Brussels, September 5.—In issue No. 70 of this newspaper an 
article from the Rh[einischer] Beobachter is introduced with the words: 

“In issue No. 206 the Rh[einischer] B[eobachter] preaches communism as follows.” 

Whether or not this comment is intended ironically, Communists 
must protest against the idea that the Rheinischer Beobachter could 
preach “communism”, and especially against the idea that the article 
communicated in issue No. 70 of the D[/eutsche]- B[russeler]-Z[eitung] is 
communist. 

If a certain section of German socialists has continually blustered 
against the liberal bourgeoisie, and has done so, in a manner which 
has benefited nobody but the German governments, and if at 
present government newspapers like the Rhfeinischer] Beobachter, 
basing themselves on the empty phrases of these people, claim that it 
is not the liberal bourgeoisie but the government which represents 
the interests of the proletariat, then the Communists have nothing in 
common with either the former or the latter. 

Certain people have admittedly wished to lay the responsibility for 
this on the German Communists, they have accused them of being in 
alliance with the government. 

This accusation is ludicrous. The government cannot unite with 
the Communists, nor the Communists with the government, for the 
simple reason that of all the revolutionary parties in Germany the 
Communists are by far the most revolutionary, and that the 
government knows this better than anyone else. 

Can Communists unite with a government which has pronounced 
them guilty of high treason and treats them as such? 

The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter 22] 

Can the government propagate in its press principles, which, in 
France, are considered to be anarchistic, incendiary and destructive 
of all social] relations, and to which this same government continually 
ascribes the very same characteristics? 

It is inconceivable. Let us examine the so-called communism of the 
Rheinischer Beobachter, and we snall find that it is very innocent. 

The article begins: 

“If we examine our (!) social condition, then the greatest distress and the most 
pressing want reveal themselves everywhere (!), and we have to admit that much has 
been neglected. This is, indeed, a fact, and the only (!) question which arises, is what 
causes it. We are convinced that our constitution does not bear the responsibility for 
this, for (!) as far as social conditions are concerned matters are (!) still worse in France 
and England. Nevertheless (!) liberalism seeks the remedy in representation alone; if 
the people were represented, it would help itself. This is quite illusory to be sure, but 
nonetheless (!) extremely (!!) plausible.” 

In this paragraph we see the Beobachter [observer] before us, in the 
flesh—the way he chews his pen, at a loss for an introduction, 
speculates, writes, crosses out, writes again, and then finally, after 
some considerable time, produces the above magnificent passage. In 
order to arrive at liberalism, his own inherited hobby-horse, he 
begins with “our social condition”, that is, strictly speaking, the social 
condition of the Beobachter, which may very well have its. un- 
pleasantnesses. By means of the extremely trivial observation that 
our social condition is miserable and that much has been neglected, 
he arrives, by way of some very thorny sentences, at a point where 
the only question which arises for him, is what causes it. This 
question arises for him, however, only to disappear again at once. 
The Beobachter does not, in fact, tell us what causes it, neither does he 
tell us what does not cause it, he tells us merely what he is convinced 
does not cause it, and that is, of course, the Prussian constitution. 
From the Prussian constitution, by means of a bold “for”, he arrives 
at France and England, and from here to Prussian liberalism is for 
him of course only a trifling leap, which, supported by the least 
motivated “nevertheless” conceivable, he accomplishes with ease. 
And thus at last. he has reached his favourite terrain, where he can 
exclaim, “This is quite illusory to be sure, but nonetheless extremely 
plausible.” But nonetheless extremely!!! 

Is it possible that the Communists have sunk so low that the 
paternity of such utterances, such classical transitions, such ques- 
tions, arising and disappearing with ease, such remarkable Only’s, 
Fors and Nevertheless’s, and above all the phrase “but nonetheless 
extremely”, should be ascribed to them? 

222 Karl Marx 

Besides the “Old General”, Arnold Ruge, there are only a few 
men in Germany who can write in this way, and these few are all 
Consistoria] Counsellors in Herr Eichhorn’s ministry. 

We cannot be required to go into the contents of this introductory 
passage. It has no content other than the awkwardness of its form, it 
is merely the portal through which we step into the hall where our 
observing Consistorial Counsellor is preaching a crusade against 
liberalism. 

Let us listen: 

“Liberalism has above all the advantage that its approach to the people takes easier 
and more pleasant forms than does that of the bureaucracy.” (Indeed, not even Herr 
DahImann or Gervinus writes such clumsy and angular prose.) “It speaks of the 
welfare and the rights of the people. In reality, however, it only pushes the people 
forward in order thereby to intimidate the government; it considers the people only as 
cannon fodder in the great onslaught against the power of the government. To seize 

the power of the state—this is the true tendency of liberalism, the welfare of the 
people is only of secondary importance to it.” 

Does the Herr Consistorial Counsellor believe he has told the 
people anything new with this? The people, and in particular the 
communist section of the people, knows very well that the liberal 
bourgeoisie is only pursuing its own interests and that little reliance 
should be placed on its sympathy for the people. If, however, the 
Consistorial Counsellor concludes from this that the liberal 
bourgeoisie exploits the people for its own ends in so far as the 
people participates in the political movement, then we must answer 
him: “That is quite plausible for a Consistorial Counsellor, to be 
sure, but nonetheless extremely illusory.” 

The people, or, to replace this broad and vague expression by a 
definite one, the proletariat, has quite another way of reasoning than 
the gentlemen of the ecclesiastical ministry permit themselves to 
imagine. The proletariat does not ask whether the welfare of the 
people is a matter of secondary or of primary importance to the 
bourgeoisie, or whether the bourgeoisie wishes to use proletarians as 
cannon fodder or not. The proletariat does not ask what the 
bourgeoisie merely wishes to do, but what it must do. It asks whether 
the present political system, the rule of the bureaucracy, or 
the one the liberals are striving for, the rule of the bourgeoisie, will 
offer it the means to achieve its own purposes. To this end it only has 
to compare the political position of the proletariat in England, 
France and America with that in Germany to see that the rule of the 
bourgeoisie does not only place quite new weapons in the hands of 
the proletariat for the struggle against the bourgeoisie, but that it also 
secures for it a quite different status, the status of a recognised party.

The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter 995 

Does the Herr Consistorial Counsellor then believe that the 
proletariat, which is more and more adhering to the Communist 
Party, that the proletariat will be incapable of utilising the freedom 
of the press and the freedom of association? Let him just read the 
English and French working men’s newspapers, let him just attend 
some time a single Chartist meeting! 

But in the ecclesiastical ministry, where the Rh[einischer] Beobachter 
is edited, they have queer ideas about the proletariat. They think 
they are dealing with Pomeranian peasants or with Berlin loafers. 
They think they have reached the greatest depths of profundity 
when they promise the people no longer panem et circenses,? but panem 
et religionem? instead. They delude themselves that the proletariat 
wishes to be helped, they do not conceive that it expects help from 
nobody but itself. They do not suspect that the proletariat sees 
through all these empty consistorial phrases about the “welfare of 
the people” and bad social conditions just as well as through the 
similar phrases of the liberal bourgeoisie. 

And why is the welfare of the people only of secondary importance 
to the bourgeoisie? The Rhfeinischer] Beobachter replies: 

“The United Diet has proved it, the perfidy of liberalism is exposed. The Income 
Tax was the acid test of liberalism, and it failed the test.” 

These well-meaning Consistorial Counsellors, imagining in their 
economic innocence that they can use the Income Tax to throw dust 
in the eyes of the proletariat! 

The Slaughter and Milling Tax directly affects wages, the Income 
Tax affects the profit of capital. Extremely plausible, Herr Consis- 
torial Counsellor, isn’t it? But the capitalists will not and cannot 
allow their profits to be taxed with impunity. This follows from com- 
petition itself. So within a few months after the introduction of the 
Income Tax, wages will therefore have been reduced to precisely 
the extent by which they were actually raised by the abolition of the 
Slaughter and Milling Tax and by the reduced food prices resulting 
from this. 

The level of wages expressed, not in terms of money, but in terms 
of the means of subsistence necessary to the working man, that is the 
level of real, not of nominal wages, depends on the relationship 
between demand and supply. An alteration in the mode of taxation 
may cause a momentary disturbance, but will not change anything in 
the long run. 

* Bread and games.— Ed. 
> Bread and religion.— Ed. 

226 Karl Marx 

The only economic advantage of the Income Tax is that it is 
cheaper to levy, and this the Consistorial Counsellor does not 
mention. Incidentally the proletariat gains nothing from this 
circumstance either. 

What, then, does all this talk about the Income Tax amount to? 

In the first place, the proletariat is not at all, or only momentarily, 
interested in the whole matter. 

In the second place, the government, which in levying the 
Slaughter and Milling Tax comes daily into direct contact with the 
proletariat and confronts it in a hateful fashion, the government 
remains in the background where the Income Tax is concerned, and 
forces the bourgeoisie to assume in full the odious business of 
pressing down wages. 

The Income Tax would thus be of benefit to the government 
alone, hence the anger of the Consistorial Counsellors at its rejection. 

But let us concede even for a moment that the proletariat has an 
interest in the matter; should this Diet have granted it? 

By no means. It ought not to have granted moneys at all, it should 
have left the financial system exactly as it was so long as the 
government had not fulfilled all its demands. The refusal of moneys 
is, in all parliamentary assemblies, the means by which the 
government is forced to yield to the majority. This consistent refusal 
of moneys was the only thing in which the Diet behaved energetical- 
ly, and that is why the disappointed Consistorial Counsellors have to 
try and render it suspicious in the eyes of the people. 

“And yet,” the Rhfeinischer] Beob{achter] continues, “the organs of the liberal press 
quite appropriately raised the matter of the Income Tax.” 

Quite correct, and it is indeed a purely bourgeois measure. For 
this very reason, though, the bourgeoisie is able to reject it when it is 
proposed to it at the wrong time by ministers whom it cannot trust an 
inch. 

We shall, incidentally, add this confession concerning the paternity 
of the Income Tax to the record; we shall find it useful later on. 

After some exceptionally vacuous and confused twaddle the 
Consistorial Counsellor suddenly stumbles over the proletariat in the 
following manner: : 

“What isthe proletariat?” (This is yet another of those questions which arise onlyto 
remain unanswered.) “It is no exaggeration when we” (that is, the Consistorial 
Counsellors of the Rhfeinischer] Bfeobachter], not, however, the other profane 
newspapers) “state that one-third of the people has no basis for its existence, and 
another third is on the decline. The problem of the proletariat is the problem of the 
great majority of the people, it is the cardinal question.” 

The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter 927 

How rapidly, indeed, these bureaucrats are brought to see reason 
by a single United Diet with a little opposition! How long is it since 
the government was prohibiting newspapers from maintaining such 
exaggerations as that we might have a proletariat in Prussia? Ever 
since the Trier’sche Zeitung among others—that innocent organ!— 
was threatened with closure because it maliciously wished to present 
the evil circumstances of the proletariat in England and France as 
existing also in Prussia? Be that as the government wishes. We shall 
similarly add to the record that the great majority of the people 
are proletarians. 

“The Diet,” it is further declared, “considered the question of principle to be the 
cardinal question, that is, the question of whether or not this exalted assembly should 
receive state power. And what was the people to receive? No railway, no annuity 
banks, no tax relief! Thrice happy people!” 

Observe how our sleek-pated Consistorial Counsellor is gradually 
beginning to show his fox’s ears. “The Diet considered the question 
of principle to be the main question.” The blessed simplicity of this 
amiable blind-worm! The question as to whether a loan of 30 
millions, an Income Tax providing a revenue not to be determined 
in advance, an annuity bank by means of which 400 to 500 millions 
can be raised on the domains—as to whether all this should be put at 
the disposal of the present dissolute and reactionary government, 
thus rendering it independent for an eternity, or whether it should 
be kept short, be rendered submissive to public opinion by the 
withdrawal of moneys, this our pussy-footing Consistorial Coun- 
sellor calls the question of principle! 

“And what will the people receive?” asks the sympathetic 
Consistorial Counsellor. “No railway’—thus it will also avoid paying 
any taxes to cover the interest on the loan and the inevitable big 
losses in the running of this railway. 

“No annuity banks!’’ Our Consistorial Counsellor acts just as if the 
government wished to give annuities to the proletarians, doesn’t he? 
But, on the contrary, it wanted to give annuities to the nobility, for 
which the people would have had to pay. In this way it was to be 
made easier for the peasants to buy themselves free from 
compulsory labour service. If the peasants wait a few years more they 
will probably no longer need to buy themselves free. When the lords 
of the manor come under the pitchforks of the peasants, and this 
could easily happen before very long, then corvée system will cease 
of its own accord. 

“No Income Tax.” But so long as the Income Tax brings no income 
to the people, this is a matter of utter indifference to it. 

228 Karl Marx . 

“Thrice happy people,” continues the Consistorial Counsellor, “you have at least 
won the question of principle! And if you do not understand what this is, then let your 
representatives explain it to you; perhaps you will forget your hunger in the course of 
their lengthy speeches!” 

Who still dares to claim that the German press is not free? The 
Rh[einischer] Beobfachter] employs here with complete impunity a 
turn of phrase which many a French provincial jury would without 
more ado declare to be an incitement of the various classes of society 
against one another and cause to be punished. 

The Consistorial Counsellor behaves, incidentally, in a terribly 
awkward manner. He wishes to flatter the people, and does not even 
credit it with knowing what a question of principle might be. Because 
he has to feign sympathy for the people’s hunger, he takes his revenge 
by declaring it to be stupid and politically incompetent. The 
proletariat knows so well what the question of principle is that it does 
not reproach the Diet for having won it, but for not having won it. 
The proletariat reproaches the Diet for having stayed on the 
defensive, for not having attacked, for not having gone ten times 
further. It reproaches it with not having behaved decisively enough 
to make possible the participation of the proletariat in the 
movement. The proletariat was certainly incapable of showing any 
interest in the Privileges of the Estates. But a Diet demanding trial by 
jury, equality before the law, the abolition of the corvée system, 
freedom of the press, freedom of association and true representa- 
tion, a Diet having once and for all broken with the past and 
formulating its demands according to the needs of the present 
instead of according to the old laws—such a Diet could count on the 
strongest support from the proletariat. 

The Beobachter continues: 

“And may God grant that this Diet should not absorb the power of the 

government, otherwise an insuperable brake will be put upon all social improve- 
ments.” 

The Herr Consistorial Counsellor may calm himself. A Diet that 
could not even get the better of the Prussian government will be 
given short shrift by the proletariat when the need arises. 

“It has been said,” the Consistorial Counsellor observes further, “that the Income 

Tax leads to revolution, to communism. To revolution, to be sure, that is to say, toa 
transformation of social relations, to the removal of limitless poverty.” 

Either the Consistorial Counsellor wishes to mock his readers and 
merely say that the Income Tax removes limitless poverty in order to 
replace it with limited poverty, and more of a similar kind of bad 
Berlin jokes—or he is the greatest and most shameless ignoramus in 

The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter 999 

economic matters alive. He does not know that in England the 
Income Tax has been in existence for seven years and has not 
transformed a single social relation, has not removed the least hair’s 
breadth of limitless poverty. He does not know that it is precisely 
where the most limitless poverty exists in Prussia, in the weaving 
villages of Silesia and Ravensberg, among the small peasants of 
Silesia, Posen, the Mosel and the Vistula, that the Class Tax, that is, 
the Income Tax, is in force. 

But who can reply seriously to such absurdities? It is further 
stated: 

“Also to communism, as it happens to be understood.... Where all relations have 
been so intertwined with one another and brought into flux by trade and industry that 
the individual loses his footing in the currents of competition, by the nature-of the 
circumstances he is thrown upon the mercy of society which must compensate in respect of 

the particular for the consequences of the general fluctuations. Hence society has a duty 
of solidarity in respect of the existence of its members.” 

And there we are supposed to have the communism of the 
Rh{einischer] Beobachter! Thus—in a society such as ours, where 
nobody is secure in his existence, in his position in life, society is duty 
bound to secure everybody’s existence. First the Consistorial 
Counsellor admits that the existing society cannot do this, and then he 
demands of it that it should nevertheless perform this impossible 
feat. 

But it should compensate in respect of the particular for that for 
which it can show no consideration in its general fluctuations, this is 
what the Consistorial Counsellor means. 

“One-third of the people has no basis for its existence, and 
another third is on the decline.” 

Ten million individuals, therefore, are to be individually compen- 
sated for. Does the Consistorial Counsellor believe in all seriousness 
that the pauvre Prussian government will be able to achieve this? 

To be sure, and what is more by means of the Income Tax, which 
leads to communism, as it happens to be understood by the Rh[einischer] 
Beobachter. 

Magnificent. After bemusing us with confused balderdash about 
alleged communism, after declaring that society has a duty of 
solidarity in respect of the existence of its members, that it has tocare 
for them, although it cannot do so, after all these aberrations, 
contradictions and impossible demands, we are urged to accept the 
Income Tax as the measure which will resolve all contradictions, 

4 Poor.— Ed. 

ue 

230 . Karl Marx 

make all impossibilities possible and restore the solidarity of all 
members of society. 

We refer to Herr von Duesberg’s memorandum on the Income 
Tax, which was presented to the Diet.? In this memorandum 
employment had already been found for the last penny of the 
revenue from the Income Tax. The hard-pressed government had 
not a farthing to spare for the compensation in respect of the 
particular for general fluctuations, for the fulfilment of society’s 
duties of solidarity. And if, instead of ten million, only ten 
individuals had been through the nature of circumstances thrown 
upon Herr von Duesberg’s mercy, Herr von Duesberg would have 
rejected all ten of them. 

But no, we are mistaken; besides the Income Tax the Herr 
Consistorial Counsellor has yet another means for introducing 
communism, as he happens to understand it: 

“What is the Alpha and Omega of the Christian faith? The dogma of original 

sin and redemption. And therein lies the association in solidarity of humanity in its 
highest potential: One for all and all for one.’ 

Thrice happy people! The cardinal question is solved for all 
eternity! Under the double wings of the Prussian eagle and the Holy 
Ghost, the proletariat will find two inexhaustible springs of life: first, 
the surplus from the Income Tax above the ordinary and 
extraordinary needs of the state, which surplus equals zero, and 
second, the revenues from the heavenly domains of original sin and 
redemption, which likewise equal zero. These two zeroes provide a 
splendid basis for the one-third of the people which has no basis for 
its existence, a powerful support for the other third which is on the 
decline. Imaginary surpluses, original sin and redemption will 
undoubtedly satisfy the people’s hunger in quite another way than 
the long speeches of liberal deputies! It is further stated: 

“We also pray, in the Lord’s prayer: ‘Lead us not into temptation.’ And what we 
supplicate for ourselves we ought to practise with regard to our fellow human beings. 
Our social conditions undoubtedly tempt man, and the excess of poverty incites to 
crime.” 

And we, gentlemen, we bureaucrats, judges and Consistorial 
Counsellors of the Prussian state, practise this consideration by 
having people broken on the wheel, beheaded, locked up and 
flogged to our heart’s content, thereby “leading” the proletariat 
“into the temptation” to have us later similarly broken on the wheel, 
beheaded, locked up and flogged. Which will not fail to occur. 

. Duesberg, von. Denkschrift, betreffend die Aufhebung der Mahl- und Schlachtsteuer, 
die Beschrankung der Klassensteuer und die Erhebung einer Einkommensteuer.—Ed. 

The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter 231 

“Such conditions,” declares the Consistorial Counsellor, “must not be tolerated 
by a Christian state, it must remedy them.” 

Indeed, with absurd blusterings about society’s duties of solidarity, 
with imaginary surpluses and unacceptable bills of exchange on God 
the Father, Son and Company. 

“We can also save ourselves all this tedious talk of communism,” opines our 

observing Consistorial Counsellor. “If only those who have the vocation for it develop 
the social principles of Christianity, then the Communists will soon fall silent.” 

The social principles of Christianity have now had eighteen hun- 
dred years to be developed, and need no further development by 
Prussian Consistorial Counsellors. 

The social principles of Christianity justified the slavery of antiq- 
uity, glorified the serfdom of the Middle Ages and are capable, in 
case of need, of defending the oppression of the proletariat, even if 
with somewhat doleful grimaces. 

The social principles of Christianity preach the necessity of a 
ruling and an oppressed class, and for the latter all they have to offer 
is the pious wish that the former may be charitable. 

The social principles of Christianity place the Consistorial 
Counsellor’s compensation for all infamies in heaven, and thereby 
justify the continuation of these infamies on earth. 

The social principles of Christianity declare all the vile acts of the 
oppressors against the oppressed to be either a just punishment for 
original sin and other sins, or trials which the Lord, in his infinite 
wisdom, ordains for the redeemed. 

The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self- 
contempt, abasement, submissiveness and humbleness, in short, all 
the qualities of the rabble, and the proletariat, which will not permit 
itself to be treated as rabble, needs its courage, its self-confidence, its 
pride and its sense of independence even more than its bread. 

The social principles of Christianity are sneaking and hypocritical, 
and the proletariat is revolutionary. 

So much for the social principles of Christianity. 

Further: 

“We have acknowledged social reform to be the most distinguished vocation of 
the monarchy.” 

Have we? There has_not been a single word of this hitherto. 
However, let it stand. And what does the social reform of the 
monarchy consist in? In promulgating an Income Tax stolen from 
the liberal press, which is to provide surpluses the Minister of 
Finance knows nothing about, in the abortive Land Annuity Banks, 

232 Karl Marx 

in the Prussian Eastern Railway, and in particular in the profits from 
a vast capital of original sin and redemption! 

“The interests of the monarchy itself makes this advisable” —how 
low, then, the monarchy must have sunk! 

“The distress in society demands this”—for the moment it 
demands protective tariffs far more than dogmas. 

“The gospel recommends this”—this is recommended by every- 
thing in general, only not by the terrifyingly barren condition of the 
Prussian State treasury, this abyss, which, within three years, will 
irrevocably have swallowed up the 15 Russian millions. The gospel 
recommends a great deal besides, among other things also castration 
as the beginning of social reform with oneself (Matth[ew] 19:12). 

“The monarchy,” declares our Consistorial Counsellor, “is one with the people.” 

This pronouncement is only another form of the old “l’état c’est 
mov’ ,? and precisely the same form, in fact, as was used by Louis XVI 
against his rebellious estates on June 23, 1789: “If you do not obey, 
then I shall send you back home”—“et seul je ferai le bonheur de mon 
peuple” . 

The monarchy must indeed be very hard-pressed if it decides to 
make use of this formula, and our learned Consistorial Counsellor 
certainly knows how the French people thanked Louis XVI for its 
use on that occasion. 

“The throne,” the Herr Consistorial Counsellor assures us further, “must rest on 
the broad foundation of the people, there it stands best.” 

So long, that is, as those broad shoulders do not, with one powerful 
heave, throw this burdensome superstructure into the gutter. 

“The aristocracy,” thus concludes the Herr Consistorial Counsellor, “leaves the 
monarchy its dignity and gives it a poetical adornment, but removes real power from 

it. The bourgeoisie robs it of both its power and its dignity, and only gives it a civil list. 
The people preserves to the monarchy its power, its dignity and its poetry.” 

In this passage the Herr Consistorial Counsellor has unfortunately 
taken the boastful appeal To His People, made by Frederick William 
in his Speech from the Throne,” too seriously. Its last word 
is—overthrow of the aristocracy, overthrow of the bourgeoisie, 
creation of a monarchy drawing its support from the people. 

If these demands were not pure fantasies they would contain in 
themselves a complete revolution. 

We have not the slightest wish to argue in detail that the 

* “T am the state” (expression attributed to Louis XIV).— Ed. 
> “And alone I shall create the happiness of my people.” — Ed. 

The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter 233 

aristocracy cannot be overthrown in any other manner than by the 
bourgeoisie and the people together, that rule of the people in a 
country where the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie still exist side by 
side is a piece of sheer nonsense. One cannot reply to such 
yarn-spinnings from one of Eichhorn’s Consistorial Counsellors with 
any serious development of ideas. 

We merely wish to make some well-intentioned comments to those 
gentlemen who would like to rescue the apprehensive Prussian 
monarchy by means of a somersault into the people. 

Of all political elements the people is by far the most dangerous 
for a king. Not the people of which Frederick William speaks, which 
offers thanks with moist eyes for a kick and a silver penny; this 
people is completely harmless, for it only exists in the king’s 
imagination. But the real people, the proletarians, the small peasants 
and the plebs—this is, as Hobbes says, puer robustus, sed malitiosus,* 
a robust, but ill-natured youth, which permits no kings, be they lean or 
fat, to get the better of him. 

This people would above all else extort from His Majesty a 
constitution, together with a universal franchise, freedom of 
association, freedom of the press and other unpleasant things. 

And if it had all this, it would use it to pronounce as rapidly as 
possible on the power, the dignity and the poetry of the monarchy. 

The current worthy occupant of this monarchy could count 
himself fortunate if the people employed him as a public barker of 
the Berlin Artisans’ Association with a civil list of 250 talers and a 
cool pale ale daily. 

If the Consistorial gentlemen now directing the destiny of the 
Prussian monarchy and the Rhein[ischer] Beobachter should doubt 
this, then let them merely cast a glance at history. History provides a 
quite different horoscopes for kings who appealed to their people. 

Charles I of England also appealed to His People against his estates. 
He called his people to arms against parliament. The people, 
however, declared itself to be against the king, threw all the members 
who did not represent the people out of parliament and finally 
caused parliament, which had thus become the real representative of 
the people, to behead the king. Thus ended the appeal of Charles I 
to his people. This occurred on January 30, 1649, and has its 
bicentenary in the year 1849. 

Louis XVI of France likewise appealed to His People. Three years 
long he appealed from one section of the people to another, he 
sought His people, the true people, the people filled with enthusiasm 

* Th. Hobbes, Elementa philosophica de cive— Ed. 

234 Karl Marx 

for him, and found it nowhere. Finally he found it in the 
encampment of Koblenz, behind the ranks of the Prussian and 
Austrian army. This, however, was too much of a good thing for his 
people in France. On August 10, 1792 it locked up the appellant in 
the Temple and summoned the National Convention, which 
represented it in every respect. 

This Convention declared itself competent to judge the appeal of 
the ex-king, and after some consultation the appellant was taken to 
the Place de la Révolution, where he was guillotined on January 21, 
1793. 

That is what happens when kings appeal to Their People. Just what 
happens, however, when Consistorial Counsellors wish to found a 
democratic monarchy, we shall have to wait and see.