No. 2 
Barmen, 19 November 1844 

Dear M., 

About a fortnight ago I received a few lines from you and 
Birgers dated 8 October and postmarked Brussels, 27 October." 
At about the same time you wrote your note, I sent off a letter to 
you, addressed to your wife,* and trust that you received it. In 
order to make sure in future that our letters are not tampered 
with, I suggest we number them; thus my present one is No. 2 
and, when you write, let me know up to what number you have 
received and whether one is missing from the series. 

A couple of days ago I was in Cologne and Bonn. All goes well 
in Cologne. Grün will have told you about our people’s activities. 
Hess is thinking of joining you in Paris, too, in a fortnight or 
three weeks’ time, provided he can get hold of sufficient money. 
You now have Burgers there as well, and hence enough for a 
council. You will have all the less need of me and there is all the 
more need for me here. Obviously I can’t come now since it would 
mean falling out with my entire family. Besides, I have a love 
affair to clear up first. And after all, one of us ought to be here 
because all our people need prodding if they are to maintain a 
sufficient degree of activity and not fall into all manner of 
shuffling and shifting. Jung, for instance, as well as many others, 

a See this volume, pp. 3-6. 

cannot be convinced that the difference between us and Ruge is 
one of principle,'’ and still persists in believing that it is merely a 
personal squabble. When told that Ruge is no communist, they 
don’t quite believe it and assert that in any case it would be a pity 
if such a ‘literary authority’ as Ruge were to be thoughtlessly 
discarded. What is one to say to that? One must wait until Ruge 
once again delivers himself of some monumental stupidity, so that 
the fact can be demonstrated ad oculos* to these people. I don’t 
know, but there’s something not quite right about Jung; the fellow 
hasn’t enough determination. 

We are at present holding public meetings all over the place to 
set up societies for the advancement of the workers '*; this causes a 
fine stir among the Teutons and draws the philistines’ attention to 
social problems. These meetings are arranged on the spur of the 
moment:and without asking the police. We have seen to it that 
half the rules-drafting committee in Cologne consists of our own 
people; in Elberfeld, at least one of them was on it and, with the 
help of the rationalists,’? we succeeded at two meetings in 
thoroughly trouncing the pious; by a huge majority, everything 
Christian was banned from the rules.'* It amused me to see what a 
ridiculous figure these rationalists cut with their theoretical 
Christianity and practical atheism. In principle they entirely 
agreed with the Christian opposition, although in practice, Christia- 
nity, which according to their own assertions forms the basis of the 
society, must nowhere be mentioned in the rules. The rules were 
to cover everything save the vital principle of the society! So 
rigidly did the fellows cling to this absurd position that, even 
without my putting in a single word, we acquired a set of rules 
which, as things are now, leaves nothing to be desired. There is to 
be another meeting next Sunday, but I shan’t be able to attend 
because I am leaving for Westphalia tomorrow. 

I am up to my eyebrows in English newspapers and books upon 
which I am drawing for my book on the condition of the English 
proletarians.” I expect to finish it by the middle or the end of 
January, having got through the arrangement of the material, the 
most arduous part of the work, about a week or a fortnight ago. I 
shall be presenting the English with a fine bill of indictment; I 
accuse the English bourgeoisie before the entire world of murder, 
robbery and other crimes on a massive scale, and I am writing an 
English preface‘ which I shall have printed separately and sent to 

a visibly - > F. Engels, The Condition of the Working-Class in England. -¢ F. Engels,‘To 
the Working-Classes of Great Britain’. 

English party leaders, men of letters and members of Parliament. 
That'll give those fellows something to remember me by. It need 
hardly be said that my blows, though aimed at the panniers, are 
meant for the donkey, namely the German bourgeoisie, to whom I 
make it plain enough that they are .as bad as their English 
counterparts, except that their sweat-shop methods are not as 
bold, thorough and ingenious. As soon as I’ve finished this, I shall 
make a start on the history of the social development of the 
English,'° which will be still less laborious, since I already have the 
material for it and have sorted it out in my head, and also because 
I’m perfectly clear about the matter. Meanwhile I shall probably 
write a few pamphlets, notably against List,! as soon as I have the 
time. 

You will have heard of Stirner’s book, Der Einzige und sein 
Eigenthum,’ if it hasn’t reached you yet. Wigand sent me the 
specimen sheets, which I took with me to Cologne and left with Hess. 
The noble Stirner—you’ll recall Schmidt of Berlin, who wrote about 
the Mystéres in Buhl’s magazine’—takes for his principle Bentham’s 
egoism, except that in one respect it is carried through more 
logically and in the other less so. More logically in the sense that 
Stirner as an atheist sets the ego above God, or rather depicts him 
as the be-all and end-all, whereas Bentham still allows God to 
remain remote and nebulous above him; that Stirner, in short, is 
riding on German idealism, an idealist who has turned to 
materialism and empiricism, whereas Bentham is simply an 
empiricist. Stirner is less logical in the sense that he would like to 
avoid the reconstruction effected by Bentham of a society reduced 
to atoms, but cannot do so. This egoism is simply the essence of 
present society and present man brought to consciousness, the 
ultimate that can be said against us by present society, the 
culmination of all the theory intrinsic to the prevailing stupidity. 
But that’s precisely what makes the thing important, more 
important than Hess, for one, holds it to be. We must not simply 
cast it aside, but rather use it as the perfect expression of 
present-day folly and, while inverting it, continue to build on it. 
This egoism is taken to such a pitch, it is so absurd and at the 
same time so self-aware, that it cannot maintain itself even for am 
instant in its one-sidedness, but must immediately change into 
communism. In the first place it’s a simple matter to prove to 

a The book came out at the end of October 1844, though imprinted as 
1845. - > Review of Les Mystéres de Paris by Eugéne Sue published in Berliner 
Monatsschrift. 

Stirner that his egoistic man is bound to become communist out of 
sheer egoism. That’s the way to answer the fellow. In the second 
place he must be told that in its egoism the human heart is of 
itself, from the very outset, unselfish and self-sacrificing, so that 
he finally ends up with what he is combatting. These few 
platitudes will suffice to refute the one-sidedness. But we must also 
adopt such truth as there is in the principle. And it is certainly 
true that we must first make a cause our own, egoistic cause, 
before we can do anything to further it—and hence that in this 
sense, irrespective of any eventual material aspirations, we are 
communists out of egoism also, and it is out of egoism that we 
wish to be human beings, not mere individuals. Or to put it another 
way: Surner is right in rejecting Feuerbach’s ‘man’, or at least the 
‘man’ of Das Wesen des Christentums. Feuerbach deduces his ‘man’ 
from God, it is from God that he arrives at ‘man’, and hence ‘man’ 
is crowned with a theological halo of abstraction. The true way to 
arrive at ‘man’ is the other way about. We must take our 
departure from the Ego, the empirical, flesh-and-blood individual, 
if we are not, like Stirner, to remain stuck at this point but rather 
proceed to raise ourselves to ‘man’. ‘Man’ will always remain a 
wraith so long as his basis is not empirical man, In short we must 
take our departure from empiricism and materialism if our 
concepts, and notably our ‘man’, are to be something real; we 
must’ deduce the general from the particular, not from itself or, 4 
la Hegel, from thin air. All these are platitudes needing no 
explanation; they have already been spelled out by Feuerbach and 
I wouldn't have reiterated them had not Hess—presumably 
because of his earlier idealistic leanings—so dreadfully traduced 
empiricism, more especially Feuerbach and now Stirner. Much of 
what Hess says about Feuerbach is right; on the other hand he still 
seems to suffer from a number of idealistic aberrations— 
whenever he begins to talk about theoretical matters he always 
proceeds by categories and therefore cannot write in a popular 
fashion because he is much ‘too abstract. Hence he also hates any 
and every kind of egoism, and preaches the love of humanity, etc., 
which again boils down to Christian self-sacrifice. If, however, the 
flesh-and-blood individual is the true basis, the true point of 
departure, for our ‘man’, it follows that egoism—not of course 
Stirner’s intellectual egoism alone, but also the egoism of the 
heart—is the point of departure for our love of humanity, which 
otherwise is left hanging in the air. Since Hess will soon be with 

a The Essence of Christianity 

you, you'll be able to discuss this with him yourself. Incidentally, I 
find all this theoretical twaddle daily more tedious and am 
irritated by every word that has to be expended on the subject of 
‘man’, by every line that has to be read or written against theology 
and abstraction no less than against crude materialism. But it’s 
quite another matter when, instead of concerning oneself with all 
these phantasms—for such even unrealised man remains until the 
moment of his realisation—one turns to real, live things, to 
historical developments and consequences. That, at least, is the 
best we can hope for so long as we’re confined exclusively to 
wielding a pen and cannot realise our thoughts directly with our 
hands or, if need be, with our fists. 

But Stirner’s book demonstrates yet again how deeply abstrac- 
tion is rooted in the Berliners’ nature. Clearly Stirner is the most 
talented, independent and hard-working of the ‘Free’,!” but for all 
that he tumbles out of idealistic into materialistic abstraction and 
ends up in limbo. From all over Germany comes news of the 
progress made by socialism, but from Berlin not a whisper. When 
property has been abolished throughout Germany these clever- 
clever Berliners will set up a démocratie pacifique* on the 
Hasenheide—but the fellows will certainly get no further. Watch 
out! A new Messiah will presently arise in the Uckermark, a 
Messiah who will tailor Fourier to accord with Hegel; erect a 
phalanstery upon the eternal categories and Jay it down as an eter- 
nal law of the self-developing idea that capital, talent and labour 
all have a definite share in the product. This will be the New 
Testament of Hegelianism, old Hegel will be the Old Testament, 
the ‘state’, the law, will be a ‘taskmaster over Christ’,? and the 
phalanstery, in which the privies are located in accordance with 
logical necessity, will be the ‘new Heaven’ and the ‘new Earth’, the 
new Jerusalem descending from heaven decked out like a bride,‘ 
all of which the reader will be able to find expounded at greater 
length in the new Revelation. And when all this has been 
completed, Critical Criticism will supervene, declare that it is all in 
all, that it combines in its head capital, talent and labour, that 
everything that is produced is produced by it, and not by the 
powerless masses—and sequestrate everything for itself. That will 
be the end of Berlin’s Hegelian [peace]ful democracy. 

If Critical Criticism’ is finished, send me a few copies under 

a An ironical allusion to the Fourierist newspaper La Démocratie pacifique known for 
its sectarian and dogmatic leanings. - > Cf. Galatians 3:24 - © Cf. Revelation 21:1 and 
2.-4 K. Marx and F. Engels, The Holy Family. 

{4 6. Marx to Bornstein. End of December 1844 

sealed cover through the booksellers—they might be confiscated. 
In case you [didn’t re]ceive my last letter, 1 repeat that you can 
write to me either [...] F. E. junior, Barmen, or under sealed cover 
to F. W. Stricker and Co., Elberfeld. This letter is being sent to 
you by a roundabout route. 

Write soon—it’s more than two months since I last heard from 
you—how goes it with Vorwdrts? My greetings to all. 

Your? 

[Address on envelope] 

A Monsieur Charles Marx 

Rue Vanneau N 38 

Faubg. St. Germain, Paris