Part 29

That a society (_e. g._ the society of the State) diminishes my _liberty_ offends me little. Why, I have to let my liberty be limited by all sorts of powers and by every one who is stronger; nay, by every fellow-man; and, were I the autocrat of all the R......, I yet should not enjoy absolute liberty. But _ownness_ I will not have taken from me. And ownness is precisely what every society has designs on, precisely what is to succumb to its power.

A society which I join does indeed take from me many liberties, but in return it affords me other liberties; neither does it matter if I myself deprive myself of this and that liberty (_e. g._ by any contract). On the other hand, I want to hold jealously to my ownness. Every community has the propensity, stronger or weaker according to the fulness of its power, to become an _authority_ to its members and to set _limits_ for them: it asks, and must ask, for a "subject's limited understanding"; it asks that those who belong to it be subject to it, be its "subjects"; it exists only by _subjection_. In this a certain tolerance need by no means be excluded; on the contrary, the society will welcome improvements, corrections, and blame, so far as such are calculated for its gain: but the blame must be "well-meaning," it may not be "insolent and disrespectful,"--in other words, one must leave uninjured, and hold sacred, the substance of the society. The society demands that those who belong to it shall not go _beyond it_ and exalt themselves, but remain "within the bounds of legality," _i. e._ allow themselves only so much as the society and its law allow them.

There is a difference whether my liberty or my ownness is limited by a society. If the former only is the case, it is a _coalition_, an agreement, a union; but, if ruin is threatened to ownness, it is a _power of itself_, a power _above me_, a thing unattainable by me, which I can indeed admire, adore, reverence, respect, but cannot subdue and consume, and that for the reason that I _am resigned_. It exists by my _resignation_, my _self-renunciation_, my spiritlessness,[205] called--HUMILITY.[206] My humility makes its courage,[207] my submissiveness gives it its dominion.

But in reference to _liberty_ State and union are subject to no essential difference. The latter can just as little come into existence, or continue in existence, without liberty's being limited in all sorts of ways, as the State is compatible with unmeasured liberty. Limitation of liberty is inevitable everywhere, for one cannot get _rid_ of everything; one cannot fly like a bird merely because one would like to fly so, for one does not get free from his own weight; one cannot live under water as long as he likes, like a fish, because one cannot do without air and cannot get free from this indispensable necessity; and the like. As religion, and most decidedly Christianity, tormented man with the demand to realize the unnatural and self-contradictory, so it is to be looked upon only as the true logical outcome of that religious overstraining and overwroughtness that finally _liberty itself, absolute liberty_, was exalted into an ideal, and thus the nonsense of the impossible had to come glaringly to the light.--The union will assuredly offer a greater measure of liberty, as well as (and especially because by it one escapes all the coercion peculiar to State and society life) admit of being considered as "a new liberty"; but nevertheless it will still contain enough of unfreedom and involuntariness. For its object is not this--liberty (which on the contrary it sacrifices to ownness), but only _ownness_. Referred to this, the difference between State and union is great enough. The former is an enemy and murderer of _ownness_, the latter a son and co-worker of it; the former a spirit that would be adored in spirit and in truth, the latter my work, my _product_; the State is the lord of my spirit, who demands faith and prescribes to me articles of faith, the creed of legality; it exerts moral influence, dominates my spirit, drives away my ego to put itself in its place as "my true ego,"--in short, the State is _sacred_, and as against me, the individual man, it is the true man, the spirit, the ghost; but the union is my own creation, my creature, not sacred, not a spiritual power above my spirit, as little as any association of whatever sort. As I am not willing to be a slave of my maxims, but lay them bare to my continual criticism without _any warrant_, and admit no bail at all for their persistence, so still less do I obligate myself to the union for my future and pledge my soul to it, as is said to be done with the devil and is really the case with the State and all spiritual authority; but I am and remain _more_ to myself than State, Church, God, and the like; consequently infinitely more than the union too.

That society which Communism wants to found seems to stand nearest to _coalition_. For it is to aim at the "welfare of all," oh, yes, of all, cries Weitling innumerable times, of all! That does really look as if in it no one needed to take a back seat. But what then will this welfare be? Have all one and the same welfare, are all equally well off with one and the same thing? If that be so, the question is of the "true welfare." Do we not with this come right to the point where religion begins its dominion of violence? Christianity says, Look not on earthly toys, but seek your true welfare, become--pious Christians; being Christians is the true welfare. It is the true welfare of "all," because it is the welfare of Man as such (this spook). Now, the welfare of all is surely to be _your_ and _my_ welfare too? But, if you and I do not look upon that welfare as _our_ welfare, will care then be taken for that in which _we_ feel well? On the contrary, society has decreed a welfare as the "true welfare"; and, if this welfare were called _e. g._ "enjoyment honestly worked for," but you preferred enjoyable laziness, enjoyment without work, then society, which cares for the "welfare of all," would wisely avoid caring for that in which you are well off. Communism, in proclaiming the welfare of all, annuls outright the well-being of those who hitherto lived on their income from investments and apparently felt better in that than in the prospect of Weitling's strict hours of labor. Hence the latter asserts that with the welfare of thousands the welfare of millions cannot exist, and the former must give up _their_ special welfare "for the sake of the general welfare." No, let people not be summoned to sacrifice their special welfare for the general, for this Christian admonition will not carry you through; they will better understand the opposite admonition, not to let their _own_ welfare be snatched from them by anybody, but to put it on a permanent foundation. Then they are of themselves led to the point that they care best for their welfare if they _unite_ with others for this purpose, _i. e._ "sacrifice a part of their liberty," yet not to the welfare of others, but to their own. An appeal to men's self-sacrificing disposition and self-renouncing love ought at last to have lost its seductive plausibility when, after an activity of thousands of years, it has left nothing behind but the--_misère_ of to-day. Why then still fruitlessly expect self-sacrifice to bring us better times? why not rather hope for them from _usurpation_? Salvation comes no longer from the giver, the bestower, the loving one, but from the _taker_, the appropriater (usurper), the owner. Communism, and, consciously or unconsciously, egoism-reviling humanism, still count on _love_.

If community is once a need of man, and he finds himself furthered by it in his aims, then very soon, because it has become his principle, it prescribes to him its laws too, the laws of--society. The principle of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them, becomes their supreme essence, their God, and, as such,--lawgiver. Communism gives this principle the strictest effect, and Christianity is the religion of society, for, as Feuerbach rightly says although he does not mean it rightly, love is the essence of man; _i. e._ the essence of society or of societary (Communistic) man. All religion is a cult of society, this principle by which societary (cultivated) man is dominated; neither is any god an ego's exclusive god, but always a society's or community's, be it of the society "family" (Lar, Penates) or of a "people" ("national god") or of "all men" ("he is a Father of all men").

Consequently one has a prospect of extirpating religion down to the ground only when one antiquates _society_ and everything that flows from this principle. But it is precisely in Communism that this principle seeks to culminate, as in it everything is to become _common_ for the establishment of--"equality." If this "equality" is won, "liberty" too is not lacking. But whose liberty? _Society's!_ Society is then all in all, and men are only "for each other." It would be the glory of the--love-State.

But I would rather be referred to men's selfishness than to their "kindnesses,"[208] their mercy, pity, etc. The former demands _reciprocity_ (as thou to me, so I to thee), does nothing "gratis," and may be won and--_bought_. But with what shall I obtain the kindness? It is a matter of chance whether I am at the time having to do with a "loving" person. The affectionate one's service can be had only by--_begging_, be it by my lamentable appearance, by my need of help, my misery, my--_suffering_. What can I offer him for his assistance? Nothing! I must accept it as a--present. Love is _unpayable_, or rather, love can assuredly be paid for, but only by counter-love ("One good turn deserves another"). What paltriness and beggarliness does it not take to accept gifts year in and year out without service in return, as they are regularly collected _e. g._ from the poor day-laborer? What can the receiver do for him and his donated pennies, in which his wealth consists? The day-laborer would really have more enjoyment if the receiver with his laws, his institutions, etc., all of which the day-laborer has to pay for though, did not exist at all. And yet, with it all, the poor wight _loves_ his master.

No, community, as the "goal" of history hitherto, is impossible. Let us rather renounce every hypocrisy of community, and recognize that, if we are equal as men, we are not equal for the very reason that we are not men. We are equal _only in thoughts_, only when "we" are _thought_, not as we really and bodily are. I am ego, and you are ego: but I am not this thought-of ego; this ego in which we are all equal is only _my thought_. I am man, and you are man: but "man" is only a thought, a generality; neither you nor I are speakable, we are _unutterable_, because only _thoughts_ are speakable and consist in speaking.

Let us therefore not aspire to community, but to _one-sidedness_. Let us not seek the most comprehensive commune, "human society," but let us seek in others only means and organs which we may use as our property! As we do not see our equals in the tree, the beast, so the presupposition that others are _our equals_ springs from a hypocrisy. No one is _my equal_, but I regard him, equally with all other beings, as my property. In opposition to this I am told that I should be a man among "fellow-men" ("_Judenfrage_," p. 60); I should "respect" the fellow-man in them. For me no one is a person to be respected, not even the fellow-man, but solely, like other beings, an _object_ in which I take an interest or else do not, an interesting or uninteresting object, a usable or unusable person.

And, if I can use him, I doubtless come to an understanding and make myself at one with him, in order, by the agreement, to strengthen _my power_, and by combined force to accomplish more than individual force could effect. In this combination I see nothing whatever but a multiplication of my force, and I retain it only so long as it is _my_ multiplied force. But thus it is a--union.

Neither a natural ligature nor a spiritual one holds the union together, and it is not a natural, not a spiritual league. It is not brought about by one _blood_, not by one _faith_ (spirit). In a natural league--like a family, a tribe, a nation, yes, mankind--the individuals have only the value of _specimens_ of the same species or genus; in a spiritual league--like a commune, a church--the individual signifies only a _member_ of the same spirit; what you are in both cases as a unique person must be--suppressed. Only in the union can you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you.

Property is recognized in the union, and only in the union, because one no longer holds what is his as a fief from any being. The Communists are only consistently carrying further what had already been long present during religious evolution, and especially in the State; to wit, propertylessness, _i. e._ the feudal system.

The State exerts itself to tame the desirous man; in other words, it seeks to direct his desire to it alone, and to _content_ that desire with what it offers. To sate the desire for the desirous man's sake does not come into its mind: on the contrary, it stigmatizes as an "egoistic man" the man who breathes out unbridled desire, and the "egoistic man" is its enemy. He is this for it because the capacity to agree with him is wanting to the State; the egoist is precisely what it cannot "comprehend." Since the State (as nothing else is possible) has to do only for itself, it does not take care for my needs, but takes care only of how it shall make away with me, _i. e._ make out of me another ego, a good citizen. It takes measures for the "improvement of morals."--And with what does it win individuals for itself? With itself, _i. e._ with what is the State's, with _State property_. It will be unremittingly active in making all participants in its "goods," providing all with the "good things of culture": it presents them its education, opens to them the access to its institutions of culture, capacitates them to come to property (_i. e._ to a fief) in the way of industry, etc. For all these _fiefs_ it demands only the just rent of continual _thanks_. But the "unthankful" forget to pay these thanks.--Now, neither can "society" do essentially otherwise than the State.

You bring into a union your whole power, your competence, and _make yourself count_; in a society you are _employed_, with your working power; in the former you live egoistically, in the latter humanly, _i. e._ religiously, as a "member in the body of this Lord"; to a society you owe what you have, and are in duty bound to it, are--possessed by "social duties"; a union you utilize, and give it up undutifully and unfaithfully when you see no way to use it further. If a society is more than you, then it is more to you than yourself; a union is only your instrument, or the sword with which you sharpen and increase your natural force; the union exists for you and through you, the society conversely lays claim to you for itself and exists even without you; in short, the society is _sacred_, the union your _own_; the society consumes _you_, _you_ consume the union.

Nevertheless people will not be backward with the objection that the agreement which has been concluded may again become burdensome to us and limit our freedom; they will say, we too would at last come to this, that "every one must sacrifice a part of his freedom for the sake of the generality." But the sacrifice would not be made for the "generality's" sake a bit, as little as I concluded the agreement for the "generality's" or even, for any other man's sake; rather I came into it only for the sake of my own benefit, from _selfishness_.[209] But, as regards the sacrificing, surely I "sacrifice" only that which does not stand in my power, _i. e._ I "sacrifice" nothing at all.

To come back to property, the lord is proprietor. Choose then whether you want to be lord, or whether society shall be! On this depends whether you are to be an _owner_ or a _ragamuffin!_ The egoist is owner, the Socialist a ragamuffin. But ragamuffinism or propertylessness is the sense of feudalism, of the feudal system, which since the last century has only changed its overlord, putting "Man" in the place of God, and accepting as a fief from Man what had before been a fief from the grace of God. That the ragamuffinism of Communism is carried out by the humane principle into the absolute or most ragamuffinly ragamuffinism has been shown above; but at the same time also, how ragamuffinism can only thus swing around into ownness. The _old_ feudal system was so thoroughly trampled into the ground in the Revolution that since then all reactionary craft has remained fruitless, and will always remain fruitless, because the dead is--dead; but the resurrection too had to prove itself a truth in Christian history, and has so proved itself: for in another world feudalism is risen again with a glorified body, the _new_ feudalism under the suzerainty of "Man."

Christianity is not annihilated, but the faithful are right in having hitherto trustfully assumed of every combat against it that this could serve only for the purgation and confirmation of Christianity; for it has really only been glorified, and "Christianity exposed" is the--_human Christianity_. We are still living entirely in the Christian age, and the very ones who feel worst about it are the most zealously contributing to "complete" it. The more human, the dearer has feudalism become to us; for we the less believe that it still is feudalism, we take it the more confidently for ownness and think we have found what is "most absolutely our own" when we discover "the human."

Liberalism wants to give me what is mine, but it thinks to procure it for me not under the title of mine, but under that of the "human." As if it were attainable under this mask! The rights of man, the precious work of the Revolution, have the meaning that the Man in me _entitles_[210] me to this and that; I as individual, _i. e._ as this man, am not entitled, but Man has the right and entitles me. Hence as man I may well be entitled; but, as I am more than man, to wit, a _special_ man, it may be refused to this very me, the special one. If on the other hand you insist on the _value_ of your gifts, keep up their price, do not let yourselves be forced to sell out below price, do not let yourselves be talked into the idea that your ware is not worth its price, do not make yourselves ridiculous by a "ridiculous price," but imitate the brave man who says, I will _sell_ my life (property) dear, the enemy shall not have it at a cheap _bargain_; then you have recognized the reverse of Communism as the correct thing, and the word then is not "Give up your property!" but "_Get the value out of_ your property!"

Over the portal of our time stands not that "Know thyself" of Apollo, but a "_Get the value out of thyself!_"

Proudhon calls property "robbery" (_le vol_). But alien property--and he is talking of this alone--is not less existent by renunciation, cession, and humility; it is a _present_. Why so sentimentally call for compassion as a poor victim of robbery, when one is just a foolish, cowardly giver of presents? Why here again put the fault on others as if they were robbing us, while we ourselves do bear the fault in leaving the others, unrobbed? The poor are to blame for there being rich men.

Universally, no one grows indignant at _his_, but at _alien_ property. They do not in truth attack property, but the alienation of property. They want to be able to call _more_, not less, _theirs_; they want to call everything _theirs_. They are fighting, therefore, against _alienness_, or, to form a word similar to property, against alienty. And how do they help themselves therein? Instead of transforming the alien into own, they play impartial and ask only that all property be left to a third party (_e. g._ human society). They revendicate the alien not in their own name but in a third party's. Now the "egoistic" coloring is wiped off, and everything is so clean and--human!

Propertylessness or ragamuffinism, this then is the "essence of Christianity," as it is the essence of all religiousness (_i. e._ godliness, morality, humanity), and only announced itself most clearly, and, as glad tidings, became a gospel capable of development, in the "absolute religion." We have before us the most striking development in the present fight against property, a fight which is to bring "Man" to victory and make propertylessness complete: victorious humanity is the victory of--Christianity. But the "Christianity exposed" thus is feudalism completed, the most all-embracing feudal system, _i. e._ perfect ragamuffinism.

Once more then, doubtless, a "revolution" against the feudal system?--

Revolution and insurrection must not be looked upon as synonymous. The former consists in an overturning of conditions, of the established condition or _status_, the State or society, and is accordingly a _political_ or _social_ act; the latter has indeed for its unavoidable consequence a transformation of circumstances, yet does not start from it but from men's discontent with themselves, is not an armed rising, but a rising of individuals, a getting up, without regard to the arrangements that spring from it. The Revolution aimed at new _arrangements_; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on "institutions." It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an _egoistic_ purpose and deed.

The revolution commands one to make _arrangements_, the insurrection[211] demands that he _rise or exalt himself_.[212] What _constitution_ was to be chosen, this question busied the revolutionary heads, and the whole political period foams with constitutional fights and constitutional questions, as the social talents too were uncommonly inventive in societary arrangement (phalansteries and the like). The insurgent[213] strives to become constitutionless.