of ,hegel's notions on the subject4 ,hegel was the first man to make a proper explanation of the relations of freedom and necessity4 ,in his eyes freedom is the recognition of necessity4 ,necessity is blind only in so far as it is not understood4 ,freedom does not consist in an imaginary independence of natural laws but in a knowledge of these laws and in the possibility thence derived of applying them intelligently to given ends4 ,this is true both as regards the laws of nature and of those which control the spiritual and physical existence of man himself1--two classes of laws which we can distinguish as an abstraction but not in reality4 ,freedom of the will consists in nothing but the ability to come to a decision when one is in possession of a knowledge of the facts4 ,the freer the judgment of a man then in relation to a given subject of discussion so much the more necessity is there for his arrival at a positive decision4 ,on the other hand lack of certainty arising from ignorance which apparently chooses voluntarily between many different and contradictory possibilities of decision shows thereby its want of freedom1 its control by things which it should in reality control4 ,freedom1 therefore1 consists in mastery over ourselves and external nature founded upon knowledge of the necessities of nature1 it is1 therefore1 necessarily a product of historical development4 ,the first human beings to become differentiated from the lower animals were in all essentials as devoid of freedom as these animals themselves but each step in human development was a step towards freedom4 ,at the threshold of human history stands the discovery of the transformation of mechanical motion in heat1 the generation of fire by friction2 at the close of development up to the present stands the discovery of the transformation of heat into mechanical motion1 the steam engine4 ,in spite of the tremendous revolution in the direction of freedom which the steam engine has produced in society it is not yet half complete4 ,there is no question that the production of fire by friction still surpasses it as an agent in the liberation of humanity4 ,because the production of fire by friction for the first time gave man power over the forces of nature and separated him for ever from the lower animals4 ,the steam engine can never bridge so wide a chasm4 ,it appears however as the representative of all those productive forces by the help of which alone a state of society is rendered possible in which no class subjection or pain will be produced by reason of the lack of means for the sustenance of the individual1 in which moreover it will be possible to speak of real human freedom as arising from living in accordance with the recognised laws of nature4 ,but considering the youth of humanity it would be absurd to wish to impute any universal absolute validity to our present philosophical views1 and it follows from the mere facts that the whole of history up to the present time is to be regarded as the history of the period extending from the time of the practical discovery of the transformation of mechanical movement into heat to that of the transformation of heat into mechanical movement4 7,the above constitutes a reply to the view which regards history simply as the record of human error and is followed by a discussion of ,duehring's opinions in that regard47 ,,chapter ,,vii ,,the ,,dialectic ,quantity and ,quality4 7,here ,herr ,duehring contends ,the first and most important statement with respect to the foundation logical properties of existence points to the exclusion of contradiction4 ,contradiction is a category which can belong to thought alone but which can pertain to nothing real4 ,there are no contradictions in things2 in other words the law of contradiction is itself the crowning point of absurdity4 ,to which ,engels replies as follows73 ,the thought content of the foregoing passages is contained in the statement that contradiction is an absurdity and cannot occur in the actual world4 ,this statement will have for people of average common sense the same self-evident truth as to say that straight cannot be crooked nor crooked straight4 ,but the differential calculus shows in spite of all the protests of common sense that under certain conditions straight and crooked are identical1 and reaches thereby a conclusion which is not in harmony with the common sense view of the absurdity of there being any identity between straight and crooked4 ,considering moreover the significant role which the so called ,dialectic of the ,contradiction played in the ancient ,greek philosophy1 a stronger opponent than ,herr ,duehring would be obliged to meet it with better arguments than a mere affirmation and a number of epithets4 ,as long as we regard things as static and without life1 each by itself1 separately1 we do not run against any contradictions in them4 ,we find certain qualities sometimes common1 sometimes distinctive1 occasionally contradictory1 but in this last case they belong to different objects and are hence not self contradictory4 ,while we follow this method we pursue the ordinary metaphysical method of thought4 ,but it is quite different when we consider things in their movement1 in their change1 their life and their mutually reciprocal relations4 ,then we come at once upon contradictions4 ,motion is itself a contradiction since simple mechanical movement from place to place can only accomplish itself by a body being at one and the same moment in one place and simultaneously in another place by being in one and the same place and yet not there4 ,and motion is just the continuous establishing and dissolving the contradiction4 ,here we have a contradiction which is objective1 and so to speak corporeal in things and events4 ,and what does ,herr ,duehring say about it8 ,he affirms that in rational mechanics there is no bridge between the strictly static and the dynamic4 ,finally the reader is able to see that there is behind this pretty little phrase of ,herr ,duehring nothing more than this--that the metaphysical mode of thought can absolutely not pass from the idea of rest to that of motion because the aforesaid contradiction intervenes4 ,motion is absolutely inconceivable to the metaphysician1 because a contradiction4 ,and as he affirms the inconceivability of motion he admits the existence of this contradiction against his will and therefore admits that it constitutes an objective contradiction in actual facts and events1 and is moreover an actual fact4 ,but if simple mechanical motion contains a contradiction in itself still more so do the higher forms of motion of matter and to a high degree organic life and its development4 ,we saw above that life consists chiefly in this that a being is at one and the same time itself and something different4 ,life itself then is likewise a contradiction contained in things and events1 always establishing and dissolving itself1 and as soon as the contradiction ceases life also ceases1 death comes on the scene4 ,thus we saw also that we cannot put an end to the ,contradictions in the realm of thought1 and how for example the contradiction between the intrinsically unlimited possibilities of human knowledge and its actual existence in the persons of human beings with limited faculties and powers of knowledge1 is dissolved in the1 for us at least1 practically endless progression of the race1 in unending progress4 ,we stated just now that higher mathematics holds as one of its basic principles that straight and crooked may be identical under certain circumstances4 ,it shows another contradiction1 that lines which apparently intersect yet are parallel from five to six centimeters from the point of intersection1 should be such as should never intersect although indefinitely produced1 and yet1 notwithstanding these and even greater contradictions1 it produces not only correct results but results which are unattainable by lower mathematics4 ,but even in the latter there is a host of contradictions4 ,it is a contradiction1 for example1 that a root of ,a should be and actually is a power of ,a4 ,a to the power of one-half equals the square root of ,a4 ,it is contradiction that a negative magnitude should be the square of anything1 since every negative magnitude multiplied by itself gives a positive square4 ,the square root of minus one is therefore not only a contradiction but an absurd contradiction1 a veritable absurdity4 ,and yet the square root of minus one is in many instances the necessary result of correct mathematical operations1 nay further1 where would mathematics higher or lower be if one were forbidden to operate with the square root of minus one4 ,mathematics itself enters the realm of the dialectic and significantly enough it was a dialectic philosopher1 ,descartes1 who introduced this progressiveness into mathematics4 ,as is the relation of the mathematics of variable magnitudes to that of invariable quantities1 so is the relation of the dialectic method of thought to the metaphysical4 ,this does not prevent the great majority of mathematicians from only recognising the dialectic in the realms of mathematics1 a condition of things satisfactory to those who operate in the antiquated1 limited1 metaphysical fashion by methods attained by means of the dialectic4 99 99 99 99 99 7,duehring having made an attack upon ,marx's ,capital because of its reliance upon the dialectic1 and having indulged in the epithets to which he is too prone with respect to this work1 ,engels takes up its defence in that respect as follows73 ,it is not our business to concern ourselves at this point with the correctness or incorrectness of the investigations of ,marx as regards economics1 but only with the application which he makes of the dialectic method4 ,so much is certain1 that it is only now that the readers of ,capital will by the aid of ,herr ,duehring understand what they have read properly1 and among them ,herr ,duehring himself1 who in the year #ahfg was still in a position1 as far as possible to a man of his calibre1 to review the book rationally4 ,he did not then1 it may be noted1 first translate the arguments of ,marx into ,duehringese1 as now seems indispensable to him4 ,even if he at that time made the blunder of identifying the ,marxian dialectic with that of ,hegel he had not altogether lost the ability to distinguish methods from the results attained by them and to comprehend that an abuse of the former is no contradiction of the latter4 ,herr ,duehring's most astonishing observation is that from the ,marxian standpoint1 in the last analysis everything is identical1 that therefore in the eyes of ,marx1 for example1 capitalists and wage workers1 feudal1 capitalistic and social methods of production are all one4 ,in order to show the possibility of such sheer stupidity it only remains to point out that the mere word dialectic makes ,herr ,duehring mentally irresponsible and makes what he says and does so inaccurate and confused as to be in the last analysis all one4 99 99 99 99 99 7,herr ,duehring remarks1 ,how comical for example is the declaration based upon ,hegel's confused notions that quantity becomes lost in quality and that money advanced i4e4 for productive purposes4 ,ed4 becomes capital when it reaches a certain limit merely through quantitative increase4 ,to which ,engels replies thus73 ,this seems peculiar when presented in this washed out fashion by ,herr ,duehring4 ,on page #cac 7#bnd ed4 ,capital7 ,marx1 after an investigation of fixed and variable capital and surplus value1 derives from his investigations the conclusion that not every amount of gold or value capable of being transformed into capital is so transformed2 rather a certain minimum of gold or of exchange value is presupposed to be in the possession of the individual owner of gold or goods4 ,he thereupon gives an example1 thus1 in a branch of industry the worker works eight hours per day for himself1 i4e4 in order to produce the value of his wages1 and the following four hours for the capitalist in producing surplus value to go into their pockets4 ,one must have sufficient values to permit of the setting up of two workmen with raw material1 means of labor and wages1 in order to live as well as a workman4 ,but since capitalistic production is not undertaken for mere livelihood but for increase of wealth1 our individual with his two workmen would still be no capitalist4 ,if he lives twice as well as an ordinary workman and transforms half of the surplus value produced into capital he will have to employ eight workmen and possess four times the aforementioned amount of value1 and only after this and other examples for the purpose of illustrating and establishing the fact that not every small amount of value can effect a transformation of itself into capital1 but that each period of industrial development and each branch of industry has its own minimum1 fixed1 ,marx remarks ,here1 as in nature1 the correctness of the law of logic1 as discovered by ,hegel1 is established--that mere quantitative changes at a certain point suddenly take on qualitative differences4 ,one may remark the elevated and dignified fashion in which ,duehring makes ,marx say the exact opposite of what he did say4 ,marx says ,the fact that a given amount of value can only transform itself into capital as soon as it has attained a definite minimum1 varying with circumstances1 in each individual case1--this fact is proof of the correctness of the law of ,hegel4 ,herr ,duehring makes him say ,because1 according to the law of ,hegel1 quantity is transformed into quality therefore 'a sum of money when it has reached a certain amount becomes capital4' ,he says just the opposite4 ,we have seen above in the ,scheme of the ,universe that ,herr ,duehring had the misfortune to acknowledge and apply1 in a weak moment1 this ,hegelian system of calculation1 according to which at a given point quantitative changes suddenly become qualitative4 ,we then gave one of the best known examples1 that of the transformation of the form of water which at #j deg4 ,c4 changes from a liquid to solid and at #ajj deg4 ,c4 from liquid to gaseous1 where thus at both these points of departure a mere quantitative change in temperature produces a qualitative change in the water4 ,we might have cited from nature and human society a hundred more such facts in proof of this law1 thus the whole fourth section of ,marx's ,capital entitled ,production of ,relative ,surplus ,value in the realm of co-operative industry1 the ,division of ,labor1 and ,manufacture1 ,machinery and the ,great ,industry1 goes to show innumerable instances in which qualitative change alters the quantity of the thing1 and where also1 to use ,herr ,duehring's exceedingly odious expression1 quantity is converted and transformed into quality4 ,so also the mere cooperation of large numbers1 the melting of several diverse crafts into one united craft1 to use ,marx's expression1 produces a new industrial power which is substantially different from the sum of the individual crafts4 ,marx1 in the interest of the entire truth1 has remarked1 in complete contrast to the perverted style of ,herr ,duehring ,the molecular theory employed in modern chemistry1 first scientifically developed by ,laurent and ,gerhardt1 rests upon no other law4 ,but what does ,herr ,duehring care for that8 ,he knows that the eminently modern constructive elements of scientific thought make just the same mistake as was made by ,marx and his rival ,lassalle2 half-knowledge and a touch of pseudo-philosophy furnish the tools necessary for a display of learning4 ,while with ,herr ,duehring elevated notions of exact knowledge in mechanics1 physics and chemistry are1 as we have seen1 the foundations4 ,but that the public may be in a position to decide we shall examine somewhat more closely the example cited by ,marx in his note4 ,here we have1 for example1 the homologous series of compounds of carbon of which many are known and each has its own algebraic formula4 ,if we1 for example1 according to the practice of chemistry1 represent an atom of carbon by ,c1 an atom of hydrogen by ,h1 an atom of oxygen by ,o and the number of atoms contained in each combination of carbon by n1 we can express the molecular formula of each one of this series thus1 ,cn,h#bn#b--,series of normal paraffin4 ,cn,h#bn#b,o--,series of primary alcohol4 ,cn,h#bn,o#b--,series of the monobasic oleic acids4 ,let us take1 for example1 the last of this series and set one after the other n #a1 n #b1 etc41 we get the following results omitting the compounds4 ,,ch#b,o#b--;,formic ,acid--boiling point #ajj deg4--melting point #a deg4 ,c#b;,h#d,o#b--;,acetic ,acid--boiling point #aah deg4--melting point #ag deg4 ,c#c;,h#f,o#b--,propionic ,acid--boiling point #adj deg4--melting point--4 ,c#d;,h#h,o#b--;,butyric ,acid--boiling point #afb deg4--melting point--4 ,c#e;,h#aj,o#b--,valerianic ,acid--boiling point #age deg4--melting point--4 ,and so on to ,c#cj;,h#fj,o#b1 ,melissic ,acid1 which melts first at #ahj deg41 and which has no boiling point1 because it does not evaporate without splitting up4 ,here we see therefore a whole series of qualitatively different bodies1 produced by single quantitative additions of the elements and always in the same proportions4 ,this occurs absolutely where all elements of the combinations change their quantity in the same proportions1 so with normal paraffin1 ,cn,h#bn #b3 the lowest is ,,ch#d a gas1 the highest known is ,c#af;,h#cd1 a body forming a hard colorless crystal which melts at #ba deg4 and boils at #bgh deg4 ,in both the series each new step is reached through the introduction of ,,ch#b1 an atom of carbon and two atoms of hydrogen1 to the molecular form of the preceding step1 and this quantitative change in the molecular form brings about a qualitatively different body4 ,these series are merely obvious examples4 ,almost universally in chemistry1 particularly in the different oxides of nitrogen1 in the oxi-acids of phosphorus or sulphur1 one can see how quantity suddenly changes into quality and how this so called confused ,hegelianism is1 so to speak1 inherent in things and events1 and no one is ever confused or beclouded by it1 except ,herr ,duehring4 ,if ,marx is the first to observe this1 and if ,herr ,duehring points this out1 without understanding it 7since he could not let so unheard of a crime pass71 he should explain which of the two1 ,marx or ,duehring1 is without elementary conceptions of natural science and the established principles of chemistry1 and do it without boasting about his own ideas on natural philosophy4 ,in conclusion1 let us call attention to a witness on the change of quantity into quality1 namely ,napoleon4 ,he describes the conflicts between the ,french cavalry1 bad riders but disciplined1 with the ,mamelukes who1 as regards single combat were better horsemen but undisciplined1 as follows--,two ,mamelukes were a match for three ,frenchmen1 one hundred ,mamelukes were equal to one hundred ,frenchmen1 three hundred ,frenchmen could beat three hundred ,mamelukes and a thousand ,frenchmen invariably defeated fifteen hundred ,mamelukes4 ,just as in the statement of ,marx1 that a certain amount of money1 variable in amount1 is necessary as a minimum1 to make its transformation into capital possible1 so1 according to ,napoleon1 a certain minimum number of cavalrymen is required to bring into being the force of discipline inherent in military organisation1 to make them evidently superior to greater numbers of individually better riders and fighters1 cavalry at least as brave1 though irregular4 ,but what effect has this argument on ,herr ,duehring8 ,was not ,napoleon utterly defeated in his conflict with ,europe8 ,did he not suffer defeat after defeat8 ,and why8 ,simply as a result of his introduction of confused ,hegelian ideas into cavalry tactics4 ,negation of the ,negation4 ,the historical sketch 7of the so called original accumulation of capital in ,england7 is comparatively the best part of ,marx's book and it would be even better if it had been developed scientifically and not by means of the ,dialectic4 ,the ,hegelian negation of the negation is called upon to serve here as a midwife1 in default of anything better and clearer1 and by means of it the future is brought into existence from the present4 ,the abolition of private property which is shown to have been going on since the sixteenth century is the first negation4 ,another negation must follow which is characterised as the negation of the negation and therefore the restoration of individual private property1 but in a higher form1 founded on the common ownership of land and instruments of labor4 ,if this new 'individual private property' is called also 'social property' by ,herr ,marx1 the higher ,hegelian unity is here manifested in which the contradiction will be destroyed1 that is1 in accordance with this juggling of words1 be destroyed and preserved4444 ,the dispossession of the dispossessor is1 as it were1 in this case the automatic product of historical reality in its material external form4444 ,it would be difficult for a cautious man to convince himself of the necessity of communism in land and property on the credit of ,hegel's shiftiness1 of which the negation of the negation is an example4444 ,the confusion of the ,marxian philosophic notions will not be strange to him who knows what can be done by means of the ,hegelian dialectic or rather what cannot be done4 ,for those who do not know the trick1 it must be noted that the first negation of ,hegel is the teaching of the catechism with respect to the ,fall1 and the second is a higher unity leading to the ,redemption4 ,on these analogies1 which pertain to religion no logic of facts can be established4444 ,herr ,marx consoles himself in the midst of his simultaneously individual and social property and leaves his disciples to solve his profound dialectic puzzle4 7,thus far ,herr ,duehring is quoted47 ,so ,marx cannot prove the necessity of the social revolution1 the restoration of a common property in land and the means of production1 except by a reliance upon ,hegel's negation of the negation4 ,and1 since he founds his socialistic theories upon analogies pertaining to religion1 he comes to the conclusion that in future society a simultaneously individual and social property will prevail1 as the ,hegelian higher unity of the contradiction destroyed4 ,let us leave the negation of the negation for a little and look at the coexistent individual and social property4 ,this will be called by ,herr ,duehring a cloud realm1 and1 strange to say he is really right in this regard4 ,but sad to say it is not ,marx who is found to be in the cloud realm but on the contrary ,herr ,duehring himself4 ,since by virtue of his wonderful versatility in the vagaries of ,hegel he does not experience any difficulty in telling us the necessary contents of the as yet unpublished volume of ,capital1 so1 after setting ,hegel right1 he is able to correct ,marx without any trouble in that he ascribes to him a higher unity of a private property of which ,marx has not said a word4 ,marx says ,it is the negation of the negation4 ,this reestablishes private property but on the basis of the acquisitions of the capitalistic era1 of the cooperation of free laborers and their common ownership of the land and the means of production4 ,the transformation of the private property of individuals1 depending upon the labor of individuals1 into capitalistic property is naturally a process much more tedious1 hard and difficult than the transformation of capitalistic private property1 as it now exists1 resting upon social production1 into social property4 ,that is all4 ,the condition attained by the dispossession of the dispossessor is here shown as the restoration of individual private property resting however on a basis of social property in the land and means of production4 ,for people who can understand ,english1 the meaning of this is that social property extends to the land and means of production1 and private property to the products1 therefore to consumption4 ,and that the matter should be evident even to infants ,marx shows on page #ef4 ,a society of free men who labor with social means of production1 and consciously expend their individual labor power as social labor power1 therefore a socialistically organised society1 and he says further ,the total product of the society is a social product4 ,a portion of this product serves again as a means of production4 ,it remains social4 ,but another portion is consumed by the members of the society4 ,it must therefore be distributed among them4 ,and that ought to be clear1 even to ,herr ,duehring1 in spite of his having ,hegel on the brain4 ,the coexistent individual and social property1 this confused and indefinite thing1 this nonsense proceeding from the ,hegelian dialectic1 this misty world1 this deep dialectic puzzle which ,marx leaves his pupils to solve is merely a creation of ,herr ,duehring's imagination4 ,marx1 as a so-called ,hegelian1 is obliged1 as a result of the negation of the negation1 to furnish a correct higher unity1 and since he does not do this in accordance with the taste of ,herr ,duehring1 the latter has to take a lofty stand and to smite ,marx in the interests of the full truth of things upon which ,herr ,duehring holds a patent4 ,what attitude did ,marx take to the negation of the negation8 ,on page #gfa and following he states the conclusion with respect to his economic and historical investigations into the so-called accumulation of original capital1 extending over the fifty preceding pages4 ,before the capitalistic era in ,england1 at least1 small production existed1 based upon the private property of the worker in his tools4 ,the so-called accumulation of capital consists in the expropriation of these immediate producers1 that is in the abolition of private property resting on the labor of individuals4 ,this was possible because the aforesaid small production is only compatible with a narrow and primitive stage of production and of society and at a certain grade of development furnishes the means of its own suicide4 ,this suicide1 the transformation of individual and divided modes of production into social production1 constitutes the early history of capitalism4 ,as soon as the workers are transformed into proletarians and their means of labor into capital1 as soon as the capitalistic methods of production are firmly established1 the growing association of labor and the further transformation of the land and other means of production and hence the further expropriation of the owners of private property takes on a new form1 there is no longer the self-employing worker to expropriate1 but the capitalist who expropriates many workers4 ,this expropriation fulfils itself through the play of laws immanent in capitalistic production itself1 through the concentration of capital4 ,one capitalist kills many4 ,hand in hand with this concentration1 or the expropriation of many capitalists by a few1 there develop continually the conscious technical application of science1 the deliberate organised exploitation of the soil1 the transformation of the instruments of labor into instruments of labor which can only be employed collectively1 and the economising of all means of production through their employment as the common means of production of combined social labor4 ,with the constantly diminishing numbers of capitalist magnates who usurp and monopolise all the advantages of this process of transformation1 grows the mass of misery1 pressure1 slavery1 degradation and robbery but there grows also revolt and the constant progress in union and organisation of the working class brought about through the mechanism of the capitalistic process of production4 ,capitalism becomes an impediment to the methods of production developed with and under it4 ,the concentration of the means of production and the organisation of labor reach a point where it comes into collision with its capitalistic covering4 ,it is broken4 ,the hour of capitalistic private property strikes4 ,the expropriators are expropriated4 ,and now ,i ask the reader1 where are the dialectic twists and twirls1 the intellectual arabesques1 where the confused thought the result of which is the identity of everything1 where the dialectic mystery for the faithful1 where the dialectic hocus pocus1 and the ,hegelian intricacies1 without which1 ,marx1 according to ,herr ,duehring1 cannot develop his own ideas8 ,marx simply pointed to history and showed briefly that just as the small industry necessarily produced the conditions of its own downfall1 by its own development1 that is to say by the expropriation of the small holders of private property so now the capitalistic method of production has itself developed likewise the material circumstances which must cause its downfall4 ,the process is a historical one and1 if it is at the same time dialectic1 it is not to the discredit of ,marx1 that it happens to be so fatal to ,herr ,duehring4 ,in the first place1 since ,marx is ready with his historical economic proof1 he proceeds ,the capitalistic method of production and method of appropriation1 that is to say capitalistic private property is the first negation of individual private property founded on labor of individuals1 the negation of capitalistic production will be self-produced with the necessity of a natural process1 etc4 7as quoted above74 ,although ,marx therefore shows the occurrence of this event as negation of the negation1 he has no intention of proving by this means that it is a historical necessity4 ,on the contrary ,after he has shown that the actual fact has partially declared itself1 and has1 as yet partially to declare itself1 he shows it also as a fact which fulfils itself in accordance with a certain dialectic law4 ,that is all4 ,it is therefore again merely supposition on ,herr ,duehring's part to assert that the negation of the negation must act as a midwife by whose means the future is brought out of the womb of the present1 or that ,marx wants to convince anyone of the necessity of social ownership of land and capital upon the credit of the negation of the negation4 ,it shows a complete lack of comprehension of the nature of the dialectic to regard it as ,herr ,duehring does1 as an instrument of mere proof1 just as one can after a limited fashion employ formal logic or elementary mathematics4 ,formal logic is itself more than anything else a method for the discovery of new results1 for advancing from the known to the unknown1 and so1 but in a much more distinguished sense1 is the dialectic1 which1 since it transcends the narrow limits of formal logic1 attains a more comprehensive philosophical position4 ,it is the same with mathematics4 ,elementary mathematics1 the mathematics of constant quantities1 proceeds within the limits of formal logic1 at least as a rule3 the mathematics of variable quantities which is peculiarly concerned with calculations running to the infinite1 is substantially nothing but the application of the dialectic in mathematics4 ,mere proof becomes secondary before the manifold application of the method to new fields of investigation4 ,but nearly all the proofs of higher mathematics from the first of the differential calculus1 are1 strictly speaking1 false from the standpoint of elementary mathematics4 ,this cannot be otherwise1 if one1 as is here the case1 wishes to establish results won in the realm of dialectics by means of formal logic4 ,for a crass metaphysician like ,herr ,duehring to want to prove anything by means of the dialectic would be the same wasted labor as ,leibnitz and his pupils went through when they tried to establish the thesis of calculation to infinity by means of the mathematics of their time4 ,the differential gave them the same spasms as the negation of the negation gives ,herr ,duehring and it played a role in it as we shall see4 ,they admitted it at last1 at least as many as did not die first1 not because they were convinced but because it always worked out right4 ,herr ,duehring1 is1 as he says1 just in his forties1 and if he attains old age1 as we hope he will1 he may also experience the same4 ,but what is this dreadful negation of the negation which makes life so bitter to ,herr ,duehring and which is to him what the unpardonable sin1 the sin against the ,holy ,ghost1 is to ,christianity8 ,it is a very simple process1 and one1 moreover1 which fulfils itself every day1 which any child can understand when it is deprived of mystery1 under which the old idealistic philosophy found a refuge1 and beneath which it will pay unprotected metaphysicians to take refuge from the stroke of ,herr ,duehring4 ,let us take a grain of barley4 ,millions of such grains of barley will be ground1 cooked and brewed and then consumed4 ,but let such a grain of barley fall on suitable soil under normal conditions2 a complete individual change at once takes place in it under the influence of heat and moisture1 it germinates4 ,the grain1 as such disappears1 is negated1 in its place arises the plant1 the negation of the grain4 ,but what is the normal course of life of this plant8 ,it grows1 blossoms1 bears fruit and finally produces other grains of barley and as soon as these are ripe the stalk dies1 and becomes negated in its turn4 ,as the result of this negation of the negation1 we have the original grains of barley again1 not singly1 however1 but ten1 twenty or thirty fold4 ,forms of grain change very slowly and so the grain of barley remains practically the same as a hundred years ago4 ,but let us take a cultivated ornamental plant1 like the dahlia or orchid4 ,let us consider the seed and the plants developed from it by the skill of the gardener1 and we have in testimony of this negation of the negation1 no longer the same seeds but qualitatively improved seed which produces more beautiful flowers1 and every repetition of this process1 every new negation of the negation1 increases the tendency to perfection4 ,similarly this process is gone through by most insects1 butterflies1 for example4 ,they come out of the egg by a negation of the egg1 they go through certain transformations till they reach sex maturity1 they copulate and are again negated1 since they die as soon as the process of copulation is completed1 and the female has laid her innumerable eggs4 ,that the matter is not so plainly obvious in the case of other plants and animals1 seeing that they produce seeds1 plants1 and animals not once but oftener1 does not affect us in this case1 we are now only concerned in showing that the negation of the negation actually does occur in both kingdoms of the organic world4 ,besides1 all geology is a series of negated negations1 one layer after another following the destruction of old and the establishment of new rock foundations4 ,first1 the original crust of the earth1 through the cooling of the fluid mass1 and through oceanic1 meteorological1 and chemical atmospheric action1 being broken up into small parts1 these broken masses form layers in the seas4 ,local elevations of the seas1 through the ebb and flow of the waters1 bring portions of these layers afresh under the influence of rain1 the warmth of the seasons1 and the oxygen and carbon in the atmosphere3 melted and almost cooled masses of rock from the interior of the earth underlie these and break through the layers4 ,through millions of centuries new layers are continually being formed1 always to a large extent destroyed and serving again as building materials for new layers4 ,but the result of the process is always positive1 the restoration of a piece of ground made up of exceedingly diverse chemical elements to a condition of mechanical pulverisation1 which is the cause of a most abundant and diverse vegetation4 ,it is the same also in mathematics4 ,let us take an ordinary algebraic quantity a4 ,let us negate it1 then we have-a 7minus a74 ,let us negate this negation1 that is let us multiply --a by --a and we have a#b1 that is the original positive quantity but in a higher form that is to the second power4 ,it does not matter that we can attain the same a#b by the multiplication of a positive by itself4 ,the negated negation is established so completely in a#b that under all circumstances it has two square roots a and --a4 ,and this impossibility1 the negated negation1 the getting rid of the negative root in the square has much significance in quadratic equations4 ,the negation of the negation is more evident in the higher analyses1 in those unlimited summations of small quantities1 which ,herr ,duehring himself explains as being the highest operations of mathematics and which are usually called the differential and integral calculus4 ,how do these forms of calculation fulfil themselves8 ,i have for example in a given problem two variable quantities x and y1 of which one cannot vary without causing the other to vary also under fixed conditions4 ,i differentiate x and y1 that is ,i consider x and y as being so infinitesimally small that they do not represent any real quantities1 even the smallest1 so that1 of x and y nothing remains1 except their reciprocal relations1 a quantitative relation without any quantity2 therefore dx_/dy1 the relation of the two differentials of x and y1 is #j_/j but #j_/j is fixed as the expression of y_/x4 ,that this relation between two vanished quantities1 the fixed moment of their vanishing1 is a contradiction ,i merely mention in passing1 it should give us as little uneasiness as it has given mathematics for the two hundred or so years past4 ,what have ,i done except to negate x and y2 not as in metaphysics so as not to trouble myself any further about them1 but in a manner demanded by the problem8 ,instead of x and y1 ,i have therefore their negation dx and dy in the formulae or equations before me4 ,i now calculate further with these formulae4 ,i treat dx and dy as real quantities1 as quantities subject to certain exceptional laws1 and at a certain point ,i negate the negation1 that is1 ,i integrate the differential formula4 ,i get instead of dx and dy the real quantities x and y again1 and am thereby no further forward than at the beginning1 but ,i have thereby solved the problem over which ordinary geometry and algebra would probably have gnashed their teeth in vain4 ,it is not otherwise in history4 ,all civilised peoples began with common property in land4 ,among all peoples which pass beyond a certain primitive stage the common property in land becomes a fetter upon production in the process of agricultural development4 ,it is cast aside1 negated1 and1 after shorter or longer intervening periods1 is transformed into private property4 ,but at a higher stage1 through the development still further of agriculture1 private property becomes in its turn a bar to production1 as is to-day the case with both large and small land proprietorship4 ,the next step1 to negate it in turn1 to transform it into social property1 necessarily follows4 ,this advance however does not signify the restoration of the old primitive common property1 but the establishment of a far higher better developed form of communal proprietorship1 which1 far from being an impediment to production1 rather1 for the first time is bound to put an end to its limitations and to give it the full benefit of modern discoveries in chemistry and mechanical inventions4 ,but again2 ancient philosophy was primitive naturalistic materialism4 ,in the state of thought at that period it was1 as such1 incapable of clear conceptions of matter4 ,but the necessity of clearness on this point led to the doctrine of a soul which could leave the body1 then to the idea of the immortality of the soul1 finally1 to monotheism4 ,the old materialism was therefore negated by idealism4 ,but in the further development of philosophy idealism became untenable1 and is negated by modern materialism4 ,this1 the negation of negation1 is not the mere reestablishment of the old1 but unites1 with the surviving foundations1 the whole thought content of a two thousand years' development of philosophy and science1 as well as the history of these two thousand years4 ,it is in a special sense no philosophy but a single concept of the universe which has to prove and realise itself not in a science of sciences apart1 but in actual science4 ,philosophy is here also cast aside1 that is destroyed and preserved1 destroyed as to its form1 preserved as to its real content4 ,where ,herr ,duehring only sees word-jugglery a more real content is brought to light by the newer point of view4 ,finally1 even the ,rousseau doctrine of equality1 of which that of ,herr ,duehring is only a feeble and false plagiarism1 has no existence unless the ,hegelian negation of the negation serve it as a midwife1 although it originated twenty years prior to the birth of ,hegel4 ,far from being ashamed of this it bears in plain sight the stamp of its dialectic derivation in its earliest manifestation4 ,in a state of nature and savagery men were equal1 and1 since ,rousseau regards speech as a falsifying of natural conditions1 he is quite right in predicating equality of animals of one species as far as this reaches1 and the same also with regard to those speechless animal-men1 recently hypothetically classified by ,haeckel as ,alali4 ,but these equal animal men had one quality beyond the other animals1--perfectibility1 the power of further development and this was the reason of inequality4 ,rousseau sees therefore in the existence of equality a step forward4 ,but this advance was self contradictory1 it was at the same time a retrogression4 ,all further advances 7beyond the primitive stage7 were so many steps1 seemingly in the development of individual men1 but actually in the decay of the species4 ,working in metals and agriculture were the two arts whose discovery brought about this great revolution 7the transformation of the primitive forests into cultivated lands1 but also the introduction of poverty and slavery together with private property74 ,the poets hold that gold and silver1 the philosophers that iron and corn have civilised men and ruined the human race4 ,each new advance of civilisation is at the same time an advance of inequality4 ,all contrivances with which society endows itself by means of civilisation are in direct opposition to their original purpose4 ,it is beyond question and a foundation principle of the entire public law that people made rulers to defend their liberties1 not to destroy them4 ,and yet these rulers become of necessity the oppressors of the people and they carry the oppression to the point where inequality is brought to a climax and1 then1 transformed into its opposite1 again becomes the reason of equality1 for to despots all are equal1 that is equally of no account4 ,here is the extreme of inequality1 the crowning point which closes the circle1 and touches the point from which we have proceeded2 here all private individuals are equal1 since they are of no account1 and subjects have no law other than the will of their master4 ,but the despot is master only as long as he has the power1 and for this reason he cannot complain of the use of force if he is banished4444 ,force upholds him1 force throws him down1 everything goes according to a straight and naturally appointed path4 ,and thus again inequality is transformed into equality1 but not into the old materialistic equality of speechless1 primitive men1 but into the higher equality of organised society4 ,the oppressor is oppressed1 it is negation of the negation4 ,we have then1 as regards ,rousseau1 not merely a method of thought which is quite analogous to that pursued in ,marx's ,capital1 but also a whole series of single dialectic turns of which ,marx avails himself3 ,processes1 which are antagonistic in their nature1 containing a contradiction in themselves1 are transformed from one extreme to its opposite1 finally1 as the quintessence of the whole1 negation of the negation4 ,although ,rousseau in #aged could not speak the jargon of ,hegel1 he was then1 at a period twenty-three years before the birth of ,hegel1 deeply infected with the ,hegel contagion1 the dialectic of contradiction1 doctrine of logic1 theology1 etc4 ,and if ,duehring in his misapplication of ,rousseau's theory of equality1 operates with his two victorious men1 he having lost his feet1 falls1 of necessity into the arms of the negation of the negation4 ,the conditions under which the equality of the two men flourishes and which is set forth as an ideal condition is shown on page #bga of the ,philosophy as the original condition4 ,this original condition on page #bgi is of necessity destroyed by the robber system--first negation4 ,but we have now1 thanks to the philosophy of reality1 arrived at the point of abolishing the robber system and substituting for it the economic commune discovered by ,herr ,duehring--negation of the negation1 equality on a higher plane4 ,what is the negation of the negation1 therefore8 ,it is a very far reaching1 and1 just1 for this reason1 a very important law of development of nature1 human history and thought1 a law which we see realised in the animal and vegetable kingdoms1 in geology1 in mathematics1 in history1 and philosophy1 and which ,herr ,duehring himself1 in spite of his opposition and resistance1 must follow1 after his own fashion4 ,it is evident that ,i say nothing of the special development of the grain of barley from the germ to the crop bearing plant1 if ,i say it is negation of the negation4 ,since the integral calculus is likewise negation of the negation1 with the other assertion ,i should only affirm that the life process of a grain of barley is integral calculus or even socialism4 ,but that is just the kind of thing which the metaphysicians push off on the dialectic4 ,if ,i say that all these processes constitute negation of the negation1 ,i embrace them all under this one law of progress1 and leave the distinctive features of each special process without particular notice4 ,the dialectic is1 as a matter of fact1 nothing but the science of the universal laws of motion1 and evolution in nature1 human society and thought4 ,at this point1 however1 the objection may be urged that the final negation is no true negation1 ,i negate a grain of barley also when ,i grind it1 an insect when ,i crush it1 a positive quantity when ,i eliminate it1 etc4 ,or ,i negate the statement the rose is a rose if ,i say the rose is no rose and what happens if ,i negate this negation again and say but the rose is a rose8 ,these objection are1 in fact1 the chief arguments of the metaphysicians against the dialectic and are quite worthy of this idiotic method of reasoning4 ,to negate in the dialectic is not simply to say ,no1 or to describe a thing as non-existent1 or to destroy it after any fashion that you may choose4 ,spinoza says omnis determinatio est negatio1 every limitation or determination is at the same time a negation4 ,furthermore1 the sort of negation here is shown first by means of the universal and in the second place by means of the distinctive nature of the process4 ,i must not only negate but ,i must also restore the negation again4 ,i must therefore so direct the first negation that the second remains possible or shall be so4 ,how8 ,just according to the peculiar nature of each particular case4 ,i grind a grain of barley1 ,i crush an insect1 ,i have certainly fulfilled the first act but have made the second impossible4 ,every species of things has therefore its own peculiar properties to be negated in order that a progression may proceed1 and every species of properties and ideas is precisely the same in this regard4 ,in infinitesimal calculations the negation is brought about after a different fashion than in the restoration of positive powers from negative roots4 ,that has to be learnt like everything else4 ,with the mere knowledge that the stalk of barley and infinitesimal calculation fall under the principle of the negation of the negation1 ,i cannot cultivate more barley nor can ,i differentiate and integrate1 just as ,i cannot play the violin by virtue of a mere knowledge of the laws of harmony4 ,but it is evident that a merely childish negation of the negation such as writing down a and erasing it1 or by affirming that a rose is a rose and that it is not a rose leads to no conclusion other than to show the silliness of the people who undertake processes so tedious4 ,and yet metaphysicians would inform us that that is the right way to carry out the negation of the negation4 ,herr ,duehring is therefore a mystifier when he asserts that the negation of the negation was an analogy made by ,hegel derived from religion and built up on the story of the ,fall and the ,redemption4 ,men thought dialectically a long time before they knew what the dialectic really was1 just as they spoke prose a long time before the term prose was used4 ,the law of the negation of the negation which operates in history and which until it is once learned goes on in our brains unconsciously to ourselves1 was first clearly formulated by ,hegel1 and if ,herr ,duehring desires to employ it in secret but cannot stand the name1 he should discover a better name4 ,but if he insist on expelling it from the processes of thought1 he must first be good enough to expel it from nature and from history1 and find a system of mathematics in which --a multiplied by --a does not give us a#b and where the differential and integral calculus are both forbidden by law4 ,conclusion4 ,in this short section ,engels leaves the general discussion in order to again pay his respects to the shortcomings and deficiencies of ,herr ,duehring4 ,the matter possesses no general interest for ,engels merely teases his opponent upon the magnificence of his claims and the slightness of his performances4 ,,part ,,ii ,,chapter ,,viii ,,political ,,economy ,i4 ,objects and ,methods4 ,political economy is1 in the widest sense1 the science of the laws controlling the production and exchange of the material necessities of life in human society4 ,production and exchange are two entirely different functions4 ,production may exist without exchange1 exchange--since there can only be exchange of products--cannot exist without production4 ,each of the two social functions is controlled by entirely different external influences and thus has1 generally speaking1 its own peculiar laws4 ,but on the other hand they become so mutually involved at a given time and react one upon the other that they might be designated the abscisses and ordinates of the economic curve4 ,the conditions under which men produce and exchange develop from land to land1 and in the same land from generation to generation4 ,political economy cannot be the same for all lands and for all historical epochs4 ,from the bow and arrow1 from the stone knife and the exceptional and occasional trading intercourse of the barbarian to the steam engine with its thousands of horse-power1 to the mechanical weaving machine1 to the railway and the ,bank of ,england is a tremendous leap4 ,the ,patagonians do not have production on a large scale and world-commerce any more than they have swindling or bankruptcy4 ,anyone who should attempt to apply the same laws of political economy to ,patagonia as to present-day ,england would only succeed in producing stupid commonplaces4 ,political economy is thus really a historical science4 ,it is engaged with historical material1 that is1 material which is always in course of development4 ,at the close of this investigation it can1 for the first time1 show the few 7especially as regards production and exchange7 general laws which apply universally4 ,in this way it is made evident that the laws which are common to certain methods of production or forms of exchange are common to all historical periods in which these methods of production and forms of exchange are the same4 ,thus for example with the introduction of specie1 there came into being a series of laws which holds good for all lands and historical epochs in which specie is a means of exchange4 ,the method of distributing the product is in accordance with the method of production and exchange of a given society at a given time4 ,in the tribal or village community with communal ownership of land1 of which there are obvious survivals in the history of all civilized peoples1 there is practically an equal distribution2 where a greater inequality of distribution of the product has been introduced among the members of a society1 it is a sign of the coming dissolution of the community--large and small farming have very different modes of distribution according to the historical circumstances from which they have developed4 ,but it is apparent that large farming requires a different mode of distribution than small farming2 that the large farming shows the existence of class antagonism--slave-holders and slaves1 landlords and tenants1 capitalists and wage workers1--but that1 on the contrary1 in small farming1 class distinction does not arise from the farming operations of separate individuals but from the mere beginnings of farming on a large scale4 ,the introduction and development of the use of gold into a country where formerly exchange of actual goods was the exclusive or general practice1 is closely associated with a slow or rapid revolution of the mode of distribution hitherto prevailing1 and to such an extent that inequality of distribution among individuals and1 so1 antagonism between rich and poor becomes more and more apparent4 ,local gild hand-production as it prevailed in the ,middle ,ages made great capitalists and life-long wage-workers just as impossible as the great modern industry1 the credit system of to-day1 and form of exchange1 corresponding with the development of these1 free competition1 render them inevitable4 ,with the difference in distribution however class differences are introduced4 ,society becomes divided into upper and lower classes1 into plunderers and plundered1 into master and servant classes1 and the state which the original groups composed of societies claiming the same ancestry only regarded as a means of protection of the common interests 7remnants of which remain in the ,orient1 e4g47 and against foreign force1 takes upon itself the duty of maintaining the economic and political supremacy of the dominant class against the dominated class by means of force4 ,so distribution is not a mere passive witness of production and exchange2 it has an immediate influence on both4 ,every new method of production and form of exchange is impeded1 not only through the old forms and their particular forms of political development1 but also through the old method of distribution4 ,it can only bring about its own method of distribution as the result of long conflict4 ,but just in proportion as a given method of production and exchange is built up and develops1 distribution all the more rapidly reaches a point where it outstrips its predecessor and where it comes into collision with the system of production and exchange existing up to that time4 ,the old tribal communistic forms of which we have already spoken may last thousands of years1 as is seen in the case of the ,indians and ,slavs of to-day1 until intercourse with the outside world develops causes of disruption within them as a conclusion of which their dissolution comes about4 ,modern capitalistic production on the other hand which is hardly three hundred years old and which first became dominant with the introduction of the greater industry about one hundred years ago1 has1 in this short time1 developed antagonisms in distribution--concentration of capital on the one hand in the possession of a few persons and1 on the other1 concentration of propertyless masses in the great cities--which must of necessity bring it to an end4 ,the connection between the form of distribution and the material economic conditions of a society is so much in the nature of things that it is generally reflected in the popular instinct4 ,as long as a method of production is in the course of development1 even those whose interests are against it1 who are getting the worst of the particular method of production1 are highly satisfied4 ,it was just so with the ,english working class at the introduction of the greater industry4 ,as long as this method of production remained the normal social method1 satisfaction with the methods of distribution was1 on the whole1 prevalent2 and when a protest against it rose even in the bosom of the dominant class itself 7,saint-,simon1 ,fourier1 ,owen7 it found at first practically no sympathy among the masses of the exploited4 ,but directly the method of production has travelled a good portion of its upward progress1 when half of its life was over1 when its destiny was in a great measure accomplished and its successor was knocking at the door--then for the first time the ever increasingly unequal distribution appeared as unjust4 ,then was the first appeal made from actual facts to so-called eternal justice4 ,this appeal to morality and justice does not bring us a step further scientifically4 ,economic science can find no grounds of proof in moral indignation1 however justifiable1 but merely a symptom4 ,its task is to show the newly developing social wrongs as the necessary results of existing methods of production and1 at the same time1 as signs of its approaching dissolution1 and to point out1 amid the break up of the existing economic system1 the elements of the new organization of production and exchange which will abolish those social wrongs4 ,the feeling stirred up by the poets whether in the picturing of these social wrongs or by attack upon them or1 on the other hand1 by denial of them and the glorification of harmony in the interests of the dominant class1 is quite timely1 but its slight value as furnishing proof for a given period is shown by the fact that one finds an abundance of it in every epoch4 ,political economy1 as the science of the conditions and forms under which various human societies have produced and exchanged and according to which they have distributed the products of their labor1--political economy1 in this broad sense1 has yet to be planned for the first time4 ,all that we have so far of political economic science is almost entirely limited to the beginning and development of the capitalistic mode of production4 ,it begins with the genesis and growth of the capitalistic mode of production1 and exchange1 recognises the necessity of the disappearance of these by means of the capitalistic forms1 then develops the laws of the capitalistic methods of production and their corresponding forms of exchange on the positive side1 that is on the side on which they further the objects of society1 as a whole and closes with the socialist criticism of the capitalistic methods of production1 that is1 with the exhibition of its laws on the negative side1 with the proof that this method of production arrives at the point1 by its own development1 where it is no longer possible4 ,this criticism proves that the capitalistic methods of production and exchange constitute more and more an insufferable fetter upon production itself4 ,the mode of distribution which is necessarily associated with this form of production has brought about a class condition which grows daily more unbearable4 ,it has produced the daily sharpening antagonism between the continually less numerous but constantly richer capitalists and the more numerous1 but on the whole1 continually poorer propertyless wage-workers4 ,finally the tremendous productive forces of the capitalistic methods of production1 which are practically unlimited1 are only awaiting their seizure at the hands of an organized co-operative society to secure for all the members of that society the means of existence and the fuller development of their faculties in an ever increasing degree4 ,in order to fully accomplish this criticism of the bourgeois economy acquaintance with the capitalistic form of production of exchange and of distribution was not enough4 ,preceding forms and others1 existing side by side with the capitalistic mode in a few highly developed countries1 had to be examined and compared at least in their chief features4 ,such an investigation and comparision has been undertaken as a whole by ,marx alone and we consider that this investigation practically sums up all that has been established respecting theoretical economy prior to that of the bourgeois4 ,while political economy in a narrow sense arose in the minds of a few geniuses of the seventeenth century1 it is1 in its positive formulation by the physiocrats and ,adam ,smith1 substantially a child of the eighteenth century1 and expresses itself in the acquisitions of the great contemporary ,french philosophers with all the excellencies and defects of that time4 ,what we have said of the ,french philosophers applies also to the economists of that day4 ,the new science was with them not the expression of the condition and needs of the time but the expression of eternal reason2 the laws of production and exchange discovered by them were not the laws of a given historical form of those facts but were eternal natural laws2 they derived them from the nature of man4 ,but this man1 seen clearly1 was a burgher of the ,middle ,ages on the high road to becoming a modern bourgeois1 and his nature consisted in this that he had to manufacture commodities and carry on his trade according to the given historical conditions of that period4 7,herr ,duehring having applied the two man theory to political economic conditions and having decided that such conditions are unjust1 upon which conclusion he bases his revolutionary attitude1 ,engels remarks as follows73 ,if we have no better security for the revolution in the present methods of distribution of the products of labor with all their crying antagonisms of misery and luxury1 of poverty and ostentation1 than the consciousness that this method of distribution is unjust and that justice must finally prevail1 we should be in evil plight and would have to stay there a long time4 ,the mystics of the ,middle ,ages who dreamed of an approaching thousand years kingdom of righteousness had the consciousness of the injustice of class antagonisms4 ,at the beginning of modern history three hundred years ago1 ,thomas ,muenzer shouted it aloud to all the world4 ,in the ,english and ,french bourgeois revolutions the same cry was heard and died away ineffectually4 ,and if the same cry1 after the formation of class antagonisms and class distinctions left the working1 suffering classes cold until #ahcj1 if it now takes hold of one land after another with the same results and the same intensity1 in proportion as the greater industry has developed in the individual countries if1 in one generation1 it has acquired a force which defies all the powers opposed to it and can be sure of victory in the near future--how comes it about8 ,from this1 that the greater industry has created the modern proletariat1 a class1 which for the first time in history can set about the abolition not of this or that particular class organization or of this or that particular class privilege but of classes in general1 and it is in the position that it must carry out this line of action on the penalty of sinking to the ,chinese coolie level4 ,and that the same greater industry has on the other hand produced a class which is in possession of all the tools of production and the means of life but in every period of prosperity 7,schwindelperiode7 and in each succeeding panic shows that it is incapable of controlling in the future the growing productive forces2 a class under whose leadership society runs headlong to ruin like a locomotive whose closed safety valve the engine driver is too weak to open4 ,in other words it has come about that the productive forces of the modern capitalistic mode of production as well as the system of distribution based upon it are in glaring contradiction to the mode of production itself and to such a degree that a revolution in the modes of production and distribution must take place which will abolish all class differences or the whole of modern society will fall4 ,it is in these actual material facts1 which are necessarily becoming more and more evident to the exploited proletariat1 that the confidence in the victory of modern socialism finds its foundation and not in this or that bookworm's notions of justice and injustice4 ,,ii4 ,the ,force ,theory4 7,herr ,duehring argues that the causes of class subjection are to be sought in political conditions and that political force is the primary1 and economic conditions merely the secondary1 cause of class distinctions ,engels makes the following reply to these arguments73 99 99 99 99 99 ,this is ,herr ,duehring's theory4 ,it is set out1 decreed so to say1 here and in several other places4 ,but we cannot find the slightest attempt to prove it or to disprove the opposite theory in the three thick volumes4 ,moreover if there was an abundance of proof we should get none from ,herr ,duehring1 for the matter is proven by the famous fall of man in that ,robinson ,crusoe made ,friday his slave4 ,that was an act of force and so a political act4 ,and this slavery constitutes the point of departure and fundamental fact of history up to the present time and inoculates the heirs of sin with injustice so certainly that only lately it has become milder and transformed into the more indirect forms of economic dependency4 ,since the whole of the remaining actual force-possession rests upon this original enslavement1 it is clear that all economic phenomena can be explained from original political causes1 that is from force4 ,and whoever is not satisfied with this is a secret reactionary4 ,let us first remark that one has to be as much in love with himself as ,herr ,duehring is to consider this idea as original since it is not so by any means4 ,the idea that the political doings of monarch and states are decisive events in history is as old as the writing of history itself and is the reason why we are so little aware of the real and quietly developing progress of the peoples which goes on behind these noisy and spectacular activities4 ,this idea has dominated the whole of history in the past and got its first shock at the hands of the ,french bourgeois historians of the ,restoration period4 ,to proceed1 let us grant for the present that ,herr ,duehring is correct when he says that all history up to now has been the slavery of man by men1 and we are still a long way from the root of the matter4 ,let us ask now how it was that ,robinson came to enslave ,friday4 ,was it merely for the pleasure of doing so8 ,surely not4 ,on the contrary we are informed that ,friday was subjugated as a slave or mere tool for economic service and was kept in subjection merely as a tool4 ,robinson only enslaved ,friday that he might work for the benefit of ,robinson4 ,and how could ,robinson derive benefit from the labor of ,friday8 ,only by virtue of the fact that ,friday produced more means of livelihood by his labor than ,robinson had to give him to keep him able to work4 ,robinson has therefore1 contrary to ,herr ,duehring's pretty prescription1 made1 by the enslavement of ,friday1 a political organization1 not just because he wanted to1 but simply as a means of providing himself with food1 and he ought to see how little he has in common with his lord and master ,herr ,duehring4 ,the childish example therefore which ,herr ,duehring has discovered in order to show that force is the historical fundamental proves that force is only a means to further an economic interest1 and in history the economic side is likewise more fundamental than the political4 ,the example therefore proves just the opposite of what it ought to prove4 ,and1 as with ,robinson and ,friday1 so it is also with all the examples of lordship and slavery up to now4 ,slavery1 to use ,duehring's own elegant expression1 always implies a means for supplying sustenance 7using the term in its broadest sense7 and never merely implies a political organization which has been developed by its own will4 ,one would have to be a ,herr ,duehring to venture to call taxes only a secondary feature of government1 or1 to say that the political groupings of the dominant bourgeois of to-day and the subjugated proletariat are purely voluntary and not made to serve the material interests of the bourgeois1 namely profit making and the accumulation of capital4 ,let us give our attention again to our two men4 ,robinson sword in hand makes ,friday his slave4 ,but to do this ,robinson uses something else besides his sword4 ,a slave is not made by that means solely4 ,in order to be able to keep a slave one has to be superior to him in two respects1 one must first have control over the tools and objects of labor of the slave and over his means of subsistence also4 ,therefore1 before slavery is possible1 a certain point in production has to be reached and a certain degree of inequality in distribution attained4 ,and when slave labor becomes the dominant mode of production of an entire society a higher development of the powers of production1 of trade and of wealth1 accumulation occurs4 ,in early tribal communities which had common ownership of the soil1 slavery is either nonexistent or its role is very subordinate4 ,so it was at first in ,rome1 as a state of farmers1 but when ,rome became the capital city of the world and the soil of ,italy came more and more to be owned by a numerically small class of enormously wealthy property owners1 the population of farmers perished in front of the slave population4 ,when at the time of the ,persian ,war1 the number of slaves in ,corinth was #dfj1jjj1 and in ,aegina #dgj1jjj1 and there were ten slaves to every freeman in the population1 the explanation must be sought in something other than force2 there were a highly developed art and handicraft and foreign commerce4 ,slavery in the ,united ,states of ,america was much less due to force than to the ,english cotton industry2 where there was not cotton grown or where slaves were not raised1 as in the border states1 for the cotton producing states1 it perished of its own accord and without any employment of force simply because it did not pay4 ,when ,herr ,duehring therefore calls the property of the present day property resting on force and designates it as that form of domination which does not merely signify the exclusion of one's fellow beings from the use of the natural means of sustenance1 but implies in addition that the subjection of man has lain at the foundation of human slavery he puts the matter upside down4 ,the subjection of humanity to slavery in all its forms means the control by the master of the means of labor by virtue of which alone he can employ his slaves upon them and the disposal of the means of livelihood by which he can keep his slaves alive4 ,in all cases therefore it implies a certain power of possession which transcends the ordinary8 ,how did this arise8 ,occasionally it is clear that it was seized and can therefore be said to rest upon force but this is by no means essential4 ,it can be got by labor1 be robbed1 be obtained by trade1 or taken by fraud4 ,it must be worked for generally before it can be stolen4 ,private property does not historically come into existence by any means as a rule as the product of robbery and violence4 ,on the contrary4 ,it arises from the limitation of certain things in the early tribal communes4 ,it develops in the first place within the tribe and afterwards in exchange with peoples outside of the tribe in the form of wares4 ,in proportion as the products of the tribe assume the form of commodities1 i4e41 the less they are produced for the use of the producer and the more for the purpose of exchange1 the exchange destroys the original form of distribution in the commune itself1 and the more unequal become the shares of the individual members of the community with respect to material possessions4 ,so the old communal ownership of land becomes more and more invaded1 the communal property is rapidly converted into a village of farmers1 each tilling his own piece of ground4 ,oriental despotism and the changing government of conquering nomads had no power to alter the old form of communal ownership for a thousand years4 ,but the continual destruction of the primitive domestic industry through the competition of the products of the great industry is bringing about its dissolution4 ,the thing has little to do with force as has lately appeared in the matter of the division of the communal property of the feudal societies on the ,moselle and in ,hochwald4 ,the peasants are finding the substitution of individual for communal holdings to their interests4 ,even the growth of a primitive aristocracy as among the ,celts1 the ,germans1 and in ,mesopotamia1 is a result of the communal ownership of landed property1 and does not depend upon force in the slightest degree but upon free will and custom4 ,especially where private property arises it appears as the result of a change in the methods of production and exchange in the interests of the increase of production and the development of commerce and therefore arises from economic causes4 ,force plays no role in this4 ,it is clear that the institution of private property must have already existed before the robber is able to possess himself of other people's goods and that force may change the possession but cannot alter private property as such4 ,but to explain the subjection of men to slavery in its modern form1 in wage-labor1 we can make no use of either force or property acquired by force4 ,we have already mentioned the part which the transformation of the products of labor into commodities1 their production not for use alone1 but for exchange1 plays in the destruction of the primitive communal property and therefore in the bringing into existence directly or indirectly the universality of private property4 ,but ,marx has proved in his ,capital--and ,herr ,duehring does not venture to intrude upon the matter--that at a certain stage in economic development the production of commodities is transformed into capitalistic production and that at this point the law of appropriation resting upon the production and circulation of commodities1 the law of private property1 by its own inevitable dialectic becomes changed into its opposite1 the exchange of equivalents1 which appeared as its original mode of operation1 but has now become so twisted that there is only an appearance of exchange since4 ,in the first place1 the portion of capital exchanged for labor-force is itself only a portion of the product of another's labor taken without an equivalent1 and in the second place1 it is not only supplied by its producers1 the workers1 but it must be supplied also with a new surplus4 ,originally property seemed to us to be established on labor only--property now appears 7as a conclusion of the ,marxian argument71 on the side of the capitalist1 as the right to unpaid labor and1 on the side of the workingman1 as an impossibility1 the ownership of his own product4 ,the difference between property and labor is the result of a law which apparently proceeded from their identity4 ,in other words if we exclude the possibility of force1 robbery1 and cheating absolutely1 if we take the position that all private property originally depended upon the personal labor of its possessor and that equivalents are always exchanged we nevertheless come1 in the course of the development of production and exchange1 of necessity1 to the modern capitalistic methods of production1 to the monopolisation of the means of production and livelihood in the hands of a single class few in numbers1 to the degradation of the other consisting of the immense majority of producers to the position of propertyless proletarians1 to the periodical alternations of swindling operations and trade crises and to the whole of the present anarchy in production4 ,the entire result rests on purely economic grounds without robbery1 force1 or any intervention of politics or the government being necessary4 ,property resting on force becomes a mere phrase which merely serves to obscure the understanding of the real development of things4 ,this course1 historically expressed1 is the story of the development of the bourgeoisie4 ,if political conditions are the decisive causes of economic conditions1 the modern bourgeoisie would necessarily not have progressed as the result of a fight with feudalism1 but would be the darling child of its womb4 ,everybody knows that the opposite is the case4 ,the bourgeoisie1 originally bound to pay feudal dues to the dominant feudal nobility1 recruited from bond slaves and thralls1 in a subject state1 has1 in the course of its conflict with the nobility captured position after position1 and finally has come into possession of the power in civilized countries4 ,in ,france it directly attacked the nobility1 in ,england it made the aristocracy more and more bourgeois and finally incorporated it with itself as a sort of ornament4 ,and how did this come about8 ,entirely through the transformation of economic conditions which was sooner or later followed either by the voluntary or compulsory transformation of political conditions4 ,the fight of the bourgeoisie against the feudal nobility is the fight of the city against the country1 of industry against landlordism1 of economy based on money against economy based on natural products4 ,the distinctive weapons of the bourgeois in this fight were those which came into existence through the development of increasing economic force by reason of the growth at first of hand manufacture and afterwards machine-manufacture and through the extension of trade4 ,during the whole of this conflict the political power was in the hands of the nobility1 with the exception of a period when the king employed the bourgeoisie against the nobility in order to hold one in check by means of the other4 ,from the very moment1 however1 in which the bourgeoisie still deprived of political power began to be dangerous because of the development of its economic power the monarchy again turned to the nobility and thereby brought about the revolution of the bourgeois first in ,england and then in ,france4 ,the political conditions in ,france remained unaltered until the economic conditions outgrew them4 ,in politics the noble was everything1 the bourgeois nothing4 ,as a social factor the bourgeoisie was of the highest importance while the nobility had abandoned all its social functions and yet pocketed revenues1 social services which it did not any longer perform4 ,even this is not sufficient4 ,bourgeois society was1 as far as the whole matter of production is concerned1 tied and bound in the political feudal forms of the ,middle ,ages1 which this production1 not only as regards manufacture but as regards handwork also had long transcended amid all the thousandfold gild-privileges and local and provincial tax impositions which had become mere obstacles and fetters to production4 ,the bourgeois revolution put an end to them4 ,but the economic condition did not1 as ,herr ,duehring would imply1 forthwith adapt itself to the political circumstances1--that the king and the nobility spent a long time in trying to effect--but it threw all the mouldy old political rubbish aside and shaped new political conditions in which the new economic conditions might come into existence and develop4 ,and it has developed splendidly in this suitable political and legal atmosphere1 so splendidly that the bourgeoisie is now not very far from the position which the nobility occupied in #aghi4 ,it is becoming more and more not alone a social superfluity but a social impediment4 ,it takes an ever diminishing part in the work of production and becomes more and more1 as the noble did1 a mere revenue consuming class4 ,and this revolution in its position and the creation of a new class1 that of the proletariat1 came about without any force-nonsense but by purely economic means4 ,further more1 it has by no means accomplished it by its own willful act4 ,on the other hand it has accomplished itself irresistibly against the wish and intentions of the bourgeoisie4 ,its own productive forces have taken the management of affairs and are driving modern bourgeois society to the necessity of revolution or destruction4 ,and if the bourgeoisie now appeals to force to ward off the ruin arising from the decrepit economic condition it proves thereby that it suffers from the same error as ,herr ,duehring1 in that it thinks that political conditions are the distinctive causes of economic condition and that by the use of the prime factor of mere political force it can manufacture the secondary factor of economic conditions4 ,it thinks that it can shape economic conditions and their inevitable development1 and therefore eliminate the economic effects of the steam engine1 and the modern industry which has proceeded from it4 ,it thinks that it can abolish the world commerce and the bank credit development of to-day from the universe by means of ,krupp guns and ,mauser rifles4 ,,iii4 ,force ,theory 7,continued74 ,let us look at this omnipotent force of ,herr ,duehring a little more closely4 ,robinson enslaved ,friday sword in hand4 ,how did he get the sword8 ,robinson's imaginary island never grew swords on trees and some answer to this question is due from ,herr ,duehring4 ,we might just as well assume that as ,robinson became possessed of a sword so1 one fine morning1 ,friday appeared with a loaded revolver in his hand4 ,thereupon the force is entirely reversed4 ,friday takes command and ,robinson must submit4 ,we beg pardon of the reader for returning to the story of ,robinson ,crusoe1 which is more appropriate to the nursery than to an economic discussion1 but what can we do about it8 ,we are compelled to pursue ,herr ,duehring's axiomatic scientific methods and it is not our fault if we always find ourselves in the realms of childishness4 ,the revolver then triumphs over the sword and it should be apparent even to the maker of childish axioms that superior force is no mere act of the will but requires very real preliminary conditions for the carrying out of its purposes1 especially mechanical instruments1 the more highly developed of which have the superiority over the less highly developed4 ,furthermore these tools must be produced1 whence it appears that the producer of the more highly developed tool of force1 commonly called weapon1 triumphs over the producer of the less highly developed tool4 ,in a word1 the triumph of force depends upon the production of weapons1 therefore upon economic power1 on economic conditions1 on the ability to organize actual material instruments4 ,force at the present day implies the army and the navy1 and the two of them cost1 to our sorrow1 a heap of money4 ,but force cannot make money1 on the contrary it gets away very fast with what is made1 and it does not make good use of it as we have just discovered painfully with respect to the ,french indemnity4 ,money must therefore finally be provided by means of economic production1 force is thus again limited by the economic conditions which shape the means of making and maintaining the instruments of production4 ,but that is not all by any means4 ,nothing is more dependent upon economic conditions than armies and fleets4 ,arming1 concentration1 organization1 tactics1 strategy1 depend before anything else upon the degree of development in production and transportation4 ,in the trade of war the free inventiveness of liberal-minded generals has never worked a revolution1 but the discovery of better weapons and the change in military equipment have never failed to do so4 ,the inventiveness of the general under the most favorable conditions finds its limitations in the adaptation of methods of warfare to the new weapons and the new soldiers4 ,at the beginning of the fourteenth century gunpowder was brought from the ,arabs to ,western ,europe and1 as every schoolboy knows1 entirely revolutionized warfare4 ,the introduction of gunpowder and firearms was however by no means an act of force but an industrial and therefore economic advance4 ,industry is still industry whether its object in the creation or the destruction of material things4 ,the introduction of firearms not only produced a revolution in the methods of warfare but also in the relations of master and subject4 ,trade and money are concomitants of gunpowder and firearms and these former imply the bourgeoisie4 ,firearms from the first were bourgeois instruments of warfare employed on behalf of the rising monarchy against the feudal nobility4 ,the hitherto unassailable stone castles of the nobles submitted to the cannon of the burghers1 the fire of their guns pierced the mail armor of the knights4 ,the supremacy of the nobility fell with the heavily armed cavalry of the nobility4 ,with the development of the bourgeoisie1 infantry and artillery became more and more the important arms of the service and because of artillery the trade of war had to create another industrial subdivision1 to-wit1 engineering4 ,the development of firearms proceeded very slowly4 ,shooting remained clumsy and small arms were ineffective in spite of many individual inventions4 ,three hundred years elapsed before a musket was produced which sufficed for the arming of a complete infantry4 ,first at the beginning of the eighteenth century1 a musket with a bayonet attached1 which discharged a stone superseded the pike as an infantry weapon4 ,the infantry of that day was exceedingly unreliable1 only kept together by physical force1 composed of the basest elements of society1 frequently made up of men picked up by the press gang and prisoners of war intermingled with soldiers recruited by the various princes4 ,the only fighting formation in which these soldiers could be made to use the new weapon was the linear tactic1 which reached its highest development under ,frederick ,,ii4 ,the whole infantry of an army was drawn up in a very long hollow square three files deep and advanced in battle array en masse4 ,it was usually permitted to one of the two wings to be a little in advance or a little in the rear4 ,this helpless body could only advance and keep its formation on perfectly level ground and then only at a slow marching time 7seventy-five steps to the minute7 a change of formation during the fight was impossible and victory or defeat was determined rapidly at a stroke as soon as the infantry came under fire4 ,these helpless lines in the ,american ,revolutionary ,war came into collision with the rebel troops1 which certainly could not drill but could shoot so much the better in that they were fighting for their own interests and therefore did not desert like the enlisted soldiers4 ,these did not1 like the ,english1 deploy in massed bodies on the open field1 but in rapidly moving bodies of sharpshooters in the thick woods4 ,the organised lines were here powerless and had to contend against invisible and unapproachable foes4 ,the sharpshooters thereupon were brought into existence as a part of the army organization--a new method of fighting arising from a change in the military material4 ,what the ,american ,revolution began the ,french completed in the military realm4 ,to the drilled troops of the ,coalition the ,french ,revolution opposed soldiers who were badly drilled but who constituted large masses1 the product of the whole nation4 ,some means had to be discovered of protecting ,paris with these masses4 ,that could not be done without victory in the open field4 ,a mere musketry engagement would not suffice1 a form would have to be discovered by which the masses could be utilized and this was found in the column4 ,the column formation allowed slightly drilled troops to keep better order and by means of a better marching speed 7one hundred steps to the minute7 allowed it to break through the stiff old-fashioned line arrangement4 ,it was possible by this formation to fight in country unsuitable to the line formation1 to mass troops in places suitable1 to associate scattered sharpshooters with the columns1 to keep back1 occupy and wear the lines of the enemy1 until the decisive movement came when a charge could be made by the troops held in reserve4 ,this new method of combining riflemen and columns and making a complete army corps consisting of all arms1 which was fully developed on its tactical and strategic side by ,napoleon1 was only rendered possible by the change in military material brought about by the ,french ,revolution4 ,there were still two very important technical preliminaries1 first the making of light carriages for field pieces which were constructed by ,gribevaul by means of which alone the required quick advance was rendered possible1 and making the army rifle a more precise weapon by adapting to it some of the features of the hunting rifle4 ,without these improvements military sharpshooting would have been impossible4 ,the revolutionary method of arming the entire population was subjected to certain limitations and chiefly as regards the excusing of the well to do1 and in this form became common to most of the great continental countries4 ,prussia alone sought by its militia system to make the entire force of its people available for military purposes4 ,prussia was the first state to provide its entire infantry with the latest weapons1 and to place officers in the rear1 since between #ahcj and #ahfj trained officers leading their troops had played an unimportant part4 ,the results of #ahff were largely due to these innovations4 ,in the ,franco ,prussian ,war two armies came into contact both of which had their officers in the rear and which both used substantially the same tactics as in the time of the old smooth bore flintlocks4 ,the ,prussians however by the introduction of company columns had made an attempt to discover a method of fighting more suitable to the new system of arming4 ,but on the #ahth of ,august at ,st4 ,privat the ,prussian guard which employed the company column formation lost the most part of five regiments1 over a third of its strength in two hours 7#agf officers and #eaad men7 after which the company column form of battle order came in for no less criticism than the battalion column form and the line formation4 ,every attempt to oppose a solid formation to the fire of the enemy was thereafter abandoned4 ,the battle was thereafter1 on the ,german side1 carried on by dense swarms of riflemen into which the columns dissolved under the fire of the enemy spontaneously1 without orders from the superior officers1 and this was1 in fact1 the only possible method of advance under fire4 ,the private soldier was again cleverer than his officer2 he had discovered the only form of fighting formation1 and set himself to follow it in spite of the resistance of his leaders4 ,in the ,franco-,german war there is a point of departure of entirely different significance from all preceding wars4 ,in the first place the weapons are now so complete that a new revolutionary departure in this respect is no longer possible4 ,when you have cannon with which you can decimate a battalion as far as your eye can make it out1 and when you have rifles by which you can aim at individuals1 and which take less time to load than to aim1 all further advances as far as battle in the field goes are immaterial4 ,the era of progress on this side is substantially closed4 ,in the second place1 however1 this war has induced all the great states of the continent to adopt the highly developed ,prussian militia system and thus to take up a military burden which will ruin them in a few years4 ,the army has become the main object of the state1 it has become an object in itself4 ,the people only exist to furnish and maintain soldiers4 ,militarism dominates and devours ,europe4 ,but this militarism has in it the seeds of its own destruction4 ,the competition of the various states with each other necessitates the spending of more money every year on the army1 the fleet1 weapons of destruction1 etc41 and thus accelerates financial breakdown4 ,on the other hand1 with the increasingly rigid military service1 the whole people becomes familiar with the use of military weapons4 ,it therefore becomes able at some time to impose its will upon the dominating military authority4 ,and this time arrives as soon as the mass of the people--country and city workers and farmers--has the will4 ,at this point the army of the classes becomes the army of the masses1 the machine refuses to do the work1 militarism goes under in the dialectic of its own development4 ,what the bourgeois democrats of #ahdh could not accomplish1 just because they were bourgeois and not proletarian1 namely the endowment of the laboring masses with a will1 the content of which corresponded with their class condition1 socialism will certainly accomplish4 ,and that means the destruction of militarism and with it of all standing armies absolutely and entirely4 ,that is the moral of our history of modern infantry4 ,the second moral which brings us back to ,herr ,duehring is that the entire organization and methods of warfare of modern armies and1 with them1 victory and defeat1 are dependent upon material things1 that is upon economic conditions1 upon soldier material and upon weapon material and therefore upon the quality of a population and upon technique4 ,only a hunting people like the ,americans could rediscover the sharpshooter4 ,now the ,yankees of the old ,states have1 from purely economic causes1 become transformed into farmers1 industrialists1 sailors and merchants1 who no longer shoot in the primeval forests and on that account have become all the more successful in the field of speculation where they have developed into colossal appropriators4 ,only a ,revolution like the ,french which emancipated the burghers and still more the peasants could discover the simultaneously massed armies and free advance by which they overcame the stiff old line formation1 the military product of the absolutism against which they fought4 ,and as for the advances in technique as soon as they were applicable and were applied1 forthwith changes1 nay revolutions1 in the methods of warfare were at once made1 often against the will of the military leaders as we have seen over and over again to be the case4 ,a diligent subaltern could explain to ,herr ,duehring how at the present day the making of war is dependent upon the productivity and means of communication of the back country as well as of the theatre of war4 ,in short1 economic conditions and means of power are always the things which help force to victory1 and without them force comes to an end4 ,so that he who would reform the art of war according to the axioms of ,herr ,duehring would only get a flogging for his pains4 ,if we go from the land to the sea we shall discover a complete revolution1 even within the last twenty years4 ,the warship of the ,crimean ,war was the wooden three decker1 with from sixty to a hundred guns1 which depended upon its sailing power and had only a weak auxiliary steam engine4 ,it carried in general thirty-two pounders of about sixty hundred weight and only a few sixty-eight pounders of ninety-five hundred weight4 ,at the end of the war ironclad floating batteries were used1 clumsy and slow but impregnable to the artillery of that time4 ,very soon iron plates were placed on the warships1 at first thin1 four inches thickness of iron was then considered to constitute a remarkably great thickness4 ,but the progress in artillery soon discounted the thickness of armour1 for every addition to the armour there was a new and more powerful artillery which pierced it with the greatest ease4 ,so now we have warships with ten1 twelve1 fourteen1 twenty-four inches of armour plate 7the ,italians are going to build a warship with armourplate three feet thick7 on the one hand and on the other hand guns which reach to a hundred tons and which hurl projectiles amounting to two thousand pounds in weight to unheard of distances4 ,the modern war vessel is a rapid travelling armoured screw steamer of eight to ten thousand tons and of from six to eight thousand horse power provided with turrets and four or six very powerful big guns1 together with a ram at the bow below the water line for the purpose of destroying the ship of the enemy4 ,it is a colossal machine in which steam not only furnishes the driving power but also steers1 raises the anchor1 moves the towers1 aims and loads the guns1 works the pumps1 takes in and lowers the boats1 which are frequently steamers1 and so forth4 ,and the contest between the armour plate and the projectile is so far from having been settled that a ship is to-day practically obsolete as soon as it has left the ways4 ,the modern warship is not only a product of modern industry but a masterpiece1 a product of the dissipation of wealth4 ,the country in which the greater industry has developed the most completely has a monopoly of shipbuilding4 ,all the ,turkish1 almost all the ,russian and the greater part of the ,german warships are built in ,england4 ,armour plate of the best type is made almost exclusively in ,germany4 ,of the three iron foundries which are alone in the position to turn out the heaviest artillery1 two of them1 ,woolwich and ,elswick1 are in ,england1 the third ,krupp's is in ,germany4 ,here it may be seen that the pure political power which ,herr ,duehring maintains to be the original reason for economic conditions is on the contrary inseparable from economic conditions and that not only the existence but the very management of the tool of force on the sea1 the warship1 is in itself a branch of modern industry4 ,and that this is so gives nobody more trouble than just that force1 the state1 which has now to pay more for one ship than it had formerly for a small fleet and sees that these expensive ships are obsolete as soon as they are launched4 ,and the state is just as much upset as ,herr ,duehring would be over the fact that the controller of the economic force of the ship1 the engineer1 is a much more important person than the man of pure force1 the captain4 ,on the other hand we have no further grounds for annoyance when we see that how as a result of this contest between armour plate and projectile the battle ship has arrived at the point when it is as expensive as it is unfit for fighting and that this contest shows the dialectic law of progress at work in naval warfare according to which militarism like every other historical phenomenon must come to an end as a result of its own development4 ,we can thus see as plain as noonday that it is not true that the original reason must be sought in pure political force and not in indirect economic force4 ,quite the contrary4 ,economic force is the control of the power of the great industry4 ,political force in naval matters which is dependent upon modern ships of war is by no means pure force but is involved in economic force1 in the advanced development of metallurgy1 in the mastery of historical technique and the possession of rich coal-fields4 ,,iv4 ,force ,theory 7,conclusion74 7,herr ,duehring makes an argument which is briefly summarised by ,engels as follows and which may be said to involve the notion that the monopolization of land is the cause of human slavery and is the product of force4 ,engels proceeds73 ,thesis--,the domination of nature by man is the reason of the domination of man by man4 ,proof--,the existence of landlordism on a large scale cannot be carried on anywhere except by means of slavery4 ,proof of proof--,landlordism on a large scale cannot exist without slavery because the great landlord with his own family without the help of slaves can only cultivate a small piece of his property4 ,therefore1 in order to show that man cannot subdue nature without the subjugation of his fellowman1 ,herr ,duehring transforms nature forthwith into private ownership of large tracts of land and this indefinite private ownership into the ownership exercised by a great landlord1 who naturally cannot cultivate his land without slaves4 ,in the first place the domination of nature and the cultivation of private landed property do not imply the same thing4 ,the domination of nature in industrial affairs is displayed in a manner altogether different from that in agricultural affairs1 for these latter are always at the mercy of the climate instead of being supreme over the climate4 ,in the second place if we limit ourselves to the exploitation of private property in land in large amounts we come to the question as to whom the land belongs4 ,we find that in the beginnings of civilised peoples the land was not owned by great landlords but was held in common by tribal and village communities4 ,from ,india to ,ireland the exploitation of land property in large tracts has proceeded from the tribal and village communal ownership which was the original form4 ,sometimes the land was cultivated in common for the benefit of the common members1 sometimes in separate pieces1 parcelled by the community to separate families from time to time with wood and willow land retained for communal use4 ,it is pure imagination on the part of ,herr ,duehring to declare that the exploitation of landed property is responsible for the existence of master and servant4 ,who is the owner of private landed property in the entire ,orient where the land is possessed by the community or the ,state and the word landlord is not to be found in the language8 ,the ,turks first introduced a species of feudalism into the lands which they conquered4 ,the ,greeks in heroic times had a classified system of rank which itself bore witness to a long unknown preceding history1 but the land was then cultivated by an independent peasantry4 ,the large possessions of the nobles and leaders of the tribes were the exception and had no permanence4 ,italy was originally cultivated by small peasant farmers2 when in the latter days of the ,roman ,republic the great holdings1 the latifundia destroyed the small farmer-holdings1 cattle raising was substituted for agriculture1 and as ,pliny points out ,italy was ruined 7latifundia ,italiam perdidere74 ,in the whole of ,europe during the ,middle ,ages small farming was the rule and it is very appropriate to the above discussion to note what tasks these peasants were obliged to perform for the feudal lords4 ,the ,frisians1 lower ,saxons1 ,flemings and people from the lower ,rhine who invaded the lands of the ,slavs to the east of the ,elbe and cultivated them did so under very favorable terms of rent but by no means under a species of slavery4 ,in ,north ,america1 by far the greatest amount of the land is cultivated by the labor of free small farmers1 while the great landed proprietors of the ,south with their slaves and extravagant farming methods destroyed the soil until the land ceased to be productive and the cultivation of cotton travelled ever ,westward4 ,in ,australia and ,new ,zealand the attempts to artificially establish an agrarian aristocracy by the ,british government have failed4 ,in short1 if we except the tropical and sub-tropical colonies1 in which the climate is prohibitive of agriculture by ,europeans1 it seems that the idea of a great land holding class originally dominating nature by means of the employment of slaves and serfs is a pure product of the imagination4 ,things are quite otherwise4 ,if one goes to the older countries like ,italy the land was not waste originally but the transformation of the agricultural land cultivated by the small farmers into cattle-land utterly ruined the country4 ,latterly1 for the first time since the growth in the intensity of the population has increased the value of land and especially since the progress in agriculture has made possible the reclamation of poor lands1 the greater landlordism has begun to obtain possession of waste and pasture lands and has stolen the old communal lands of the peasants in this country1 as well in ,england as in ,germany4 ,and this has not happened without a counter-poise4 ,for every acre of common land which the great landlords in ,england converted into arable land they have made at least three acres of arable land in ,scotland into shooting preserves and mere places for the hunting of wild animals4 ,we have to consider the declaration of ,herr ,duehring to the effect that the cultivation of large parcels of land has not come into existence otherwise than through great landlords and their slaves1 a declaration which we have seen implies an entire ignorance of history4 ,we have now to see how far at different epochs the cultivation of the soil has been carried on by means of slaves1 as in the palmy days of ,greece1 or by means of tenants1 like the socage tenure1 since the ,middle ,ages1 and then what has been the social function of the greater landlordism at different periods of history4 ,if ,herr ,duehring means that the mastery of man by men as a preliminary to the mastery of nature by man is a universal law1 that our present economic condition1 the stage attained to-day in agriculture and industry1 is the result of a society which has developed itself in class antagonisms1 in mastership on the one hand and in slavery on the other hand1 he says something which is a mere commonplace since the publication of the ,communist ,manifesto4 ,we have thus to explain the existence of these classes and when ,herr ,duehring has no further explanation to give than force we are right back at the beginning again4 ,the mere fact that the subject and the plundered have always been more numerous and that therefore the actual force has rested with them is enough to show the stupidity of the entire force theory4 ,we have therefore still to explain the origin of master and subject classes4 ,they have come into being in two ways4 ,when men originally sprang from the lower animals they came into history1 still half-wild animals1 elementary1 with no power over the forces of nature1 still unacquainted with their own powers1 as poor as the animals and hardly more productive than they4 ,there prevailed a certain equality in the conditions of life and as far as the heads of families were concerned an equality of social condition--there was at least an absence of those class distinctions which developed later in the agricultural communities4 ,in such a social state there were certain common interests which overrode the interests of the individual in certain respects1 the settlement of disputes1 the repression of individuals who exceeded their rights1 the looking after the water supply1 particularly in hot countries1 and finally under the conditions of life in the primeval forests1 religious functions4 ,we find analogous communal duties exercised by communal officials at all periods as well in the oldest ,german mark communities as in ,india to-day4 ,these are contemporaneous with a sort of beginning of authority and state power in a rudimentary form4 ,the productive forces develop2 a denser population produces common and then conflicting interests between members of the society1 the grouping of which in accordance with a new division of labor causes the creation of new organs for the purpose of maintaining the society on the one hand and repressing the antagonistic interests on the other4 ,these organs which act for the entire group have different forms according to the varying circumstances of the individual groups1 partly through the natural growth of a hereditary leadership in a world where everything proceeds naturally and partly through a growing need owing to the development of conflicts with other groups4 ,how these social functions which were subsidiary to society came in the course of time to triumph over society2 how the original servant1 under favorable conditions became transformed into the master1 how1 according to circumstances1 this master made his appearance as ,oriental despot or satrap1 as ,greek chieftain1 as ,celtic clan chief1 etc41 how far he relied on force for this transformation and finally how the individual leaders associated themselves into a dominant class we have here no opportunity to consider4 ,we can only state that real social duties lay at the base of the political domination and that the political supremacy has only existed as long as the politically supreme fulfilled these social functions4 ,how many despotisms have risen and fallen among the ,persians and ,hindoos1 and everybody knows quite well that the public management of the irrigation was the prime necessity of agriculture in those places4 ,the educated ,english were the first to observe this among the ,hindoos2 they let the canals and locks fall into disuse and they have now discovered by the regular recurrence of famine that they have neglected the only opportunity to make their rule at least as righteous as that of their predecessors4 ,but there is another form of class distinction besides the one described4 ,the natural division of labor in the agricultural families permitted at a certain point of prosperity the introduction of foreign labor power4 ,this was particularly the case in countries where the old common ownership of the soil had disappeared or where at least the old system of common cultivation had become supplanted by the cultivation of separate plots by individual families4 ,production had so far developed that the human labor force was able to produce more than was necessary for the support of the individual laborer4 ,the time was ripe for the employment of more labor-power1 labor-power had become a value4 ,but the limitations of the communal system did not afford any attainable surplus labor power4 ,yet war did give such an opportunity for getting surplus labor power and war was as old as the simultaneous existence of groups of communal groups in close juxtaposition4 ,up to this time men did not take prisoners of war1 they killed them right off1 and1 at a still earlier date1 they ate them4 ,but at the stage of economic development of which we speak they had a value and they were not only allowed to live but were set to work4 ,so force instead of being the master of economic conditions was pressed into the service of those conditions4 ,slavery was discovered4 ,it soon became the dominant form of production among all people who had developed beyond the tribal communal stage and as a matter of fact was at the end one of the main reasons for the break up of the communal system4 ,slavery first made the division of labor between agriculture and industry completely possible and brought into existence the flower of the old world1 ,greece4 ,without slavery there would have been no ,grecian state1 no ,grecian art and science and no ,roman ,empire4 ,there would have been no modern ,europe without the foundation of ,greece and ,rome4 ,we must not forget that our entire economic1 political and intellectual development has its foundation in a state of society in which slavery was regarded universally as necessary4 ,in this sense we may say that without the ancient slavery there would have been no modern socialism4 ,it is very easy to make preachments about slavery and to express our moral indignation at such a scandalous institution4 ,unfortunately the whole significance of this is that it merely says that these old institutions do not correspond with our present conditions and the sentiments engendered by these conditions4 ,we do not however in this way explain how these institutions came into existence1 why they came into existence and the role which they have played in history4 ,and when we enter upon this matter we are obliged to say in spite of all contradiction and accusations of heresy that the introduction of slavery under the conditions of that time was a great step forwards4 ,it is a fact that man sprang from the lower animals and has had to employ barbaric and really bestial methods in order to rid himself of barbarism4 ,the old communal system where it persisted built up the most elementary form of the state1 ,oriental despotism1 from ,india to ,russia4 ,only where it has been dissolved has the people progressed and the next economic step lay in the development of production by means of slave labor4 ,it is evident that as long as human labor was so little productive that it afforded only a small surplus over the necessary means of life1 the development of the productive forces1 the institution of commerce1 the development of the ,state and of law and the foundation of art and science were only possible through an increase in the subdivision of labor4 ,this implied the broad division between the mass of the workers and the directors of labor1 trade1 state1 state-business1 and later the occupation of a few privileged persons in art and science4 ,the simplest and most natural form of this subdivision of labor was slavery4 ,in the conditions of the ancient1 and especially the ,greek world1 the advance to a society founded on class distinction could only be for the slaves1 the prisoners of war from whom the majority of slaves were recruited instead of being murdered as they would have been at an earlier date or instead of being eaten as they would have been at a stage still earlier4 ,here we add that all the historical antitheses of robbers and robbed of master and subject classes find their explanation in the relatively undeveloped productivity of human labor4 ,as long as the actual working people claim that they have no time left at the close of their necessary labors to attend to the common business of society--the organization of labor1 the business of the government1 the administration of justice1 art1 science1 etc41 just so long will distinct classes exist which are free from actual labor to carry on these functions4 ,naturally these classes do not hesitate to lean more and more and more upon the shoulders of the working class for their own advantage4 ,the development of the great industry with its enormous increase in the forces of production for the first time permitted of the subdivision of labor in all social grades and thus allowed of the reduction of the time necessary for labor so that enough leisure remains for all to take part in the actual public business--theoretical as well as practical4 ,so that now for the first time the dominant and exploiting classes have become superfluous and even an obstacle to social progress1 and so now for the first time they will be unceremoniously brushed aside in spite of their pure force4 ,when ,herr ,duehring then shows his scorn of the ,greek civilisation because it was founded on slavery he might just as reasonably reproach the ,greeks for not having steam engines and electric telegraphs4 ,and when he explains that our modern wage slavery is only a somewhat transformed and ameliorated inheritance of chattel slavery and not to be explained from itself 7that is from the economic laws of modern society7 it only signifies that wage slavery1 like chattel slavery1 is a form of class domination and class subjection as every child knows1 or it is false4 ,so we might with the same right maintain that wage slavery is only a milder form of cannibalism1 the established original method of disposing of conquered enemies4 ,the role which force has played in history with respect to economic development is therefore clear4 ,in the first place1 all political force rests originally on an economic social function1 and developed in proportion as the old tribal communistic society was dissolved and transformed into various grades of private producers1 and the administrators of the communal functions therefore became more widely separated from the rest of the community4 ,in the second place1 when political force1 independent of society1 has transformed itself from the position of servant to that of master1 it may work in two directions4 ,in the first place1 it may work sensibly and in the direction of general economic development4 ,in this case there is no quarrel between the two1 economic development is advanced4 ,or it may work against it and then with few exceptions it succumbs to the economic development4 ,these few exceptions consist of individual cases of tyranny where barbaric conquerors have overcome a country and have destroyed the economic forces which they did not know how to handle4 ,thus the ,christians in ,spain destroyed the irrigation works upon which the highly developed agriculture and horticulture of that country depended4 ,every conquest by a more barbarous people interferes with economic development and destroys numerous productive forces4 ,but in the great majority of instances of the permanent conquest of a country1 the more barbaric conquerors are obliged to adopt the higher economic conditions into which their conquest has brought them4 ,they are assimilated into the conquered people and are compelled to adopt their language4 ,but where--apart from instances of conquest--the inner political forces of a country comes in conflict with its economic development1 which at the present day is practically true of all political force1 the battle has always ended with the destruction of the political force4 ,without exception and inexorably1 economic development has attained its goal4 ,the last most striking example of which we have already called attention to1 the ,french ,revolution4 ,if1 as according to ,herr ,duehring's teachings1 the economic development and the economic conditions of a certain country are altogether dependent upon political forces there is no explanation of the fact that ,frederick ,william ,,iv after #ahdh could not succeed1 in spite of his army1 in attaching the guilds of the ,middle ,ages and other romantic tomfooleries to the steam-engines1 railroads and the newly developing greater industry1 or why the ,czar who is still much more powerful could not only not pay his debts but could not collect his forces without drawing on the credit of the economic conditions of ,western ,europe4 ,according to ,herr ,duehring force is the absolute evil4 ,the first act of force is to him the first fall into sin4 ,his whole conception is a preachment over the infection of all history up to the present time with the original sin4 ,he talks about the disgraceful falsifying of all natural and social laws by the invention of the devil1 force4 ,that force plays another role in history1 a revolutionary role1 that it is in the words of ,marx1 the midwife of the old society which is pregnant with the new1 that it is the tool by the means of which social progress is forwarded1 and foolish1 dead political forms destroyed1--of that ,herr ,duehring has no word to say1 only with sighs and groans does he admit the possibility that force may be necessary for the overthrow of a thievish economic system4 ,he simply declares that every application of force demoralizes him who uses it4 ,and this in spite of the moral and intellectual uplift which has followed every victorious revolution4 ,he says this in ,germany1 too1 where a powerful and necessary uprising would at least have the advantage of abolishing the slavish snobbery of the national mind which has prevailed since the humiliation of the ,thirty ,years ,war4 ,and this foolish and senseless sort of preaching is set up in opposition to the most revolutionary party known to history4 ,v4 ,theory of ,value4 ,it is now about a hundred years since a book appeared in ,leipsic which by the beginning of this century had gone through thirty-one editions and which was distributed throughout the towns and the country districts by officials1 preachers and humanitarians1 of all sorts1 and which was universally adopted in the schools as a reader4 ,this book was called1 ,the ,children's ,friend by ,rochow4 ,it had the object of teaching the children of the peasant and laboring classes their vocation in life and their duties to their social and political superiors1 and making them satisfied with their lot in life1 with black bread and potatoes1 compulsory servitude1 low wages1 fatherly beatings and other similar agreeable things4 ,in pursuit of this end1 the youth in town and country was informed what a wise provision of nature it was that man was obliged to get his food and enjoyment by means of his labor1 and how fortunate the peasant and handworker ought to feel that they were able to spice their food with hard labor while the spendthrift and the picture suffered the pangs of indigestion or lack of appetite4 ,these commonplaces which old ,rochow thought good enough for the peasant children of his day have been elevated into the absolute fundamental of the newest political economy by ,herr ,duehring4 ,value is defined as follows by ,herr ,duehring ,value is what economic goods and activities will fetch in exchange4 ,what they will fetch is shown by the price or some other equivalent1 wages for example4 ,in other words ,value is price4 ,or not to do ,herr ,duehring an injury and to show the absolute absurdity of his definition in his own language1 ,value is prices4 ,on page #ai he says ,value and its prices expressed in money and he also affirms that the same value has very different prices and therefore has different values4 ,if ,hegel had not died long ago he would hang himself out of pure jealousy1 for1 with all his theology1 he could not have produced this value which has as many different values as it has prices4 ,one would have to possess the confidence of ,herr ,duehring to begin a new and more profound treatment of political economy with the declaration that there is no difference between value and price except that one is expressed in terms of money and the other is not4 7,after gentle raillery of ,duehring's statements ,engels proceeds47 ,the actual1 practical value of an object according to ,herr ,duehring consists in two things1 first in the amount of human labor contained in it and secondly in a forcibly imposed tax4 ,in other words value as it exists to-day is a monopoly price4 ,if all wares have this monopoly price1 as according to this theory1 only two things are possible4 ,either every buyer1 as buyer1 loses what he made as seller1 for prices have only changed their names1 they are really the same1 everything remains as it was and the much talked of exchange value is merely imaginary1 or the imposed cost represents real values1 values produced by the working value-making class1 but taken by the monopolising class1 and this sum of values is simply unpaid labor4 ,in this latter case we come1 in spite of the force theory1 and the compulsory taxation theory and the special exchange value theory back again to the ,marxian theory of value4 ,the fixing of the value of a commodity by wages which is frequently confused by ,adam ,smith with the fixing of value by the time expended in labor has been1 since the time of ,ricardo1 denounced by political economists and only to-day persists in popular economics4 ,it is now the sycophants of the existing capitalistic system who declare that value is fixed by wages and therefore declare the profits of the capitalists to be higher kind of wages1 wages of abstinence1 in that the capitalist has not dissipated his capital1 wages of superintendence1 premiums on risks1 etc4 ,herr ,duehring only differs from them in that he calls profits robbery4 ,in other words ,herr ,duehring founds his socialism on the worst teachings of the popular economists4 ,his popular economics and his socialism stand or fall together4 ,it is clear that what a workman accomplishes and what he costs are different matters from what a machine makes and what it costs4 ,the value which a workman makes in a day of twelve hours has nothing in common with the value of the means of life which he consumes in this working day and the periods of rest in connection with it4 ,there may be one1 three1 four or seven hours of labor time incorporated in these means of livelihood according to the stage of the productivity of labor4 ,let us take seven hours as the necessary time for the production of them4 ,then ,herr ,duehring and the vulgar economists declare that the product of twelve hours labor has the value of the product of seven hours labor or in other words twelve is equal to seven4 ,to make the matter more explicit1 a peasant produces say twenty hectolitres of wheat in a year4 ,during this time he consumes a sum of values which may be expressed by fifteen hectolitres4 ,then the twenty hectolitres have the same value as the fifteen in the same market under identical conditions4 ,in other words #bj equals #ae4 ,and this is called political economy6 ,the entire development of human society from the position of savagery began from the day when the labor of a family resulted in the production of more than was necessity for its support1 from the day when a part of the labor was no longer expended on mere means of living but was transformed into means of production4 ,a surplus of labor product over and above the cost of the maintenance of labor1 and the creation and increase of a social production and reserve fund out of this surplus was and is the foundation of all social1 political and intellectual development4 ,in history up to the present time this fund has been the property of a certain superior class which has1 with its possession1 also the political mastery and the spiritual supremacy4 ,the approaching social revolution will make this social production and reserve fund that is the entire mass of raw material1 instruments of production1 and means of life for the first time really social property1 in that it will put an end to its monopolisation by the superior class and make it the common possession of the entire society4 ,it is one of two things4 ,suppose value shows itself in the cost of maintenance of the necessary labor1 that is in present society in wages4 ,if such is the case every worker gets the value of his product in wages and the robbery of the working class by the capitalistic class is an impossibility4 ,let it be granted that the cost of maintaining a worker in a given society is three marks4 ,then the daily product of the worker is1 according to the popular economist1 of the value of three marks4 ,now let us consider that the capitalist who employs this worker takes a profit on this product and sells it for four marks4 ,other capitalists do the same thing4 ,but thereupon the worker can no longer maintain himself with three marks a day1 it will cost him four marks4 ,other conditions remaining the same1 wages expressed in terms of the means of life must remain the same and wages expressed in gold will rise therefore from three to four marks daily4 ,what the capitalists gain in the form of profit on the working class they have to return in the form of wages4 ,so we are just where we were at the beginning4 ,if wages signify value1 no plunder of the working class by the capitalist is possible4 ,but the creation of a surplus is impossible if1 according to our hypothesis the workers consume as much as they produce4 ,and since the capitalists produce no value it is impossible to see how they can live4 ,and if such a surplus of production over consumption does exist1 if such a production and reserve fund exists in the hands of the capitalists there is no other explanation possible than that the working class uses only enough values for its own maintenance and turns over the rest of the goods which it produces to the capitalist4 ,on the other hand1 if this production and reserve fund actually exists in the hands of the capitalist class1 if it has really come into existence through the piling up of profits1 7we will leave rent out of the question for the present72 it necessarily comes from the accumulated profits of the capitalist class taken from the working class over and above the sums paid by the capitalist class to the working class in the form of wages4 ,value therefore does not depend upon wages1 but upon amount of labor4 ,the working class renders to the capitalist class a greater amount of value than it receives in wages and thus the profit of capital as of all other forms of the appropriation of unpaid for products of labor is to be explained on the simple ground of the surplus value discovered by ,marx4 ,,vi4 ,simple and ,compound ,labor4 7,the argument of ,duehring against which ,engels here directs his efforts may be best summed up in ,duehring's concluding words ,marx in his utterances on value cannot escape the lurking ghost of highly skilled labor4 ,the prevalent notion of the intellectual classes has been a hindrance to him in this matter1 for according to this idea it is an enormity to reckon the labor time of a barrow pusher and an architect as economic equivalents47 ,engels thereupon says the passage in the works of ,marx which caused this outbreak on the part of ,duehring is very short4 ,marx is examining the question as to the basis of the value of commodities and answers it by the statement that it is the amount of human labor contained in them4 ,this he goes on is the expression of that simple labor force which belongs to the average human being without any special development4 ,skilled labor is a power or rather a multiple of simple labor1 so that a small amount of skilled labor is equivalent to a larger amount of unskilled labor4 ,practice shows that this reduction to the terms of unskilled labor takes place4 ,a commodity may be the product of skilled labor1 its value may be equivalent to a product of unskilled labor skilled labor4 ,the proportion in which different forms of labor are reduced to their general standard in unskilled labor is established by a social process going on behind the backs of the producers1 and appears to them merely customary4 ,here ,marx is only dealing with the value of commodities1 that is of objects produced and exchanged by private producers in a society consisting of private producers producing for their own profit4 ,he is therefore not concerned here with absolute value whatever that may be but only with the value which is realised in a given form of society4 ,this value under the given social conditions is shaped and measured by the human labor incorporated in the commodities and this human labor shows itself as the expression of simple human energy4 ,but every piece of work is not merely an expression of simple labor force4 ,very many labor products require the expenditure of more or less time1 money1 trouble1 and acquired skill or knowledge4 ,do these kinds of compound labor show at the same period of time the same commodity values as simple labor1 are they the expression of merely simple labor force8 ,evidently not4 ,the product of an hour of compound labor is a commodity of higher1 double or three times the value of a product of an hour of simple labor4 ,the value of the product of compound labor can in this comparison be expressed through the measure of simple labor2 and this reduction of compound labor is carried on by means of a social progress behind the back of the producer1 by means of which can here be established according to the theory of value but not explained4 ,the thing which ,marx states here is a simple fact which happens every day before our eyes in the present capitalistic society4 7,after some invective and satire hurled at ,duehring ,engels proceeds37 ,let us examine with regard to equality of value a little more closely4 ,all labor time is of equal value1 that of the barrow pusher and that of the architect4 ,therefore labor time and consequently labor itself has a value4 ,but labor is the creator of all values4 ,it is the only thing which gives the original products of nature a value in the economic sense4 ,value in itself is nothing but the expression in a given object of necessary1 social1 human labor4 ,one might just as well speak of and fix a value to labor as speak of the value of value1 of the weight1 not of a specific body1 but of gravity itself4 ,herr ,duehring calls people like ,owen1 ,st4 ,simon and ,fourier1 social alchemists4 ,when he invents a value for labor time1 that is for labor1 he shows that he is far below these same alchemists4 ,for ,socialism1 which will emancipate human labor force from its place as a commodity1 the understanding that labor has no value and can have none is a matter of the greatest importance4 ,with an understanding of it1 all attempts made by ,herr ,duehring by means of his crude worker-socialism 7,arbeitersozialismus7 to regulate the division of the means of existence1 as a kind of higher wages1 fall to the ground4 ,from it there follows the broader view1 since it is controlled by purely economic motives1 that distribution regulates itself in the interests of production1 and production is advanced in the greatest degree by a method of distribution which permits all the social departments to develop1 maintain1 and express their capacities to the fullest possible extent4 ,to the ideas of the intellectuals which have come into ,herr ,duehring's possession1 it must always seem to be an enormity that it will abolish barrow pushing and architecture simultaneously as professions1 and that the man who has given half an hour to architecture will also push the cart a little until his work as architect is again in demand4 ,it would be a pretty sort of socialism which perpetuated the business of barrow-pushing4 ,if the equality of value of labor time has the significance that workers produce equal products in equal periods of time it is evidently false1 unless an average is first taken4 ,of two workmen at the same branch of industry the value of the product of their labor time will differ according to the intensity of labor and their respective ability4 ,no scheme of economic equality1 at least on our planet1 can remedy this unfortunate state of affairs4 ,what then is left of the equality of all and every sort of labor8 ,nothing but high sounding phrases which have no economic value1 nothing but the evident inability of ,herr ,duehring to distinguish between the fixing of value by labor and the fixing of value by the wages of labor1 only the ukase1 which is the foundation of the new social economy1 that wages shall be equal for equal amounts of labor time4 ,really the old ,french communists and ,weitling had much better grounds for their equality of wages theories4 ,how then do we solve the whole weighty question of the higher wages of compound labor8 ,in a society of private producers1 private individuals or their families have to bear the cost of creating intellectual workers4 ,an intellectual slave always commanded a better price1 an intellectual wage worker gets higher wages4 ,in an organized socialist society1 society bears the cost and to it therefore belong the fruits1 the greater value produced by intellectual labor4 ,the laborer himself has no further claim4 ,whence it follows that there are many difficulties connected with the beloved claim of the worker for the full product of his toil4 ,,vii4 ,capital and ,surplus ,value4 7,marx does not have the usual economic idea of capital that it is means of production already produced1 but he seeks to endow it with a special dialectic history in the metamorphosis of a historical idea4 ,capital is expressed in gold1 it creates an historical period which has its beginning in the sixteenth century and the establishment of a world-market4 ,any keen economic analysis is impossible with such a notion4 ,such barren conceptions which are half historical and half logical destroys the possibility of any proper discrimination with respect to the matter4 ,these remarks of ,duehring are answered as follows by ,engels37 ,according to ,marx1 then1 capital manifested itself as gold at the beginning of the sixteenth century4 ,it is just as if anybody were to say that specie had expressed itself as cattle for three thousand years1 because formerly cattle had performed the gold functions along with others4 ,only ,herr ,duehring could be guilty of such a crude and distorted expression4 ,marx in his analysis of the economic forms in which the process of the circulation of commodities takes places simply declares gold to be the last form4 ,this last product of the circulation of commodities is the form in which capital first appears4 ,historically capital comes with the possession of property in the form of money1 as hoards of money1 merchant-capital1 and usury-capital4444 ,this history is going on every day before our eyes4 ,new capital comes on the scene1 that is the market1--the market for commodities1 the labor market or the money market1 simply as money1 money which is transformed into capital by a definite process4 ,again ,marx states the fact4 ,it is useless for you to struggle against it1 ,herr ,duehring1 ,capital must express itself in gold4 ,marx further examines the process by which money is transformed into capital and discovers that the form in which money circulates as capital is the inversion of the form in which it circulates as the universal equivalent4 ,the individual owner of commodities sells to buy1 he sells what he does not need1 and buys with the money thus obtained what he does need4 ,the budding capitalist buys on the contrary what he does not want himself1 he buys to sell1 and to sell for a higher money value than he put into the business1 he makes a money profit1 and this profit ,marx calls surplus value4 ,what is the origin of this surplus value8 ,either the buyer buys goods below their value or the seller sells them above their value4 ,in both cases gain and loss would balance one another1 since every buyer is also a seller4 ,it can also not arise from extortion1 for extortion might enrich one at the expense of the other but it could not increase the total sum of money neither could it increase the amount of commodities in circulation4 ,the entire capitalist class of a country cannot overreach itself4 ,now1 we find that the totality of the capitalist class in every country grows richer before our very eyes1 by the process of selling dearer than it bought1 by appropriating surplus value4 ,so we are just at the beginning of the discussion4 ,where does this surplus value come from8 ,this question has to be answered on purely economic grounds to the exclusion of all cheating1 and all invasion of force4 ,how is it possible to keep selling dearer than one buys under the assumption that equal values are always exchanged for equal values8 ,the solution of this problem is the crowning glory of the work of ,marx4 ,he sheds clear daylight in economic places where the earlier socialists no less than the bourgeois economists have groped in utter darkness4 ,from his work dates the origin of scientific socialism4 ,the solution is as follows4 ,the power of increase in money which is transformed into capital cannot proceed from the money neither does it depend upon trade1 since the money only realizes the price of the commodities and this price is1 since we hold that only equal values are exchanged1 no different from its value4 ,on the same grounds the power of increase cannot come from the exchange of commodities4 ,the change therefore depends upon the commodities which are exchanged1 but not upon their value1 since they are bought and sold at their value4 ,it arises from their consumption-value as such2 that is the change must arise out of the consumption of commodities4 ,in order for a commodity to derive value from consumption our possessor of money must be fortunate enough to discover a commodity whose use-value has the peculiar property of being a source of value1 whose consumption would imply the expenditure of labor and thus be value-producing4 ,and the possessor of money finds such a specific commodity on the market in the shape of labor-power4 ,if1 as we have seen1 labor has no value this is by no means the case with labor-force4 ,this has a value1 as it is a commodity1 and1 as a matter of fact1 it is a commodity to-day and this value is fixed like that of every other commodity by the amount of labor time necessary for the production and reproduction of this specific commodity4 ,it is fixed by the labor time which is necessary for the procuring of the means of livelihood required to maintain the laborer in a condition to continue laboring and reproduce his kind4 ,let us suppose that these means of livelihood represent1 taking one day with another1 six hours labor-time a day4 ,our budding capitalist who buys labor force for his business1 that is hires a laborer1 pays this laborer the full daily value of his labor force1 if he pays him a sum of money which represents six hours of labor4 ,if the laborer has only expended six hours in the service of the capitalist he has got the full return of his expenditure1 the day's value of his labor-force has been paid4 ,but money could not be transformed into capital in this fashion1 it would have produced no surplus value4 ,the buyer of labor-power has quite another view of the nature of his business4 ,since only six hours' work is necessary to maintain the laborer for twenty-four hours1 it does not follow that the laborer cannot work twelve hours out of the twenty-four4 ,the value of labor force and its realization in the labor-process are two different magnitudes4 ,the owner of money pays out a day's value of labor-force but there belongs to him its use for the day1 the whole day's labor4 ,that the value which it produces in the course of a day is double its own value for the day is fortunate for the buyer but according to the laws of exchange no injustice to the seller4 ,the laborer then costs the owner of money according to our calculation the value product of six hours' labor1 but he gives him daily the value product of twelve hours' labor4 ,the difference to the credit of the owner of the money is six hours' unpaid extra labor1 an unpaid for surplus product1 in which the labor of six hours is incorporated4 ,the trick is done4 ,surplus value is produced1 money is transformed into capital4 ,while ,marx1 in this way1 proved how surplus value exists and the only possible way in which it can exist1 under the laws which regulate the exchange of commodities he also exposed the present capitalistic methods of production and the methods of appropriation resting upon them and unveiled the secret upon which the whole arrangement of the society of to-day depends4 ,there is a necessary presupposition to this origin and birth of capital4 ,for the transformation of money into capital the money owner must first find free laborers in the market1 free in the double sense that as a free person the laborer can use his labor power as a commodity1 that he has no other wares to sell1 that he is unemployed and that he is free of everything necessary to the realisation of his labor power4 ,but this condition of a possessor of money or commodities on the one hand1 and1 on the other1 of the possessor of nothing1 except his own labor force1 is no natural condition of affairs nor is it common to all periods of history2 it is clearly the result of a historical development1 the product of a whole series of older forms of social production4 ,and this free laborer first strikes our notice as a historical phenomenon at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century as a result of the dissolution of feudal society4 ,thereupon with the creation of the world trade and the world market which dates from the same period the foundation was laid for the mass of moveable wealth to become more and more transformed into capital and for the capitalistic system1 directed more and more to the production of surplus value1 to become the dominant system4 ,,viii4 ,capital and ,surplus ,value 7,conclusion74 7,duehring having said that the term surplus value merely signifies in ordinary language1 rent1 profit and interest1 ,engels still further explains7 ,we have already seen that ,marx does not say that the surplus product of the industrial capitalist1 of which he is the first owner1 is always exchanged for its value1 as ,herr ,duehring points out4 ,marx plainly says that trade profit only constitutes a portion of the surplus value and under the foregoing conditions this is only possible if the factory proprietor sells his product under value to the trader and thus parts with a portion of the booty4 ,marx' contention rationally put is ,how is surplus value transformed into its subordinate forms1 profit1 interest1 trade-profits1 ground rents etc48 and this question ,marx undertakes to answer in the third volume of ,capital4 ,but since ,herr ,duehring cannot wait long enough for the second volume to appear he has in the meantime to take a close look at the first volume4 ,he thereupon reads that the immanent laws of capitalistic production1 the course of the development of capitalism1 realise themselves as the necessary laws of competition and thus are brought to the consciousness of the individual capitalists as dominant motives4 ,that therefore a scientific analysis of competition is only possible when the real nature of capital is grasped1 just as the apparent movement of heavenly bodies can only be understood by apprehending their real movement1 and not merely those movements which are perceptible to the senses4 ,so ,marx shows how a certain law1 the law of value1 appears under given conditions in the competitive system and makes evident its impelling force4 ,herr ,duehring might have understood that competition plays an important role in the distribution of surplus values1 and1 after sufficient thought1 might have grasped at least the outlines of the transformation of surplus value into its subordinate forms from the examples given in the first volume4 ,herr ,duehring finds competition to be the stumbling block in the way of his comprehension4 ,he cannot understand how competing entrepreneurs can manage to sell the entire product of labor including the surplus product for so much more than the natural cost of production4 ,here again that force of his which1 in his estimation1 is the very evil thing1 comes into play4 ,according to ,marx1 the surplus product does not have any cost of production1 it is the part of the product which costs the capitalist nothing4 ,if the entrepreneurs were to sell the surplus product at its real cost of production they would have to give it away4 ,is it not a fact that the competing entrepreneurs really sell the product of labor every day at its natural cost of production8 ,according to ,herr ,duehring the cost of production consists in the expenditure of labor or force and therefore in the last analysis must be measured by cost of maintenance1 and therefore1 in present day society1 is to be estimated at the cost of the raw material1 instruments of labor and actual wages paid in distinction to taxation1 profit and compulsory raising of prices4 ,it is well recognised that in modern society the competing entrepreneurs do not sell their wares at the natural cost of production but calculate on a profit and generally get it4 ,this question which ,herr ,duehring fancies will level the walls of ,marxism as the blast of ,joshua did those of ,jericho is a question which the economic doctrines of ,duehring have to meet also4 ,capitalistic property1 he says1 has no practical value and only realises itself because it implies the exercise of indirect power over man4 ,the testimony to the existence of this force is capitalistic profit1 and the amount of this latter depends upon the extent and intensity of the power of 'force4'444 ,capitalistic profit is a political and social institution which manifests itself very strongly as competition4 ,the entrepreneurs take their stand on this relation and each one of them maintains his position4 ,a certain amount of profit is a necessity of the dominant economic condition4 ,we know quite well that the entrepreneurs are in a position to sell the products of labor at a cost above the natural cost of production4 ,surely ,herr ,duehring does not think so meanly of his public as to hold the position that profit on capital stands above competition as the ,king of ,prussia used to stand above the law4 ,the proceeding by which the ,king of ,prussia reached his position of superiority to the law we all know1 the methods by which profit has come to be mightier than competition is just what ,herr ,duehring has to explain and what he stubbornly refuses to explain4 ,it is no argument when he says that the entrepreneurs trade from this position and each one of them maintains his own place4 ,if we take him at his word1 how is it possible for a number of people each to be able to trade only on certain terms and yet each one of them to keep his position8 ,the gildmen of the ,middle ,ages and the ,french nobility of #aghi operated from a decidedly superior position1 and yet they came to grief4 ,the ,prussian army at ,jena occupied an advantageous position and yet it had to abandon it and surrender piecemeal4 ,it is not enough to tell us that a certain measure of profit is a necessary concomitant of domination in the economic sphere1 it is necessary to tell us why4 ,we do not get a step further by the statement of ,duehring4 ,capitalistic superiority is inseparable from landlordism4 ,a portion of the peasantry is transformed in the cities into factory hands and in the final analysis into factory material4 ,profit appears as another form of rent4 ,this is a mere assertion and only repeats what should have been explained and proved4 ,we can come to no other conclusion1 then1 except that ,herr ,duehring does not like to tackle the answer to his own question how the capitalists are in a position to sell products of labor for more than the natural cost of production1 in short ,herr ,duehring shirks an explanation of profit4 ,he takes the only path open to him1 a short cut1 and simply declares that profit is the product of force4 ,this has been stated by ,herr ,duehring in his economic theory under the statement force distributes4 ,that is all very well2 but the question still persists what does force distribute8 ,there must be something to distribute otherwise force cannot distribute it4 ,the profit which the competing capitalists pocket is something actual and tangible4 ,force may take but it cannot create4 ,and if ,herr ,duehring still obstinately persists in his statement that force takes the profits for the entrepreneurs he is as silent as the grave as to whence it takes it4 ,where there is nothing the ,kaiser1 as all other force1 ceases to operate4 ,from nothing comes nothing1 particularly nothing in the shape of profits4 ,if capitalistic private property has not practical actuality1 and cannot realize itself1 except by the exercise of indirect force over men1 the question still persists1 in the first place1 how did the capitalist government come into possession of this force and in the second place how has this force been transformed into profits1 and in the third place where does it get these profits8 7,the remainder of this section is merely further elaboration of this idea with more caustic satire at the expense of the antagonist of ,engels47 ,,ix4 ,natural ,economic ,laws--,ground ,rent4 7,in this chapter ,engels proceeds to examine what ,herr ,duehring called the fundamental laws of his theory of economic science47 ,,law ,,no4 ,i4 ,the productivity of economic instruments1 natural resources and human force are capable of being increased by invention and discovery4 ,we are amazed4 ,herr ,duehring treats us like that joke of ,moliere on the parvenu who was informed that he had talked prose all his life without being aware of it4 ,that inventions and discoveries increase the productive force of labor in many cases 7but in many cases not1 as the patent records everywhere show7 we have been for a long time aware4 ,,law ,,no4 ,,ii4 ,division of ,labor4 ,the formation of branches of work and the splitting up of activities increases the productivity of labor4 ,as far as this is true it is a mere commonplace since the time of ,adam ,smith4 ,how far it is true will appear in the third division of this work4 ,,law ,,no4 ,,iii4 ,distance and transportation are the most important causes of the advance or hindrance of the organization of productive forces4 ,,law ,,no4 ,,iv4 ,the industrial state has incomparably greater capacity for population than the agricultural state4 ,,law ,,no4 ,v4 ,in economics only material interests count4 ,these are the natural laws on which ,herr ,duehring founds his new economics4 ,he remains true to his philosophic methods4 7,hereupon ,engels proceeds to the discussion of ,duehring's opinions on ground-rent47 ,herr ,duehring defines ground-rent as that income which the landowner as such derives from ground and land4 ,the economic idea of ground-rent1 which ,herr ,duehring undertakes to explain to us1 is transformed right away into the juristic concept so that we are no further than at first4 ,he compares the leasing of a piece of land with the loan of capital to an entrepreneur but finds1 as is so often the case1 that the comparison will not hold4 ,then he says to pursue the analogy the profit which remains to the lessee after the payment of ground-rent1 answers to that portion of the profit on capital which remains to the entrepreneur who operates with borrowed capital after the interest on the borrowed capital has been paid4 7,to these arguments ,engels replies37 ,the theory of ground-rent is a special ,english economic matter1 and this of necessity because only in ,england does a mode of production exist by which rent is separated from profit and interest4 ,in ,england there prevail the greater landlordism and the greater agriculture4 ,the individual landlords lease their lands in great farms to lessees who are able to cultivate them in a capitalistic fashion and do not1 like our peasants1 work with their own hands1 but employ laborers just like capitalistic entrepreneurs4 ,we have here then the three classes of bourgeois society1 and the income which each receives--the private landlord in the form of ground-rent1 the capitalist in that of profit and the laborer in the form of wages4 ,no ,english economist has ever regarded the profit of the lessee as ,herr ,duehring does and still less would he have to explain that the profit of the lessee is what it indubitably is1 profit on capital4 ,in ,england there is no use to discuss this question for the question as well as its answer are obvious from the facts and1 since the time of ,adam ,smith1 there has been no doubt at all about it4 ,the case in which the lessee cultivates his own land1 as the rule in ,germany1 for the profit of the ground landlord does not make any difference in this respect4 ,if the landlord cultivates the land for his own profit and furnishes the capital he puts the profit on capital in his pocket as well as the ground-rent for it cannot be otherwise under existing conditions4 ,and if ,herr ,duehring thinks that rent is something different when the lessee cultivates the land for himself it is not so and only shows his ignorance of the matter4 ,for example3-- ,the revenue derived from labor is called wages2 that derived from stock by the person who manages or employs it is called profit4 ,the revenue which proceeds from land is called rent and belongs altogether to the landlord4 ,the revenue of the farmer is derived partly from his labor and partly from his stock4444 ,when those three different sorts of labor belong to different persons they are readily distinguished1 but when they belong to the same they are sometimes confounded with one another at least in common language4 ,a gentleman who farms part of his own estate1 after paying the expenses of cultivation1 should gain both the rent of the landlord and the profit of the farmer4 ,he is apt to denominate1 however1 his whole gain1 profit1 and thus confounds rent with profit1 at least in common language4 ,the greater part of our ,north ,american and ,west ,indian planters are in this situation4 ,they farm1 the greater part of them1 their own estates1 and accordingly we seldom hear of the rent of a plantation but frequently of its profit4444 ,a gardener who cultivates his own garden with his own hands1 unites in his own person the three different characters of landlord1 farmer1 and laborer4 ,his produce1 therefore1 should pay him the rent of the first1 the profit of the second and the wages of the third4 ,the whole1 however1 is commonly considered as the wages of his labor4 ,both rent and profit are in this case confounded with wages4 ,this passage is in the sixth chapter of the first book of ,adam ,smith4 ,the case of the landholder who tills his own land has been examined a hundred years ago and the doubts which perplex ,herr ,duehring so much are caused entirely by his own ignorance4 ,x4 ,with ,respect to the ,critical ,history4 ,this which is the concluding portion of the ,second ,division of the work and which deals with ,herr ,duehring's estimates of economic writers is omitted as being of too limited and polemic a character for general interest4 ,,part ,,iii ,,chapter ,,ix ,,socialism ,the first two chapters of this ,division1 which deal respectively with the historical and the theoretical sides of ,socialism1 are omitted4 ,they have been already translated4 ,the well known pamphlet ,socialism1 ,utopian and ,scientific contains both of them4 ,the second has also been translated by ,r4,c4,k4 ,ensor and published in his ,modern ,socialism4 ,production4 ,for him 7,herr ,duehring7 socialism is by no means a necessary product of economic development1 and1 still less1 a development of the purely economic conditions of the present day4 ,he knows better than that4 ,his socialism is a final truth of the last instance1 it is the natural system of society4 ,he finds its root in a universal system of justice4 ,and if he cannot take notice of the existing conditions which are the product of the sinful history of man up to the present time in order to improve them that is so much the worse1 we must look upon it as a misfortune for the true principles of justice4 ,herr ,duehring forms his socialism as he does everything else on the basis of his two famous men4 ,instead of these two marionnetes1 as heretofore1 playing the game of lord and slave they are converted to that of equality and justice and the ,duehring socialism is already founded4 ,clearly in the view of ,herr ,duehring the periodic industrial crises have by no means the same significance as we must attribute to them4 ,according to ,herr ,duehring they are only occasional departures from normality and furnish a splendid motive for the institution of a properly regulated system4 7,duehring attributes crises to underconsumption2 to which ,engels replies37 ,it is unfortunately true that the underconsumption of the masses and the limitation of the expenditures of the great majority to the necessities of life and the reproduction thereof is not by any means a new phenomenon4 ,it has existed as long as the appropriating and the plundered classes have existed4 ,even in those historic periods where the condition of the masses was exceptionally prosperous1 as in ,england in the fifteenth century1 there was underconsumption2 men were very far from having their entire yearly product at their own disposal4 ,although underconsumption has been a constant historical phenomenon for a thousand years1 the general break down in trade1 due to overproduction1 has appeared1 for the first time1 within the last fifteen years4 ,yet the vulgar political economy of ,herr ,duehring attempts to explain the new phenomenon1 not by means of the new factor of overproduction1 but by means of the exceedingly old factor of underconsumption4 ,it is just as if one were to try and explain a change in the relation of two mathematical quantities1 one of which is constant and the other variable1 not from the fact that the variable quantity has varied1 but that the constant has remained constant4 ,the underconsumption of the masses is a necessary condition of all forms of society in which robbers and robbed exist1 and therefore of the capitalist system4 ,but it is the capitalist system which first brings about the economic crisis4 ,underconsumption is a prerequisite of crises and plays a very conspicuous role in them1 but it has no more to do with the economic crisis of the present day than it had with the former absence of such crises4 99 99 99 99 99 ,in every society in which production has developed naturally1 to which class that of to-day belongs1 the producers do not master the means of production but the means of production dominate the producers4 ,in such a society every new leverage of production is converted into a new means of subduing the producers beneath the means of production4 ,this was the cause of that instrument of production1 the mightiest up to the time of the introduction of the greater industry1 the division of labor4 ,the first great division of labor1 the separation of the city and country1 doomed the inhabitants of the rural districts to a thousand years of stupidity and the people of the towns to be the slaves of their own handiwork4 ,it denied the chance of intellectual development to the one and of physical development to the other4 ,if the peasant had his land and the town dweller his handiwork1 it is just as true to say that the land had the peasant and the handiwork the townsman4 ,as far as there was a division of labor there was also a division of man4 ,the rise of one single fact slaughtered all former intellectual and bodily capacities4 ,this annexation of man grew in proportion as the division of labor developed and reached its culmination in manufacture4 ,manufacture distributes production into its separate operations1 makes one of these operations the function of the individual worker1 and imprisons the worker for his whole life to a given function and to a given tool4 ,it forces the workingman to become an abnormality1 since it makes him concentrate his efforts on detail at the expense of the sacrifice of a world of forces and capacities4444 ,the individual himself becomes subdivided1 he is transformed into the automatic tool of the division of labor 7,marx74 ,this tool in many cases finds its perfection in the literal crippling of the worker1 body and soul4 ,the machinery of the greater industry degrades the workingman from a machine to being the mere appendage of a machine4 ,from the lifelong specialization of looking after a machine there comes the lifelong specialization of serving a part of a machine4 ,the abuse of machinery transforms the worker from childhood into a portion of a part of a machine 7,marx74 ,and not only the workingman but the classes which indirectly or directly plunder the workingman are also themselves involved in the division of labor and become the slaves of their own tools4 ,the spiritually-barren bourgeois is the slave of his own capital and his own profit-getting1 the jurist is dominated by his ossified notions of justice which rule him as a self-contained force2 the refined classes are dominated by the local limitations and prejudices1 by their own physical and spiritual astigmatism1 by their specialised education and their lifelong bondage to this specialty1 even though the specialty be doing nothing4 ,the ,utopists were thoroughly aware of the effects of the division of labor1 of the effect on the one hand of crippling the worker and on the other of crippling the work1 the unavoidable result of the lifelong1 monotonous repetition of one and the same act4 ,the rise of the antagonism between town and country was regarded by ,fourier as well as ,owen as the beginning of the rise of the old division of labor4 ,according to both of them the population should be divided into groups of from six hundred to three thousand each1 distributed over the country4 ,each group has an enormous house in the midst of its territory and the housekeeping is done in common4 ,fourier occasionally speaks of towns but these only consist of four or five of the big communal houses in close proximity to each other4 ,by both of them the work of society is divided into agriculture and industry4 ,according to ,fourier1 handwork and machine manufacture were both included in the latter while ,owen made the great industry play the most important part1 and the steam engine and machinery performed the work of the community4 ,but both in agriculture and manufacture the two writers named gave the greatest possible variety of occupation to individuals1 and accordingly the education of the young provided for the most universal technical training4 ,both of them think that there will be a universal development of the human race as a result of a universal practical participation in practical work1 and that work will recover its old attractiveness1 which has been lost as a result of the division of labor1 by virtue of this variety and the shortening of the time expended upon it4 99 99 99 99 99 ,just as far as society obtains the domination of the social means of production in order to organize them socially it abolishes the existing servitude of man to his own means of production4 ,society cannot be free without every member of society being free4 ,the old methods of production must be completely revolutionized and the old form of the division of labor must be done away with above all4 ,in its place an organization of production will have to be made in which1 on the one hand1 no single individual will be able to shift his share in productive labor1 in providing the essentials of human existence1 upon another1 and on the other hand productive labor instead of being a means of slavery will be a means towards human freedom1 in that it offers an opportunity to everyone to develop his full powers1 physical and intellectual1 in every direction and to exercise them so that it makes a pleasure out of a burden4 ,this is no longer at the present time a phantasy1 a pious wish4 ,owing to the present development of the powers of production1 production has proceeded far enough1 provided that society endows itself with the possession of the social forces and abolishes the checks and impediments1 as well as the waste of products and productive forces1 which springs from the capitalistic methods1 to make a general reduction of labor time1 to an amount1 small as compared with present day ideas4 ,the abolition of the old method of division of labor is not an advance which would not be possible except at the expense of the productivity of labor1 quite otherwise4 ,it is a condition of production which has come about spontaneously through the great industry4 ,the machine industry does away with the necessity of constantly distributing groups of workmen at the different machines by keeping the worker constantly at the same task4 ,since the total product of the factory1 proceeds not from the worker but from the machine1 a continual changing about of individuals could not exist1 without an interruption of the labor-process4 ,finally the speed with which work at the machine is learnt even by children does away with the necessity of training a distinct class of workmen exclusively as machine laborers4 ,but while the capitalistic method of use of machinery does away with the old limited particularity of labor1 and1 in spite of the fact1 that technique is rendered superfluous1 machinery itself rebels against the anachronism4 ,the technical basis of the greater industry is revolutionary4 ,through machinery1 chemical processes and other methods1 the functions of the working class and the social labor process are revolutionized along with the technical basis of production4 ,the division of labor is also revolutionized and masses of capital and labor are hurled incontinently from one branch of industry to another4 ,the nature of the greater industry demands mobility of labor1 a fluidity of functions and a complete adaptibility on the part of the laborers4 ,we have seen how this absolute contradiction shows itself in the continual sacrifice of the working class1 the most complete waste of labor force1 and the dominance of social anarchy4 ,but if the mobility of labor now appears to be a law of nature beyond human control which realizes itself1 in spite of all obstacles1 it also becomes a matter of life and death for the greater industry1 owing to its catastrophic character1 to recognise the mobility of labor and hence the greatest possible adaptibility of the working class1 as a universal law of social production1 and to accommodate circumstances to its normal development4 ,it becomes a question of life and death for the greater industry to keep an enormous number of people on the edge of starvation always in reserve1 in order that they may be able to be placed at the disposal of the needs of capital as these vary4 ,while the greater industry has taught us how to transform molecular movement into mass movement in order to fulfill technical needs1 it has1 in the same measure1 freed industrial production from local limits4 ,water power was local1 steam power is free4 ,if water power belongs to the country1 steam power is by no means limited to the town4 ,it is capitalistic practice which causes concentration into cities and which makes manufacturing towns of manufacturing villages4 ,but thereby at the same time it undermines the essentials of its own motive force4 ,the first requisite of the steam engine and a prime requisite of all branches of motive power is a sufficient quantity of pure water4 ,the factory town transforms all water into evil smelling sewage4 ,therefore1 in proportion as the concentration into cities is the foundation of capitalistic production1 each individual capitalist tries to get away from the towns which have been necessarily produced to the motive forces of the country4 ,this process may be individually observed in the textile districts of ,lancashire and ,yorkshire4 ,the greater industry creates new towns in the course of its progress from the town to the country4 ,the same phenomenon was to be observed in the districts of the metal industry where somewhat different causes produce identical results4 ,the capitalistic character of the greater industry is responsible for this aimless blundering and these new contradictions4 ,only a society which organizes its industrial forces according to a single great harmonious plan1 can permit industry to settle itself in such a manner throughout the land as to secure its own development and the retention and development of the most important elements of production4 ,the abolition of the antagonism between town and country is now not only possible1 it has become an absolute necessity for industrial production itself4 ,it has also become a necessity for agricultural production1 and is1 above all1 essential to the maintenance of the public health4 ,only through the amalgamation of city and country can the present poisoning of air1 water1 and localities1 be put at an end and the waste filth of the cities be used for the cultivation of vegetation rather than the spreading of disease4 ,the capitalistic industry has made itself relatively independent of local limitations for its raw materials4 ,the textile industry works with imported raw materials for the most part4 ,spanish iron ores are worked up in ,england and ,germany1 and ,south ,american copper ores in ,england4 ,every coal field supplies a yearly increasing number of places beyond its own confines4 ,the whole coast of ,europe has steam engines driven by ,english and1 occasionally ,german and ,belgian1 coal4 ,a society freed from the limits of capitalistic production could make still further advances4 ,while it makes a sort of all round skilled producers1 who are acquainted with the scientific requirements of general industrial production1 and by whom every new succession of branches of production is completely developed from beginning to end1 it creates a new productive force which undertakes the transportation of a superabundance of raw material or fuel4 ,the abolition of the separation between town and country is no ,utopia1 it is an essential condition of the proportionate distribution of the greater industry throughout the country4 ,civilization has left us a number of large cities1 as an inheritance1 which it will take much time and trouble to abolish4 ,but they must and will be done away with1 however much time and trouble it may take4 ,whatever fate may be in store for the ,german nation1 ,bismarck may have the proud consciousness that his dearest wish1 the downfall of the great city1 will be fulfilled4 ,and now we can see the childishness of ,herr ,duehring's notion that society can obtain possession of the means of production without revolutionizing the old methods of production from the ground up and above all doing away with the old form of the division of labor4 99 99 99 99 99 ,it is easy to see that the revolutionary elements which will abolish the old division of labor together with the separation of town and country and will revolutionize production as a whole are already in embryo in the methods of production of the modern great industry and their unfolding is only hindered by the capitalistic methods of production of to-day4 ,but to see all this1 it is necessary to have a broader outlook than the mere limitations of the ,prussian ,code1 the country where schnapps and beet sugar are the staple industries1 and you have to study industrial crises by way of the book-trade4 7,this is a sneer at one of ,duehring's illustrations3 ,ed47 ,one has to understand the history and the present manifestations of the greater industry particularly in that land where it has its home and where it has had its classic development4 ,it must not be imagined that modern scientific socialism can be done away with by the specific ,prussian ,socialism of ,herr ,duehring4 ,distribution4 ,we have seen that ,duehring's economics depend upon the statement that the capitalistic method of production is good enough and can be kept up1 but that the capitalistic method of distribution is bad and must be done away with4 ,we now discover that the sociality of ,herr ,duehring is merely the imaginary putting into force of this statement4 ,in fact it appears that ,herr ,duehring has nothing to declare respecting the method of production as such in a capitalistic society1 and that he will maintain the old division of labor in all its essential features4 ,so he has hardly a word to say about production in his social state4 ,production is too dangerous a ground for him to tread on4 ,on the other hand1 in his estimation1 distribution is not bound up with production but can be settled by an act of the will4 99 99 99 99 99 ,let us consider all the ideas of ,herr ,duehring as realized4 ,let us then assume that the society pays each of its members for his work a sum in gold in which are incorporated six hours of labor1 say twelve marks4 ,let us now imagine that prices and values are in full accord1 so that under our hypothesis only the cost of raw materials1 the wear and tear of machinery1 the use of tools and wages are comprehended4 ,a society then of a hundred working members produces daily goods of the value of #abjj marks1 and in a year of three hundred working days three hundred and sixty thousand marks and expends the entire amount on its working members and thus each member has his share of three thousand six hundred marks a year4 ,at the end of the year and at the end of a hundred years the society is no better off than it was at the beginning4 ,accumulation is entirely overlooked4 ,worse than that1 since accumulation is a social necessity and the hoarding of gold is an elementary form of accumulation1 the organization of a society on this basis will necessitate private accumulation on the part of its members and consequently the destruction of the society4 ,how can this difficulty with respect to the economic society be overcome8 ,refuge might be taken in a forcible raising of proceeds and the produce of the society sold at four hundred and eighty thousand marks instead of for three hundred and sixty thousand4 ,but all other economic societies would be in the same fix and each would have to make it out of the other with the result that they would only be extorting tribute from their own members4 ,or it might find an easy way out by paying for six hours work less than the product of six hours work1 eight marks a day instead of twelve1 prices remaining the same4 ,it accomplishes in this way plainly and openly what formerly it did secretly1 it adopts the ,marx surplus value notion to the amount of one hundred and twenty thousand marks a year1 since it pays the members under the value of their work and reckons the goods which they are only able to buy by its means at their full value4 ,his economic society therefore can only get a reserve fund by adopting the truck system4 ,therefore one of two things is certain1 either the economic society practices equal work for equal work and then it can get no funds for the maintenance and development of industry except through private sources1 or it does create such a fund and ceases to practice equal work for equal work4 ,this is the fact about the exchange in the economic society1 but what about the form of it8 ,according to ,herr ,duehring in his economic society money does not function as money between the members of the society4 ,it serves merely as a labor certificate2 it corresponds with the expression of ,marx only the share of the individual of the common labor1 and his individual claim to the consumption of a certain portion of the common product and in this function1 says ,herr ,duehring1 it is just as little money as a theater ticket4 ,in short it functions in exchange like ,owens labor-time money4 ,as far as the mere calculating between amount due for production and the amount to be expended in consumption of the individual member of the society is concerned1 paper markers or gold would serve the purpose equally well4 ,but it would not do for other purposes as will appear4 ,if the specie does not function as money among the members of a given society1 but as a mark of labor1 it functions still less as money in the exchange between different economic societies4 ,according to the theory of ,herr ,duehring1 therefore1 specie as money is entirely superfluous4 ,in fact it would be mere bookkeeping to set off the products of equal labor against the products of equal labor1 according to the natural measure of labor-time1 taking the labor-hour as a unit--if the labor hours are first translated into terms of money4 ,exchange is in reality only simple exchange2 all surpluses are easily and simply equalized by means of bills of exchange on other societies4 ,but when one community has a deficit in its dealings with another community it can only make it up by increasing its labor output1 if it is not to suffer disgrace in the eyes of other communities4 ,the reader will notice here that this is no attempt at social reconstruction4 ,we are simply taking the notions of ,herr ,duehring and showing their unavoidable conclusions4 ,therefore neither in exchange among the individual members of a society nor in exchange between different economic societies can gold realize itself as money4 ,yet ,herr ,duehring says that the function of money is carried out even in his sociality4 ,we must therefore discover another field of activity for this money function4 ,herr ,duehring predicates a quantitatively equal consumption4 ,but he cannot compel that4 ,on the other hand1 he prides himself that in his community one can do with his money as he will4 ,he cannot prevent one man1 therefore1 from saving money and another from not making his wages sufficient4 ,this is indisputable1 for he recognises the common property of the family in inheritance and talks about the duty of parents to provide for their children4 ,thereby his quantitatively equal consumption comes a cropper4 ,the young unmarried man can get along splendidly on twelve marks a day1 but the widower with eight young children has a hard time of it4 ,on the other hand the community1 since it takes money in payment without ceremony1 lets money be acquired otherwise than by individual labor when the opportunity offers4 ,non olet4 ,it does not know whence it comes4 ,but now arises the chance for money which has up to now played the role of a standard of work performed to operate as real money4 ,the opportunities and the motives arise for saving money on the one hand and squandering it on the other4 ,the needy borrows from the saver4 ,the borrowed money taken by the community in payment for means of living becomes again1 what it is in present day society1 the social incarnation of human labor1 the real measure of labor1 the universal means of circulation4 ,all the laws in the world are powerless against it1 just as powerless as they are against the multiplication table or the chemical composition of water4 ,and the saver of money is in a position to demand interest so that specie functioning as money again becomes a breeder of interest4 ,so far as we have only dealt with the operation of specie inside of ,herr ,duehring's economic society4 ,but beyond the confines of that society the world goes peacefully along its old way4 ,gold and silver remain in the world-market1 as world money1 as the universal means of purchase and payment1 as the absolute social incorporation of wealth4 ,and in this ownership of the precious metals the individual societies find a new motive for saving1 for getting rich1 for increasing their supply1--the motive of becoming free and independent of the communities beyond their borders and of converting into money their piled up wealth in the world market4 ,the profit hunters transform themselves into traders in the means of circulation1 into bankers1 into controllers of the means of production1 though these may remain forever as the property of the economic and trading communities in name4 ,therewith the savers and profit mongers who have been converted into bankers become the lords of the economic and trading communes4 ,the sociality of ,herr ,duehring is very distinct from the cloudy ideas of the earlier socialists4 ,it has no other end than the resurrection of the high finance4 ,the only value with which political economy is acquainted is the value of commodities4 ,what are commodities8 ,products produced in a society composed of more or less separated private producers and therefore private products4 ,but these private products first become commodities when they are made not for private use but for the use of someone else1 that is for social use4 ,they are converted into objects of social use by means of exchange4 ,the private producers are therefore in a social relationship1 they constitute a society4 ,their private products1 while the private products of each individual1 are at the same time1 unconsciously and indeed involuntarily1 social products also4 ,wherein does the social character of these private products consist8 ,plainly in two properties1 in the first place because they satisfy human needs but have no use-value for the producers1 and in the second place that1 while they are the products of individual private producers1 they are at the same time plainly the products of human labor1 of human labor in general4 ,in so far as they have a use-value for other people they can be exchanged2 in so far as they all possess the common quality of human labor in general1 they can be mutually compared in exchange by means of this labor4 ,in two similar products under identical social conditions there may be unequal amounts of private labor1 but equal amounts of human labor in general4 ,an unskillful smith might take as long to make five horseshoes as it would take a skillful smith to make ten4 ,but society does not fix the price according to accidental lack of skill of the one1 it recognises only human labor in general1 the human labor of the ordinary normal skilled smith4 ,each of the five horseshoes then made by the first does not have any more value than each of the other ten which were made in the same time as the five4 ,only so far as is socially necessary does private labor comprehend human labor in general4 ,therefore ,i maintain that a commodity has a certain value1 #ast4 because it is a socially useful product1 #bnd4 because it is produced by a private individual for private profit1 #c;d4 because while it is a product of private labor1 it is1 at the same time1 unconsciously and involuntarily a social product and exchanges socially according to a definite social standard1 #dth4 this standard is not expressed in terms of labor1 in so many hours1 but in another commodity4 ,if1 therefore1 ,i say that this clock is worth this piece of cloth and that they are both worth fifty marks1 ,i say that in the clock1 the cloth and the gold there is an equal amount of social labor4 ,i also affirm that the amounts of social labor time in them are socially measured and found to be equal1 not directly and absolutely however1 as one measures labor time in hours or days1 but in a round about fashion1 relatively1 by means of exchange4 ,i cannot therefore express this certain amount of labor-time in labor hours1 since their number is not known to me1 but ,i can express it relatively in terms of another commodity1 which has the same amount of labor time incorporated in it4 ,the clock is worth as much as the piece of cloth4 ,but while the production of commodities and the exchange of commodities compel the society resting upon them to take this roundabout course1 they are impelled to a shortening of the process4 ,they separate from the mass of commodities one sovereign commodity1 in which the value of all other commodities can be universally expressed1 a commodity which is the complete incarnation of social labor1 and1 against which1 all other commodities may be set in direct comparison--gold4 ,gold already germinates in the idea of value1 it is only developed value4 ,but since the commodity value exists in gold also1 itself being a commodity1 a new factor arises in the society which produces and exchanges commodities1 a factor with new social functions and operations4 ,we can now examine this a little more closely4 ,the economy of the production of commodities is by no means the only science which has to reckon with relatively known factors4 ,even in physics1 we do not know how many single gas molecules there are in a given volume of gas1 pressure and temperature being given4 ,but we know1 as far as ,boyle's law is correct1 that a given volume of that gas has as many molecules as a similar volume of another selected gas at the same pressure and the same temperature4 ,we can therefore compare the different volumes of different gases with respect to their molecular content1 and1 if we take one litre of gas at #j deg4 ,fahrenheit as the unit we can refer the molecular content of each to this standard4 ,in chemistry the absolute atomic weights of separate elements is unknown to us4 ,but we know them relatively when we know their mutual conditions4 ,and just as the production of commodities and their economy has a relative expression for the unknown quantities of labor existing in commodities1 since it compares these commodities according to the relative amounts of labor which they contain1 so chemistry makes a relative expression for the amounts of atomic weights unknown to it1 since it compares the separate elements according to their atomic weights and expresses the weight of the one as multiples or factors of the other4 ,and just as the production of commodities elevates gold to the position of an absolute commodity1 to the universal equivalent for other commodities1 the measure of values1 so chemistry elevates hydrogen to the position of a chemical gold-commodity1 since it fixes the atomic weight of hydrogen at #a and reduces the atomic weights of all the other elements in terms of hydrogen and expresses them as multiples of its atomic weight4 ,the production of commodities is by no means the exclusive form of social production4 ,in the ancient ,indian communities and the family communities of the ,southern ,slavs products were not transformed into commodities4 ,the members of the community were directly engaged in social production1 the work was distributed as custom and circumstances required as were the products as they came into the realm of consumption4 ,direct social production and direct social consumption exclude all exchange of commodities and hence the transformation of products into commodities 7at least within the confines of the society7 and therewith their transformation into value4 ,as soon as society comes into direct possession of the means of production and undertakes production as a society1 the labor of each1 however distinctive its special useful character may be1 becomes direct social labor4 ,the amount of social labor existing in a product does not then have to be established in a roundabout way1 daily experience shows the average amount of human labor necessary4 ,society can easily determine how many hours of labor there are in a steam engine1 how many in a hectolitre of wheat of last harvest1 how many in a hundred square yards of cloth of a given quality4 ,it cannot therefore happen that the quantities of labor embodied in commodities1 which will then be absolutely and directly known1 will be expressed in terms of a measure which is only relative1 fluctuating1 inadequate and absolute1 in a third product1 and not in their natural1 adequate and absolute measure1 time4 ,this would not happen any more than in chemistry4 ,one would express the atomic weights indirectly by means of hydrogen if it were possible to express them absolutely in their adequate measure1 that is in real weight1 that is in billions or quadrillions of grammes4 ,under the foregoing conditions1 then1 society ascribes no value to products4 ,the simple fact that a hundred yards of cloth have taken a thousand hours in their production need not be expressed in any distorted or foolish fashion1 they would be worth a thousand labor hours4 ,society would then know how much labor each object of use required for its creation4 ,it would have to direct the plan of production in accordance with the means of production to which labor-force also belongs4 ,the advantageous effects of the different objects of use and their relations to each other and the creation of the necessary means of labor would be the sole determinants of the plan of production4 ,people make things very easily without any interference on the part of the much discussed value4 ,the value idea is the most universal and the most comprehensive expression of the economic conditions of the production of commodities4 ,in the idea of value there is not only the germ of gold but also of those more highly developed forms of commodity production and exchange4 ,since value is the expression of the social labor incorporated in individual products1 there lies the possibility of a difference between this and the individual labor embodied in the same product4 ,this difference becomes very apparent to a private producer who abides by an old fashioned method of production while the social method of production has taken a step forward4 ,it then appears that the sum of all the private manufacturers of a given commodity produce an amount in excess of the social needs4 ,then1 since the value of a commodity is expressed only in terms of other commodities and can only be realised in exchange with them1 the possibility arises that either exchange will cease or that the commodity will not realise its full value4 ,finally1 the specific commodity labor-force finds its value like that of other wares in the social labor time necessary for its production4 ,in the value form of the product there is already in embryo the entire capitalistic form of production1 the antagonism between the capitalists and the wage-workers1 the industrial reserve army1 the crisis4 ,the capitalistic system will be abolished by the restoration of true value 7just as ,catholicism will be abolished by the restoration of the true ,pope71 or by the restoration of a society in which the producer finally dominates his product1 by the doing away of an economic category which is the most comprehensive expression of the slavery of the producer to his own product4 ,when the society producing commodities has developed the inherent value form of the commodities1 as such1 to the gold-form1 various germs of value hitherto hidden thereupon begin to sprout4 ,the next substantial step is the generalising of commodity forms4 ,gold makes objects directly produced for use into commodities by driving them into exchange4 ,thereupon the commodity and the gold smite the community which is engaged in social production1 break one social tie after another and finally dissolve the society into a mass of private producers4 ,gold establishes1 as in ,india1 individual cultivation of the land in the place of communal cultivation1 then it destroys the system of regular distribution of communal lands among individuals and makes ownership final1 and lastly it leads to the division of the communal wood land4 ,whatever other causes arising from the industrial development may work along with it1 gold is always the most powerful instrument for the destruction of the communal society4 ,the ,state1 the ,family1 and ,education4 7,herr ,duehring says ,in the free society there will be no religion1 since1 in all its degrees1 it tends to destroy the originality of the child1 in that it places something above nature or behind it1 which may be affected by means of works or prayers also a properly constituted socialist state will do away with all the paraphernalia of spiritualistic magic1 and all the actual forms of religion4 ,engels proceeds--7 ,religion will be forbidden4 ,now1 religion is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men's minds of the external forces which dominate their every day existence1 a reflection in which earthly forces take the form of the super-natural4 ,in the beginning of history it is the forces of nature which first produce this reflection and in the course of development of different peoples give rise to manifold and various personification4 ,this first process is capable of being traced1 at least as far as the ,indo-,european peoples are concerned1 by comparative mythology1 to its source in the ,indian ,vedas and its advance can be shown among the ,indians1 ,greeks1 ,persian1 ,romans1 and ,germans1 and1 as far as the material is available1 also among the ,celts1 ,lithuanians1 and ,slavs4 ,but1 besides the forces of nature1 the social forces dominated men by their apparent necessity1 for these forces were1 in reality1 just as strange and unaccountable to men as were the forces of nature4 ,the imaginary forms in which1 at first1 only the secret forces of nature were reflected1 became possessed of social attributes1 became the representatives of historical forces4 ,by a still further development the natural and social attributes of a number of gods were transformed to one all-powerful god1 who is1 on his part1 only the reflection of man in the abstract4 ,so arose monotheism1 which was historically the latest product of the ,greek vulgar philosophy1 and found its impersonation in the ,hebrew exclusively national god1 ,jahve4 ,in this convenient1 handy and adaptible form religion can continue to exist as the direct1 that is1 the emotional form of the relations of man to the dominating outside1 natural1 and social forces1 as long as man is under the power of these forces4 ,but we have seen over and over again in modern bourgeois society that man is dominated by the conditions which he has himself created and that he is controlled by the same means of production which he himself has made4 ,the fundamental facts which give rise to the reflection by religion therefore still persist and with them the reflection persists also4 ,and just because bourgeois economy has a certain insight into the relations of the original causes of this phenomenon1 it does not alter it a particle4 ,bourgeois economy can neither prevent crises1 on the whole1 nor can it stop the greed of the individual capitalists1 their disgrace and bankruptcy1 nor can it prevent the individual laborers from suffering deprivation of employment and poverty4 ,man proposes and ,god 7to wit1 the outside force of the capitalistic method of production7 disposes4 ,mere knowledge even though it be broader and deeper than bourgeois economics is of no avail to upset the social forces of the master of society4 ,that is fundamentally a social act4 ,let us suppose that this act is accomplished and society in all its grades freed from the slavery to the means of production which it has made but which now dominate it as an outside force4 ,let us suppose that man no longer merely proposes but that he also disposes4 ,under such conditions the last vestiges of the external force which now dominates man are destroyed1 that force which is now reflected in religion4 ,therewith1 the religious reflection itself is destroyed owing to the simple fact that there is nothing more to reflect4 ,but ,herr ,duehring cannot wait until religion dies a natural death4 ,he treats it after a radical fashion4 ,he out ,bismarcks ,bismarck1 he makes severe ,may laws not only against ,catholicism but against all religion4 ,he sets his gendarmes of the future on religion and thereby gives it a longer lease of life by martyrdom4 ,wherever we look we find that ,duehring's socialism has the ,prussian brand4 ,after ,herr ,duehring has blithely got rid of religion he says ,man can now1 since he is dependent upon himself and nature alone1 intelligently direct the social forces in every way which open to him the course of things and his own existence4 ,let us look for a little while at that course of things to which the self-reliant human can give direction4 ,the first in the course of things by which man becomes self-reliant is being born4 ,then during the time of his immaturity his education is in the hands of his mother4 ,this period may1 as in the old ,roman law1 reach to the age of puberty1 that is to about fourteen years of age4 ,only where the older boys do not respect the authority of the mother does the father's assistance play a part and the public method of education robs this of all harm4 ,with puberty the boy comes under the natural care of his father1 where this is exercised in a truly fatherly manner1 in other cases society takes charge of his education4 ,as ,herr ,duehring has already maintained the position that it is possible to convert the capitalistic methods of production into social methods without disturbing the mode of production itself1 so he here seems to think that one can separate the modern bourgeois family from its entire economic foundations without any change in the whole form of the family4 ,this form is so permanent in his estimation that he thinks of the old ,roman jurisprudence1 in an improved form1 as the model of the family for ever1 and he does not conceive of the family otherwise than as a permanent unit4 ,the ,utopists have the superiority over ,herr ,duehring here4 ,in their estimation a really free mutual condition would arise in all the family relations as a result of the free association and the public ownership of the instruments of production together with the institution of a system of public education4 ,and ,marx has shown furthermore in his ,capital how the greater industry1 which takes widows1 young persons and children of both sexes from the home1 and employs them in organized social productive processes1 lays the foundation for a higher form of the family and better conditions for people of both sexes4 ,,landmarks ,,of ,,scientific ,,socialism ,,appendix ,the foregoing pages will have given the reader some idea of the infinite care which ,engels expended in order to keep abreast of the chief scientific discoveries of his times4 ,he was as painstaking as a genius4 ,on the other hand1 his modesty was almost absurd1 for he never ventured to claim anything for himself1 and such ability as was displayed in the laying of the economic political foundations of the socialist movement was invariably credited by him to the superior talent and comprehension of ,marx4 ,there is no question that the work constitutes a most effective reply to the arguments of ,duehring1 with whom1 poor fellow1 we need no longer trouble ourselves4 ,it constitutes1 moreover1 a very formidable answer to all those who seek for a justification of the socialist movement in those abstract conceptions which the average man finds it so hard to escape4 ,in fact1 so removed is the point of view of the writer of the foregoing pages from that of the man in the street that it is doubtful whether it is possible for more than a comparatively few students thoroughly to grasp the significance of the dialectic and to apply it in a satisfactory and effective fashion4 ,still1 there is no question that this understanding of the socialist movement1 as a movement1 is absolutely required of all who can be considered as taking an intelligent and useful attitude with regard to social and political questions4 ,the possession of this key gave the two founders of the modern socialist movement such a comprehension of the tendencies of modern civilization as enabled them to make those economic and political predictions which have been so completely fulfilled4 ,there is little need to call attention to the fact that much of ,engels' argument is now antiquated in face of the growth of science and the almost incredible development of mechanical invention and the material progress consequent upon it4 ,it could not have been otherwise4 ,the wonders of ,engels' day are the commonplaces of our existence4 ,the machines1 which he considered so wonderful and so change-compelling have already been scrapped for new machines of greater power and capacity for production4 ,the remark that the battleship had in his time arrived at a point where it was as expensive as it was unfit for fighting sounds almost ridiculous in face of the tremendous development of the engines of naval warfare since he wrote1 and the invention and use of the submarine4 ,still it must be remembered that there has been no really great test of ships of war since ,engels' day and that the expense of modern navies is worrying the governments to distraction4 ,only a few weeks ago ,lord ,charles ,beresford refused to accept the command of the ,channel ,squadron unless provided with an equipment the expense of which seemed almost intolerable to ,great ,britain1 wealthy as that country is and dependent as she is on the maintenance of the sea power4 ,great armies are still on the increase and the expense of their support combined with the unsatisfactoriness of their performances is by no means reassuring to those who have the responsibility for national military organization4 ,the ,boer ,war proved the unreliability of the armed forces of one power1 at all events1 and the performances of great masses of trained men in the ,russo-,japanese conflict have not inspired any very great respect for the effectiveness of these colossal and expensive fighting machines4 ,together with the breakdown of armies and navies1 as a material fact1 there has grown up a strong prejudice against their employment1 and the anti-war attitude of the international proletariat has been supplemented and strengthened by the distinct growth of an international peace spirit in certain sections of the middle class4 ,so that in spite of superficial appearances it does not seem to be so very unlikely that the action of the dialectic will be manifest in the destruction of modern armaments1 at least as far as the greater nations are concerned1 though there is little doubt that military forces will still be maintained for the purpose of bullying and overawing the smaller and weaker peoples4 ,mention has already been made of the fact that ,engels never really divested himself of the old forty-eight spirit4 ,the notion that a revolution would break out somewhere in the near future finds a curiously fixed1 if unexpressed1 lodgment in his mind4 ,one cannot help feeling that he expected things to mature earlier than they have done and that he anticipated that changes in the mode of production and the development of industry would have made a stronger impression upon the mind of the proletarian than history shows to have been the case4 ,this latent1 but still persistent1 notion is in curious contrast to the almost detached way in which1 particularly in his later years1 he views the course of economic and political events4 ,he never really in fact divested his mind of the notion of the imminence of social revolution1 for in his #ahib preface to ,the ,condition of the ,working ,class in ,england in #ahdd he says1 ,i have taken care not to strike out of the text the many prophecies1 amongst others that of an imminent social revolution in ,england1 which my youthful ardor induced me to venture upon4 ,his youthful ardor seems never to have really abated in that respect4 ,the dreams of boyhood seem to have haunted him and the old fighter stirred uneasily in his study chair at the echoes of past conflicts in which he also heard the bugles of the coming fight4 ,to those who have watched the development of ,engels' thought1 as shown in his works1 this philosophic1 unemotional way of looking at things proves the effect of experience and age upon the fighter4 ,he started with a heart inflamed with the wrongs of the suffering1 as the damning pages of the work above cited show2 he ends with a calm and dispassionate enquiry 7apart from what he considered to be the exigencies of controversy7 into the fundamental causes of economic and social progress4 ,the burning enthusiasm and white-hot indignation had died down in him ere he reached the stage of the ,duehring controversy4 ,he finds that although not everything that is real is reasonable1 to use the phrase against which he has fulminated in ,feuerbach1 nevertheless every step in human progress has been an essential step and it is impossible to hurry things4 ,to the proletarian he looks of course as the next great actor in the drama of social development4 ,but the proletarian1 while his destiny is indubitable1 is still not a being apart from existing conditions4 ,he exists in the conditions1 is in fact part of the conditions1 and1 while at war with them1 takes on the color of his surroundings4 ,the facts of life have driven him to an unconscious rejection of old faiths and old philosophies but they have not forced him to take up the sword against the actual realities of modern life1 to which he appears1 in fact1 to submit himself with a humility which is at least provoking to the eager and enthusiastic revolutionist4 ,what wonders of economic organization1 what triumphs in mechanical production have been achieved since ,engels gave the last revision to this book in #ahid we in the ,united ,states at least have cause to know4 ,the entire structure of production has been modified from top to bottom1 the old individual doctrine has fallen victim to its dialectic1 and concentrated industry and collective capital now rise supreme over the ruins of that individualism which gave them birth and to which they owe their existence4 ,in the name of the individual the individual is denied4 ,the courts hand down decisions in the name of individual liberty which have for their result the dethroning and extermination of the individual4 ,the conglomeration of individual states which was considered the very foundation of the ,american government1 and the outward and visible sign of collective sovereignty is already in its death throes4 ,the dialectic of the ,united ,states is in course of development and there comes about in consequence the birth of the ,united ,imperial ,republic1 a republic which is so only in name1 which is1 in fact1 as little of a republic as were those oligarchies of the ,middle ,ages whose very existence defamed the name of republic4 ,the old things have passed away1 all things have become new4 ,still there is one factor which has not really appreciably changed1 one factor which is always confronted by the same necessity1 the necessity of maintaining its existence4 ,this factor is the working class4 ,the dialectic is at work with the working class also1 and that which according to the individualistic notion consisted of isolated units seeking their daily bread in meek conformity with the laws of contract and property will disappear into that great collective organized body of labor which spurns the theories of contract and thereby makes itself no longer subject but master4 ,,austin ,,lewis4 99 99 99 99 99 ---------------------------------------- ------------------- ,typographical errors corrected in the text3 ,page #dj3 socalled replaced with so-called ,page #he3 each single each single replaced with each single ,page #hi3 self contained replaced with self-contained ,page #ajb3 any any replaced with any ,page #abf3 ,boyles replaced with ,boyle's ,page #abh3 prevailng replaced with prevailing ,page #acd3 stpuid replaced with stupid ,page #adj3 excepiton replaced with exception ,page #aed3 inaccurrate replaced with inaccurate ,page #aga3 serve it is a midwife replaced with serve it as a midwife ,page #agc3 a grain or barley replaced with a grain of barley ,page #age3 discusion replaced with discussion ,page #aha3 unberable replaced with unbearable ,page #ahf3 framers replaced with farmers ,page #aib3 so so splendidly replaced with so splendidly ,page #aib3 bourgeoise replaced with bourgeoisie ,page #aic3 maunfacture replaced with manufacture ,page #aid3 inventivness replaced with inventiveness ,page #bje3 these peasant replaced with these peasants ,page #bag3 impossiblity replaced with impossibility ,page #bai3 devolpment replaced with development ,page #bca3 on the first place replaced with in the first place ,page #bcc3 entrepeneurs replaced with entrepreneurs ,page #bej3 communties replaced with communities ,page #bea3 horeshoes replaced with horseshoes ,page #beg3 himsel replaced with himself ,page #bfe3 develment replaced with development ---------------------------------------- -------------------