(Manchester, about 10 August 1851] 

Dear Marx. 

I was very much tickled by the Schnellpost. It’s a long time since 
I’ve read such consummate balderdash as ‘A. Ruge an K. Hein- 
zen’.* I couldn’t have believed that even two jackasses such as 
Ruge and Heinzen could emerge from three years of revolution- 
ary tumult so completely unchanged and still so encumbered 
with the same old stock phrases, absurd mannerisms, turns of 
speech, etc. It’s like the clown in the circus riders’ troupe who, 
after performing the most hair-raising leaps, makes yet another 
bow, says: ‘Here we are acain!’ and then, without the _ least 
compunction, proceeds to repeat every item in his all-too familiar 
repertoire. I can just see Ruge, that egregious literary laxative, as 
he seriously declares that 

‘the fundamental answer to tyranny, anarchy and high treason ... is precisely the 
bull’s-eye which it behoves us to hit, 

and then himself hits the bull’s-eye with the discovery that the 
modern class struggle is the secessio plebis,” whence, by a process of 
effortless association, he goes on to the Roman _ schoolmaster‘ 
whose name I forget, his fable of the stomach and the hands“ 
and other such charming fourth form pedagogic recollections. 
The chap’s impayable’ when he comes to speak of ‘circumstances’, 

‘As you know ... by “circumstances” all I mean are the thoughts which are 
presently uppermost in men’s. minds!’ 

His lame attempts at making wittily malicious allusions were a 
dismal failure. The fellow is adroit enough; his malice is plain for all 
to see, but nobody has the faintest idea of its object nor of the general 
why and wherefore. And whereas the great Ruge is turning out to be 
a buffoon pure and simple, the great Heinzen excels no less as a 
boor, a condition now become chronic. The manner in which the 

a See this volume, p. 408. -» secession of the plebs - © Menenius Agrippa - 
4 priceless 

fellow seeks, in his note of 23 July 1851, to fob off on his readers his 
old nonsense about communism couched in the very same terms as 
those he used in the Deutsche-Briisseler-Zeitung in the summer of 
1847, is impudent beyond words.* 

Et pourtant,” the fellows are compelled to recognise the superiority 
of our stuff, not only by their constant preoccupation with it, but 
even more by its influence on them of which despite their 
stubbornness and rage they are quite unaware. In all this scribble, 
there is not a single phrase that does not contain a plagiarism, an 
uncomprehending distortion of our stuff, or something suggested 
by it. 

Mr Meyen or Faucher has published a fatuous article in 
Manteuffel’s semi-official Lithographische Correspondenz in Berlin 
about the attempted conciliation in London “; only we two still stick to 
one another, etc.—all the rest being united and opposed to us. No 
mention of Freiligrath or Wolff. It would seem that, following the 
disbandment of the army of the future, the great Willich finds 
himself obliged to gain recognition as ‘a character’ * among the great 
men of all parties; he is even said to have attended their meetings. A 
quoi tous ces coups de désesporr ont-tls abouti? And has the great Sigel 
been to see your 

I have just been assured by a German social jackass who arrived 
from Dessau with an introduction from Julius, that the gentlemen 
there have been circulating the rumour that, by your own 
confession—you yourself are alleged to have told Mr Louis Drucker 
(!) so—you are writing for the Neue Preussische Zeitung. En voila une 
bonne!" 

As for Proudhon, the man seems to be making progress. The 
phases of development through which his nonsense passes are at 
least assuming a more tolerable form and these ‘hérésies’ are 
something for Mr Louis Blanc to break his teeth on. Thus, au bout du 
compte,” Mr Proudhon has now also come to the conclusion that the 
true meaning of property rights lies in the disguised confiscation of 
all property by a more or less disguised State, and that what abolition 
of the State really means is intensified state centralisation. What else 
are 

a ‘Karl Heinzen und die Kommunisten’, Deutsche-Briisseler-Zeitung, No. 77, 26 
September 1847. Engels’ reply to it were articles ‘The Communists and Karl 
Heinzen’. - > Nevertheless - € See this volume, p. 425. - 4 Cf. H. Heine, Atta Troll, 
XXIV — no talent but a character’ (description of the bear-hero Atta Troll). - ¢ What 
have all these acts of despair led to? - £ That’s a good one! - 8 P. J. Proudhon, [dée 
générale de la Révolution au XIX siécle- in the final analysis 

200. Engels to Marx. About 11 August 1851 419 

‘toutes les communes de la république qui s’entendent pour égaliser entre elles 
les differences de qualité des terrains ainsi que les accidents de la culture’,? 
with all the appurtenances and consequences this would entail? 

More about this old character tomorrow, provided I have the 
time. I can’t possibly let you have Friday’s article this week.” But 
write and tell me soon what sort of thing it should be— whether 
you wish it to stand on its own or to be one of a series, and 2) 
what attitude I should adopt, as I know nothing about the poxrrics 
of the New-York Tribune beyond the fact that they are American 
Whigs. Also, any other available information that may help me 
find my bearings. 

Your 
F. E.