Since I just have the opportunity, I take the liberty of sending 
you an article of mine in which some elements of my critical 
philosophy of law? are outlined. I had already finished it once but 
have since revised it in order to make it more generally com- 
prehensible. 1 don’t attribute any exceptional value to this essay 
but I am glad to have an opportunity of assuring you of the great 
respect and—if I may use the word—love, which I feel for you. 
Your Philosophie der Zukunft, and your Wesen des Glaubens, in spite 
of their small size, are certainly of greater weight than the whole 
of contemporary German literature put together. 

In these writings you have provided—I don’t know whether 
intentionally—a philosophical basis for socialism and the Com- 
munists have immediately understood them in this way. The unity 
of man with man, which is based on the real differences between 
men, the concept of the human species brought down from the 
heaven of abstraction to the real earth, what is this but the concept 
of society! 

‘Two translations of your Wesen des Christenthums, one in English 
and one in French, are in preparation and almost ready for 
printing. The first will be published in Manchester (Engels has 
been supervising it) and the second in Paris' (the Frenchman 
Dr. Guerrier and the German Communist Ewerbeck have translated it 
with the help of a French literary expert). 

At present, the French will immediately pounce on the book, for 

To Ludwig Feuerbach, August 11, 1844 355 

both parties— priests, and Voltairians and materialists—are look- 
ing about for help from outside. It is a remarkable phenomenon 
that, in contrast to the eighteenth century, religiosity has now 
passed to the middle and upper classes while on the other hand 
irreligiosity—but an irreligiosity of men regarding themselves as 
men—has descended to the French proletariat. You would have 
to attend one of the meetings of the French workers to appreciate 
the pure freshness, the nobility which burst forth from these 
toil-worn men. The English proletarian is also advancing with 
giant strides but he lacks the cultural background of the French. 
But I must not forget to emphasise the theoretical merits of the 
German artisans in Switzerland, London and Paris. The German 
artisan is still however too much of an artisan. 

But in any case it is among these “barbarians” of our civilised 
society that history is preparing the practical element for the 
emancipation of mankind. 

For me the difference between the French character and our 
German character was never demonstrated so sharply and convinc- 
ingly as in a Fourierist work which begins with the following 
sentences: 

“It is in his passions that man reveals himself completely.” “Have you ever met a 
person who thought in order to think, who remembered in order to remember, who imagined 
in order to imagine, who wished in order to wish? Has this ever happened to you?... No, 
obviously not!”’* 

The main driving force of nature as of society is, therefore, the 
magical, the passionate, the non-reflecting attraction and 

“everything which exists, man, plant, animal or planet, has received an amount of 
power corresponding to its mission in the system of the universe”? 

From this there follows: “The attractive powers are proportional to 
the destinies.” “ 

Do not all these sentences give the impression that the Frenchman 
has deliberately set his passion against the pure activity of German 
thought? One does not think in order to think, etc. 

In his critical Berlin Literatur-Zeitung,? Bruno Bauer, my friend of 
many years standing—but now rather estranged—has provided 
fresh proof of how difficult it is for Germans to extricate themselves 
from the contrary one-sidedness. I don’t know if you have read the 
journal. It contains much covert polemic against you. 

The character of the Literatur-Zeitung can be reduced to the 
following: “Criticism” is transformed into a transcendental being. 
_These Berliners do not regard themselves as men who criticise, but as 
__ critics who, incidentally, have the misfortune of being men. They 
' therefore acknowledge only one real need, the need of theoretical 
criticism. People like Proudhon are therefore accused of having 
made some “practical” “need” their point of departure. This criticism 
therefore lapses into a sad and supercilious intellectualism. Con- 
sciousness or self-consciousness is regarded as the only human quality. 
Love, for example, is rejected, because the loved one is only an 
“object”. Down with the object. This criticism thus regards itself as 
the only active element in history. It is confronted by the whole of 
humanity as a mass, an inert mass, which has value only as the 
antithesis of intellect. It is therefore regarded as the greatest crime if 
the critic displays feeling or passion, he must be an ironical ice-cold 
aopac .> 

Thus Bauer says literally: 

“The critic should participate neither in the sufferings nor in the joys of society; he 
should know neither friendship and love, nor hate and envy; he should be enthroned 
in a solitude, where only the laughter of the Olympian Gods over the topsy-turviness 
of the world resounds occasionally from his lips.” 

The tone of Bauer’s Literatur-Zeitung is therefore one of dispas- 
sionate contempt and he makes it all the easier for himself by flinging 
the results of your work and of our time as a whole at other people’s 
heads. He only exposes contradictions and, satisfied with this 
occupation, he departs with a contemptuous “Hm”. He declares that 
criticism does not give anything, it is far too spiritual for that. Indeed, 
he plainly expresses the hope: 

“the time is not distant when the whole of degenerate mankind will rally against 
criticism” —and criticism means Bauer and company— “they will then sort out this 
mass into different groups and distribute the testimonium paupertatis to all of them”. 

It seems that Bauer has fought against Christ out of rivalry. I am 

going to publish a small booklet attacking this aberration of criticism. 
It would be of the greatest value to me if you would let me know in 

To Ludwig Feuerbach, August 11, 1844 357 

advance your opinion, and in general some speedy sign of life from 
you would make me happy. The German artisans in Paris, i. e., the 
Communists amongst them, several hundreds, have been having 
lectures twice a week throughout this summer on your Wesen des 
Christenthums from their secret leaders, and have been remarkably 
responsive. The short extract from the letter of a German lady which 
appeared in the feuilleton of Vorwärts! (No. 64)” without the 
knowledge of the writer, is taken from a letter of my wife, who is now 
visiting her mother‘ in Trier. 
With best wishes for your well-being. 

Yours, 
Karl Marx