Politicaleconomy，however，asthescienceoftheconditionsandformsunderwhichthevarioushumansocietieshaveproducedandexchangedandonthisbasishavedistributedtheirproducts——politicaleconomyinthiswidersensehasstilltobebroughtintobeing。Sucheconomicscienceaswepossessuptothepresentislimitedalmostexclusivelytothegenesisanddevelopmentofthecapitalistmodeofproduction:itbeginswithacritiqueofthesurvivalsofthefeudalformsofproductionandexchange，showsthenecessityoftheirreplacementbycapitalistforms，thendevelopsthelawsofthecapitalistmodeofproductionanditscorrespondingformsofexchangeintheirpositiveaspects，thatistheaspectsinwhichtheyfurtherthegeneralaimsofsociety，andendswithasocialistcritiqueofthecapitalistmodeofproduction，thatis，withanexpositionofitslawsintheirnegativeaspects，withademonstrationthatthismodeofproduction，byvirtueofitsowndevelopment，drivestowardsthepointatwhichitmakesitselfimpossible。Thiscritiqueprovesthatthecapitalistformsofproductionandexchangebecomemoreandmoreanintolerablefetteronproductionitself，thatthemodeofdistributionnecessarilydeterminedbythoseformshasproducedasituationamongtheclasseswhichisdailybecomingmoreintolerable——theantagonism，sharpeningfromdaytoday，betweencapitalists，constantlydecreasinginnumberbutconstantlygrowingricher，andpropertylesswage-workers，whosenumberisconstantlyincreasingandwhoseconditions，takenasawhole，aresteadilydeteriorating;andfinally，thatthecolossalproductiveforcescreatedwithinthecapitalistmodeofproductionwhichthelattercannolongermaster，areonlywaitingtobetakenpossessionofbyasocietyorganisedforco-operativeworkonaplannedbasistoensuretoallmembersofsocietythemeansofexistenceandofthefreedevelopmentoftheircapacities，andindeedinconstantlyincreasingmeasure。
Inordertocompletethiscritiqueofbourgeoiseconomics，anacquaintancewiththecapitalistformofproduction，exchangeanddistributiondidnotsuffice。Theformswhichhadprecededitorthosewhichstillexistalongsideitinlessdevelopedcountries，hadalso，atleastintheirmainfeatures，tobeexaminedandcompared。Suchaninvestigationandcomparisonhasuptothepresentbeenundertaken，ingeneraloutline，onlybyMarx，andwethereforeowealmostexclusivelytohisresearches[65]allthathassofarbeenestablishedconcerningpre-bourgeoistheoreticaleconomics。
Althoughitfirsttookshapeinthemindsofafewmenofgeniustowardstheendoftheseventeenthcentury，politicaleconomyinthenarrowersense，initspositiveformulationbythephysiocratsandAdamSmith，isneverthelessessentiallyachildoftheeighteenthcentury，andrankswiththeachievementsofthecontemporarygreatFrenchphilosophersoftheEnlightenment，sharingwiththemallthemeritsanddemeritsofthatperiod。Whatwehavesaidofthephilosophersaisalsotrueoftheeconomistsofthattime。
Tothem，thenewsciencewasnottheexpressionoftheconditionsandrequirementsoftheirepoch，buttheexpressionofeternalreason;thelawsofproductionandexchangediscoveredbythissciencewerenotlawsofahistoricallydeterminedformofthoseactivities，buteternallawsofnature;theywerededucedfromthenatureofman。Butthisman，whenexaminedmoreclosely，provedtobetheaverageburgherofthatepoch，onthewaytobecomingabourgeois，andhisnatureconsistedinmanufacturingandtradinginaccordancewiththehistoricallydeterminedconditionsofthatperiod。
Nowthatwehaveacquiredsufficientknowledgeofour“layerofcriticalfoundations“，HerrDühring，andhismethodinthephilosophicalfield，itwillnotbedifficultforustoforetellthewayinwhichhewillhandlepoliticaleconomy。Inphilosophy，insofarashiswritingswerenotsimplydrivel(asinhisphilosophyofnature)，hismodeofoutlookwasadistortionofthatoftheeighteenthcentury。Itwasnotaquestionofhistoricallawsofdevelopment，butoflawsofnature，eternaltruths。
Socialrelationssuchasmoralityandlawweredetermined，notbytheactualhistoricalconditionsoftheage，butbythefamoustwomen，oneofwhomeitheroppressestheotherordoesnot——thoughthelatteralternative，sadtosay，hasneveryetcometopass。WearethereforehardlylikelytogoastrayifweconcludethatHerrDühringwilltracepoliticaleconomyalsobacktofinalandultimatetruths{D。Ph。2}，eternalnaturallaws，andthemostemptyandbarrentautologicalaxioms;thatneverthelesshewillsmuggleinagainbythebackdoorthewholepositivecontentofpoliticaleconomy，sofarasthisisknowntohim;andthathewillnotevolvedistribution，asasocialphenomenon，outofproductionandexchange，butwillhanditovertohisfamoustwomenforfinalsolution。Andasallthesearetrickswithwhichwearealreadyfamiliar，ourtreatmentofthisquestioncanbealltheshorter。
Infact，alreadyonpage2，[66]HerrDühringtellsusthathiseconomicslinksupwithwhathasbeen“established“inhisPhilosophie，and“incertainessentialpointsdependsontruthsofahigherorderwhichhavealreadybeenconsummated[ausgemacht]inahigherfieldofinvestigation“{D。C。2}。
Everywherethesameimportunateeulogyofhimself;everywhereHerrDühringistriumphantoverwhatHerrDühringhasestablishedandputout[ausgemacht]。
Putout，yes，wehaveseenittosurfeit——butputoutinthewaythatpeopleputoutasputteringcandle。[InGermananuntranslatableplayonwords:ausmachenmeansconsummateandalsoputout——Ed。]
Immediatelyafterwardswefind“themostgeneralnaturallawsgoverningalleconomy“{4}——
soourforecastwasright。
Butthesenaturallawspermitofacorrectunderstandingofpasthistoryonlyiftheyare“investigatedinthatmoreprecisedeterminationwhichtheirresultshaveexperiencedthroughthepoliticalformsofsubjectionandgrouping。Institutionssuchasslaveryandwagebondage，alongwithwhichisassociatedtheirtwin-brother，propertybasedonforce，mustberegardedassocial-economicconstitutionalformsofapurelypoliticalnature，andhavehithertoconstitutedtheframewithinwhichtheconsequencesofthenaturaleconomiclawscouldalonemanifestthemselves“{4-5}。
Thissentenceisthefanfarewhich，likealeitmotifinWagner’soperas，announcestheapproachofthefamoustwomen。Butitismorethanthis:itisthebasicthemeofHerrDühring’swholebook。Inthesphereoflaw，HerrDühringcouldnotofferusanythingexceptabadtranslationofRousseau’stheoryofequalityintothelanguageofsocialism，suchasonehaslongbeenabletohearmuchmoreeffectivelyrenderedinanyworkers’
taverninParis。Nowhegivesusanequallybadsocialisttranslationoftheeconomists’lamentsoverthedistortionoftheeternalnaturaleconomiclawsandoftheireffectsowingtotheinterventionofthestate，offorce。
AndinthisHerrDühringstands，deservedly，absolutelyaloneamongsocialists。Everysocialistworker，nomatterofwhatnationality，knowsquitewellthatforceonlyprotectsexploitation，butdoesnotcauseit;
thattherelationbetweencapitalandwage-labouristhebasisofhisexploitation，andthatthiswasbroughtaboutbypurelyeconomiccausesandnotatallbymeansofforce。
Thenwearefurthertoldthatinalleconomicquestions“twoprocesses，thatofproductionandthatofdistribution，canbedistinguished“。AlsothatJ。B。Say，notoriousforhissuperficiality，mentionedinadditionathirdprocess，thatofconsumption，butthathewasunabletosayanythingsensibleaboutit，anymorethanhissuccessors{7-8}andthatexchangeorcirculationis，however，onlyadepartmentofproduction，whichcomprisesalltheoperationsrequiredfortheproductstoreachtheultimateconsumer，theconsumerproper{11-12}。
Byconfoundingthetwoessentiallydifferent，thoughalsomutuallydependent，processesofproductionandcirculation，andunblushinglyassertingthattheavoidanceofthisconfusioncanonly“giverisetoconfusion“，HerrDühringmerelyshowsthatheeitherdoesnotknowordoesnotunderstandthecolossaldevelopmentwhichpreciselycirculationhasundergoneduringthelastfiftyyears，asindeedisfurtherborneoutbytherestofhisbook。Butthisisnotall。Afterjustlumpingtogetherproductionandexchangeintoone，assimplyproduction，heputsdistributionalongsideproduction，asasecond，whollyexternalprocess，whichhasnothingwhatevertodowiththefirst。Nowwehaveseenthatdistribution，initsdecisivefeatures，isalwaysthenecessaryresultoftheproductionandexchangerelationsofaparticularsociety，aswellasofthehistoricalconditionsinwhichthissocietyarose;somuchsothatwhenweknowtheserelationsandconditionswecanconfidentlyinferthemodeofdistributionwhichprevailsinthissociety。ButweseealsothatifHerrDühringdoesnotwanttobeunfaithfultotheprinciples“established“byhiminhisconceptionsofmorality，lawandhistory，heiscompelledtodenythiselementaryeconomicfact，especiallyifheistosmugglehisindispensabletwomenintoeconomics。
Andoncedistributionhasbeenhappilyfreedofallconnectionwithproductionandexchange，thisgreateventcancometopass。
LetusfirstrecallhowHerrDühringdevelopedhisargumentinthefieldofmoralityandlaw。Hestartedoriginallywithoneman，andhesaid:
“Onemanconceivedasbeingalone，or，whatisineffectthesame，outofallconnectionwithothermen，canhavenoobligations;forsuchamantherecanbenoquestionofwhatheought，butonlyofwhathewants，todo“{D。Ph。199}。
Butwhatisthisman，conceivedasbeingaloneandwithoutobligations，butthefateful“primordialJewAdam“{110}inparadise，whereheiswithoutsinsimplybecausethereisnopossibilityforhimtocommitany？——However，eventhisAdamofthephilosophyofrealityisdestinedtofallintosin。
AlongsidethisAdamtheresuddenlyappears——not，itistrue，anEvewithripplingtresses，butasecondAdam。AndinstantlyAdamacquiresobligationsand——breaksthem。Insteadoftreatinghisbrotherashavingequalrightsandclaspinghimtohisbreast，hesubjectshimtohisdomination，hemakesaslaveofhim——anditistheconsequencesofthisfirstsin，theoriginalsinoftheenslavementofman，fromwhichtheworldhassufferedthroughthewholecourseofhistorydowntothepresentday——whichispreciselywhatmakesHerrDühringthinkworldhistoryisnotworthafarthing。
Incidentally，HerrDühringconsideredthathehadbroughtthe“negationofthenegation“sufficientlyintocontemptbycharacterisingitasacopyoftheoldfableoforiginalsinandredemption{seeD。K。
G。504}——butwhatarewetosayofhislatestversionofthesamestory？
(for，induetime，weshall，touseanexpressionofthereptilepress，[67]“getdowntobrasstacks“onredemptionaswell)。AllwecansayisthatweprefertheoldSemitictriballegend，accordingtowhichitwasworthwhileforthemanandwomantoabandonthestateofinnocence，andthattoHerrDühringwillbelefttheuncontestedgloryofhavingconstructedhisoriginalsinwithtwomen。
Letusnowseehowhetranslatesthisoriginalsinintoeconomicterms:
“WecangetanappropriatecogitativeschemefortheideaofproductionfromtheconceptionofaRobinsonCrusoewhoisfacingnaturealonewithhisownresourcesandhasnottosharewithanyoneelse……Equallyappropriatetoillustratewhatismostessentialintheideaofdistributionisthecogitativeschemeoftwopersons，whocombinetheireconomicforcesandmustevidentlycometoamutualunderstandinginsomeformastotheirrespectiveshares。Infactnothingmorethanthissimpledualismisrequiredtoenableusaccuratelytoportraysomeofthemostimportantrelationsofdistributionandtostudytheirlawsembryonicallyintheirlogicalnecessity……Co-operativeworkingonanequalfootingisherejustasconceivableasthecombinationofforcesthroughthecompletesubjectionofoneparty，whoisthencompelledtorendereconomicserviceasaslaveorasameretoolandismaintainedalsoonlyasatool……Betweenthestateofequalityandthatofnullityontheonepartandofomnipotenceandsolely-activeparticipationontheother，thereisarangeofstageswhichtheeventsofworldhistoryhavefilledininrichvariety。Auniversalsurveyofthevariousinstitutionsofjusticeandinjusticethroughouthistoryishereanessentialpresupposition“{D。C。9-10}……
andinconclusionthewholequestionofdistributionistransformedintoan“economicrightofdistribution“{10}。
NowatlastHerrDühringhasfirmgroundunderhisfeetagain。Arminarmwithhistwomenhecanissuehischallengetohisage。Butbehindthistrinitystandsyetanother，anunnamedman。
“Capitalhasnotinventedsurplus-labour。Whereverapartofsocietypossessesthemonopolyofthemeansofproduction，thelabourer，freeornotfree，mustaddtotheworking-timenecessaryforhisownmaintenanceanextraworking-timeinordertoproducethemeansofsubsistencefortheownersofthemeansofproduction，whetherthisproprietorbetheAthenian[aristocrat]，Etruscantheocrat，civisRomanus[Romancitizen]，Normanbaron，Americanslave-owner，WallachianBoyard，modernlandlordorcapitalist“
(Marx，DasKapital，Vol。I，2ndedition，p。227)。
WhenHerrDühringhadthuslearnedwhatthebasicformofexploitationcommontoallformsofproductionuptothepresentdayis——sofarastheseformsmoveinclassantagonisms——allhehadtodowastoapplyhistwomentoit，andthedeep-rootedfoundationoftheeconomicsofrealitywascompleted。Hedidnothesitateforamomenttocarryoutthis“system-creatingidea“{D。Ph。525}。Labourwithoutcompensation，beyondthelabour-timenecessaryforthemaintenanceofthelabourerhimself——thatisthepoint。
TheAdam，whoisherecalledRobinsonCrusoe，makeshissecondAdam——
ManFriday——drudgeforallheisworth。ButwhydoesFridaytoilmorethanisnecessaryforhisownmaintenance？Tothisquestion，too，Marxstepbystepprovidesananswer。Butthisanswerisfartoolong-windedforthetwomen。Thematterissettledinatrice:Crusoe“oppresses“Friday，compelshim“torendereconomicserviceasaslaveoratool“andmaintainshim“alsoonlyasatool“。Withtheselatest“creativeturns“{D。K。G。
462}ofhis，HerrDühringkillsasitweretwobirdswithonestone。
Firstly，hesaveshimselfthetroubleofexplainingthevariousformsofdistributionwhichhavehithertoexisted，theirdifferencesandtheircauses;
takeninthelump，theyaresimplyofnoaccount——theyrestonoppression，onforce。Weshallhavetodealwiththisbeforelong。Secondly，hetherebytransfersthewholetheoryofdistributionfromthesphereofeconomicstothatofmoralityandlaw，thatis，fromthesphereofestablishedmaterialfactstothatofmoreorlessvacillatingopinionsandsentiments。Hethereforenolongerhasanyneedtoinvestigateortoprovethings;hecangoondeclaimingtohisheart’scontentanddemandthatthedistributionoftheproductsoflabourshouldberegulated，notinaccordancewithitsrealcauses，butinaccordancewithwhatseemsethicalandjusttohim，HerrDühring。ButwhatseemsjusttoHerrDühringisnotatallimmutable，andhenceveryfarfrombeingagenuinetruth。Forgenuinetruths{D。Ph。
196}，accordingtoHerrDühringhimself，are“absolutelyimmutable“。
In1868HerrDühringasserted——DieSchicksalemeinersozialenDenkschriftetc——thatitwas“atendencyofallhighercivilisationtoputmoreandmoreemphasisonproperty，andinthis，notinconfusionofrightsandspheresofsovereignty，liestheessenceandthefutureofmoderndevelopment“。
Andfurthermore，hewasquiteunabletosee“howatransformationofwage-labourintoanothermannerofgainingalivelihoodisevertobereconciledwiththelawsofhumannatureandthenaturallynecessarystructureofthebodysocial“。
Thusin1868，privatepropertyandwage-labourarenaturallynecessaryandthereforejust;in1876bothofthesearetheemanationofforceand“robbery“andthereforeunjust。Andaswecannotpossiblytellwhatinafewyears’timemayseemethicalandjusttosuchamightyandimpetuousgenius，weshouldinanycasedobetter，inconsideringthedistributionofwealth，tosticktothereal，objective，economiclawsandnottodependonthemomentary，changeable，subjectiveconceptionsofHerrDühringastowhatisjustorunjust。
Iffortheimpendingoverthrowofthepresentmodeofdistributionoftheproductsoflabour，withitscryingcontrastsofwantandluxury，starvationandsurfeit，wehadnobetterguaranteethantheconsciousnessthatthismodeofdistributionisunjust，andthatjusticemusteventuallytriumph，weshouldbeinaprettybadway，andwemighthavealongtimetowait。ThemysticsoftheMiddleAgeswhodreamedofthecomingmillenniumwerealreadyconsciousoftheinjusticeofclassantagonisms。Onthethresholdofmodernhistory，threehundredandfiftyyearsago，ThomasMünzerproclaimedittotheworld。IntheEnglishandtheFrenchbourgeoisrevolutionsthesamecallresounded——anddiedaway。Andiftodaythesamecallfortheabolitionofclassantagonismsandclassdistinctions，whichupto1830[68]hadlefttheworkingandsufferingclassescold，iftodaythiscallisre-echoedamillionfold，ifittakesholdofonecountryafteranotherinthesameorderandinthesamedegreeofintensitythatmodernindustrydevelopsineachcountry，ifinonegenerationithasgainedastrengththatenablesittodefyalltheforcescombinedagainstitandtobeconfidentofvictoryinthenearfuture——whatisthereasonforthis？Thereasonisthatmodernlarge-scaleindustryhascalledintobeingontheonehandaproletariat，aclasswhichforthefirsttimeinhistorycandemandtheabolition，notofthisorthatparticularclassorganisation，orofthisorthatparticularclassprivilege，butofclassesthemselves，andwhichisinsuchapositionthatitmustcarrythroughthisdemandonpainofsinkingtotheleveloftheChinesecoolie。Ontheotherhandthissamelarge-scaleindustryhasbroughtintobeing，inthebourgeoisie，aclasswhichhasthemonopolyofalltheinstrumentsofproductionandmeansofsubsistence，butwhichineachspeculativeboomperiodandineachcrashthatfollowsitprovesthatithasbecomeincapableofanylongercontrollingtheproductiveforces，whichhavegrownbeyonditspower，aclassunderwhoseleadershipsocietyisracingtoruinlikealocomotivewhosejammedsafety-valvethedriveristooweaktoopen。Inotherwords，thereasonisthatboththeproductiveforcescreatedbythemoderncapitalistmodeofproductionandthesystemofdistributionofgoodsestablishedbyithavecomeintocryingcontradictionwiththatmodeofproductionitself，andinfacttosuchadegreethat，ifthewholeofmodernsocietyisnottoperish，arevolutioninthemodeofproductionanddistributionmusttakeplace，arevolutionwhichwillputanendtoallclassdistinctions。
Onthistangible，materialfact，whichisimpressingitselfinamoreorlessclearform，butwithinsuperablenecessity，onthemindsoftheexploitedproletarians——onthisfact，andnotontheconceptionsofjusticeandinjusticeheldbyanyarmchairphilosopher，ismodernsocialism’sconfidenceinvictoryfounded。
II。
THEORYOFFORCE“Inmysystem，therelationbetweengeneralpoliticsandtheformsofeconomiclawisdeterminedinsodefiniteawayandatthesametimeawaysooriginalthatitwouldnotbesuperfluous，inordertofacilitatestudy，tomakespecialreferencetothispoint。
Theformationofpoliticalrelationshipsishistoricallythefundamentalthing，andinstancesofeconomicdependenceareonlyeffectsorspecialcases，andareconsequentlyalwaysfactsofasecondorder。Someofthenewersocialistsystemstakeastheirguidingprincipletheconspicuoussemblanceofacompletelyreverserelationship，inthattheyassumethatpoliticalphenomenaaresubordinatetoand，asitwere，growoutoftheeconomicconditions。Itistruethattheseeffectsofthesecondorderdoexistassuch，andaremostclearlyperceptibleatthepresenttime;buttheprimarymustbesoughtindirectpoliticalforceandnotinanyindirecteconomicpower“{D。Ph。538}。
Thisconceptionisalsoexpressedinanotherpassage，inwhichHerrDühring“startsfromtheprinciplethatthepoliticalconditionsarethedecisivecauseoftheeconomicsituationandthatthereverserelationshiprepresentsonlyareactionofasecondorder……solongasthepoliticalgroupingisnottakenforitsownsake，asthestarting-point，butistreatedmerelyasastomach-fillingagency，onemusthaveaportionofreactionstowedawayinone’smind，howeverradicalasocialistandrevolutionaryonemayseemtobe“{D。K。G。230-31}。
ThatisHerrDühring’stheory。Inthisandinmanyotherpassagesitissimplysetup，decreed，sotospeak。Nowhereinthethreefattomesisthereeventheslightestattempttoproveitortodisprovetheoppositepointofview。Andeveniftheargumentsforitwereasplentifulasblackberries，HerrDühringwouldgiveusnoneofthem。Forthewholeaffairhasbeenalreadyprovedthroughthefamousoriginalsin，whenRobinsonCrusoemadeFridayhisslave。Thatwasanactofforce，henceapoliticalact。
Andinasmuchasthisenslavementwasthestarting-pointandthebasicfactunderlyingallpasthistoryandinoculateditwiththeoriginalsinofinjustice，somuchsothatinthelaterperiodsitwasonlysofteneddownand“transformedintothemoreindirectformsofeconomicdependence“{D。
C。19};andinasmuchas“propertyfoundedonforce“{D。Ph。242}，whichhasasserteditselfrightuptothepresentday，islikewisebasedonthisoriginalactofenslavement，itisclearthatalleconomicphenomenamustbeexplainedbypoliticalcauses，thatis，byforce。Andanyonewhoisnotsatisfiedwiththatisareactionaryindisguise。
Wemustfirstpointoutthatonlyonewithasmuchself-esteemasHerrDühringcouldregardthisviewassovery“original“，whichitisnotintheleast。Theideathatpoliticalacts，grandperformancesofstate，aredecisiveinhistoryisasoldaswrittenhistoryitself，andisthemainreasonwhysolittlematerialhasbeenpreservedforusinregardtothereallyprogressiveevolutionofthepeopleswhichhastakenplacequietly，inthebackground，behindthesenoisyscenesonthestage。Thisideadominatedalltheconceptionsofhistoriansinthepast，andthefirstblowagainstitwasdeliveredonlybytheFrenchbourgeoishistoriansoftheRestorationperiod[69];theonly“original“thingaboutitisthatHerrDühringonceagainknowsnothingofallthis。
Furthermore:evenifweassumeforamomentthatHerrDühringisrightinsayingthatallpasthistorycanbetracedbacktotheenslavementofmanbyman，wearestillveryfarfromhavinggottothebottomofthematter。Forthequestionthenarises:howdidCrusoecometoenslaveFriday？
Justforthefunofit？Bynomeans。Onthecontrary，weseethatFriday“iscompelledtorendereconomicserviceasaslaveorasameretoolandismaintainedalsoonlyasatool“{D。C。9}。CrusoeenslavedFridayonlyinorderthatFridayshouldworkforCrusoe’sbenefit。AndhowcanhederiveanybenefitforhimselffromFriday’slabour？OnlythroughFridayproducingbyhislabourmoreofthenecessariesoflifethanCrusoehastogivehimtokeephimfittowork。Crusoe，therefore，inviolationofHerrDühring’sexpressorders，“takesthepoliticalgrouping“arisingoutofFriday’senslavement“notforitsownsake，asthestarting-point，butmerelyasastomach-fillingagency“;andnowlethimseetoitthathegetsalongwithhislordandmaster，DühringThechildishexamplespeciallyselectedbyHerrDühringinordertoprovethatforceis“historicallythefundamentalthing“，therefore，provesthatforceisonlythemeans，andthattheaim，onthecontrary，iseconomicadvantage。And“themorefundamental“theaimisthanthemeansusedtosecureit，themorefundamentalinhistoryistheeconomicsideoftherelationshipthanthepoliticalside。Theexamplethereforeprovespreciselytheoppositeofwhatitwassupposedtoprove。AndasinthecaseofCrusoeandFriday，soinallcasesofdominationandsubjectionuptothepresentday。Subjugationhasalwaysbeen——touseHerrDühring’selegantexpression——a“stomach-fillingagency“(takingstomach-fillinginaverywidesense)，butneverandnowhereapoliticalgroupingestablished“foritsownsake“。IttakesaHerrDühringtobeabletoimaginethatstatetaxesareonly“effectsofasecondorder“，orthatthepresent-daypoliticalgroupingoftherulingbourgeoisieandtheruledproletariathascomeintoexistence“foritsownsake“，andnotasa“stomach-fillingagency“fortherulingbourgeois，thatistosay，forthesakeofmakingprofitsandaccumulatingcapital。
However，letusgetbackagaintoourtwomen。Crusoe，“swordinhand“{D。C。23}，makesFridayhisslave。Butinordertomanagethis，Crusoeneedssomethingelsebesideshissword。Noteveryonecanmakeuseofaslave。Inordertobeabletomakeuseofaslave，onemustpossesstwokindsofthings:first，theinstrumentsandmaterialforhisslave’slabour;andsecondly，themeansofbaresubsistenceforhim。Therefore，beforeslaverybecomespossible，acertainlevelofproductionmustalreadyhavebeenreachedandacertaininequalityofdistributionmustalreadyhaveappeared。Andforslave-labourtobecomethedominantmodeofproductioninthewholeofasociety，anevenfarhigherincreaseinproduction，tradeandaccumulationofwealthwasessential。Intheancientprimitivecommunitieswithcommonownershipoftheland，slaveryeitherdidnotexistatallorplayedonlyaverysubordinaterole。ItwasthesameintheoriginallypeasantcityofRome;butwhenRomebecamea“worldcity“andItaliclandownershipcamemoreandmoreintothehandsofanumericallysmallclassofenormouslyrichproprietors，thepeasantpopulationwassupplantedbyapopulationofslaves。IfatthetimeofthePersianwarsthenumberofslavesinCorinthroseto460，000andinAeginato470，000andthereweretenslavestoeveryfreeman，[70]somethingelsebesides“force“wasrequired，namely，ahighlydevelopedartsandhandicraftindustryandanextensivecommerce。SlaveryintheUnitedStatesofAmericawasbasedfarlessonforcethanontheEnglishcottonindustry;inthosedistrictswherenocottonwasgrownorwhich，unliketheborderstates，didnotbreedslavesforthecotton-growingstates，itdiedoutofitselfwithoutanyforcebeingused，simplybecauseitdidnotpay。
Hence，bycallingpropertyasitexiststodaypropertyfoundedonforce，andbycharacterisingitas“thatformofdominationattherootofwhichliesnotmerelytheexclusionoffellow-menfromtheuseofthenaturalmeansofsubsistence，butalso，whatisfarmoreimportant，thesubjugationofmantomakehimdoservilework“{5}，HerrDühringismakingthewholerelationshipstandonitshead。Thesubjugationofamantomakehimdoservilework，inallitsforms，presupposesthatthesubjugatorhasathisdisposaltheinstrumentsoflabourwiththehelpofwhichaloneheisabletoemploythepersonplacedinbondage，andinthecaseofslavery，inaddition，themeansofsubsistencewhichenablehimtokeephisslavealive。Inallcases，therefore，itpresupposesthepossessionofacertainamountofproperty，inexcessoftheaverage。
Howdidthispropertycomeintoexistence？Inanycaseitisclearthatitmayinfacthavebeenrobbed，andthereforemaybebasedonforce，butthatthisisbynomeansnecessary。Itmayhavebeengotbylabour，itmayhavebeenstolen，oritmayhavebeenobtainedbytradeorbyfraud。
Infact，itmusthavebeenobtainedbylabourbeforetherewasanypossibilityofitsbeingrobbed。
Privatepropertybynomeansmakesitsappearanceinhistoryastheresultofrobberyorforce。Onthecontrary。Italreadyexisted，thoughlimitedtocertainobjects，intheancientprimitivecommunitiesofallcivilisedpeoples。Itdevelopedintotheformofcommoditieswithinthesecommunities，atfirstthroughbarterwithforeigners。Themoretheproductsofthecommunityassumedthecommodityform，thatis，thelesstheywereproducedfortheirproducers’ownuseandthemoreforthepurposeofexchange，andthemoretheoriginalspontaneouslyevolveddivisionoflabourwassupersededbyexchangealsowithinthecommunity，themoredidinequalitydevelopinthepropertyownedbytheindividualmembersofthecommunity，themoredeeplywastheancientcommonownershipofthelandundermined，andthemorerapidlydidthecommunedeveloptowardsitsdissolutionandtransformationintoavillageofsmallholdingpeasants。ForthousandsofyearsOrientaldespotismandthechangingruleofconqueringnomadpeopleswereunabletoinjuretheseoldcommunities;thegradualdestructionoftheirprimitivehomeindustrybythecompetitionofproductsoflarge-scaleindustrybroughtthesecommunitiesnearerandnearertodissolution。Forcewasaslittleinvolvedinthisprocessasinthedividingup，stilltakingplacenow，ofthelandheldincommonbythevillagecommunities[Gegoferschaften]
ontheMoselandintheHochwald;thepeasantssimplyfindittotheiradvantagethattheprivateownershipoflandshouldtaketheplaceofcommonownership。Eventheformationofaprimitivearistocracy，asinthecaseoftheCelts，theGermansandtheIndianPunjab，tookplaceonthebasisofcommonownershipoftheland，andatfirstwasnotbasedinanywayonforce，butonvoluntarinessandcustom。Whereverprivatepropertyevolveditwastheresultofalteredrelationsofproductionandexchange，intheinterestofincreasedproductionandinfurtheranceofintercourse——henceasaresultofeconomiccauses。Forceplaysnopartinthisatall。Indeed，itisclearthattheinstitutionofprivatepropertymustalreadybeinexistenceforarobbertobeabletoappropriateanotherperson’sproperty，andthatthereforeforcemaybeabletochangethepossessionof，butcannotcreate，privatepropertyassuch。
Norcanweuseeitherforceorpropertyfoundedonforceinexplanationofthe“subjugationofmantomakehimdoservilework“initsmostmodernform——wage-labour。Wehavealreadymentionedtheroleplayedinthedissolutionoftheancientcommunities，thatis，inthedirectorindirectgeneralspreadofprivateproperty，bythetransformationoftheproductsoflabourintocommodities，theirproductionnotforconsumptionbythosewhoproducedthem，butforexchange。NowinCapital，Marxprovedwithabsoluteclarity——andHerrDühringcarefullyavoidseventheslightestreferencetothis——thatatacertainstageofdevelopment，theproductionofcommoditiesbecomestransformedintocapitalistproduction，andthatatthisstage“thelawsofappropriationorofprivateproperty，lawsthatarebasedontheproductionandcirculationofcommodities，becomebytheirowninnerandinexorabledialecticchangedintotheiropposite。Theexchangeofequivalents，theoriginaloperationwithwhichwestarted，hasnowbecometurnedroundinsuchawaythatthereisonlyanapparentexchange。Thisisowingtothefact，first，thatthecapitalwhichisexchangedforlabour-powerisitselfbutaportionoftheproductofothers’labourappropriatedwithoutanequivalent;and，secondly，thatthiscapitalmustnotonlybereplacedbyitsproducer，butreplacedtogetherwithanaddedsurplus……Atfirstpropertyseemedtoustobebasedonaman’sownlabour……Now，however“
(attheendofMarx’sanalysis)“propertyturnsouttobetheright，onthepartofthecapitalist，toappropriatetheunpaidlabourofothers，andtobetheimpossibility，onthepartofthelabourer，ofappropriatinghisownproduct。Theseparationofpropertyfromlabourhasbecomethenecessaryconsequenceofalawthatapparentlyoriginatedintheiridentity。”
Inotherwords，evenifweexcludeallpossibilityofrobbery，forceandfraud，evenifweassumethatallprivatepropertywasoriginallybasedontheowner’sownlabour，andthatthroughoutthewholesubsequentprocesstherewasonlyexchangeofequalvaluesforequalvalues，theprogressivedevelopmentofproductionandexchangeneverthelessbringsusofnecessitytothepresentcapitalistmodeofproduction，tothemonopolisationofthemeansofproductionandthemeansofsubsistenceinthehandsoftheone，numericallysmall，class，tothedegradationintopropertylessproletariansoftheotherclass，constitutingtheimmensemajority，totheperiodicalternationofspeculativeproductionboomsandcommercialcrisesandtothewholeofthepresentanarchyofproduction。Thewholeprocesscanbeexplainedbypurelyeconomiccauses;atnopointwhateverarerobbery，force，thestateorpoliticalinterferenceofanykindnecessary。“Propertyfoundedonforce“{D。C。4}provesherealsotobenothingbutthephraseofabraggartintendedtocoveruphislackofunderstandingoftherealcourseofthings。
Thiscourseofthings，expressedhistorically，isthehistoryofthedevelopmentofthebourgeoisie。If“politicalconditionsarethedecisivecauseoftheeconomicsituation“{D。K。G。230-31}，thenthemodernbourgeoisiecannothavedevelopedinstrugglewithfeudalism，butmustbethelatter’svoluntarilybegottenpetchild。Everyoneknowsthatwhattookplacewastheopposite。Originallyanoppressedestateliabletopayduestotherulingfeudalnobility，recruitedfromallmannerofserfsandvillains，theburghersconqueredonepositionafteranotherintheircontinuousstrugglewiththenobility，andfinally，inthemosthighlydevelopedcountries，tookpowerinitsstead;inFrance，bydirectlyoverthrowingthenobility;inEngland，bymakingitmoreandmorebourgeoisandincorporatingitastheirownornamentalhead。Andhowdidtheyaccomplishthis？Simplythroughachangeinthe“economicsituation“，whichsoonerorlater，voluntarilyorastheoutcomeofcombat，wasfollowedbyachangeinthepoliticalconditions。Thestruggleofthebourgeoisieagainstthefeudalnobilityisthestruggleoftownagainstcountry，industryagainstlandedproperty，moneyeconomyagainstnaturaleconomy;andthedecisiveweaponofthebourgeoisieinthisstrugglewasitsmeansofeconomicpower，constantlyincreasingthroughthedevelopmentofindustry，firsthandicraft，andthen，atalaterstage，progressingtomanufacture，andthroughtheexpansionofcommerce。
Duringthewholeofthisstrugglepoliticalforcewasonthesideofthenobility，exceptforaperiodwhentheCrownplayedthebourgeoisieagainstthenobility，inordertokeeponeestateincheckbymeansoftheother[71];butfromthemomentwhenthebourgeoisie，stillpoliticallypowerless，begantogrowdangerousowingtoitsincreasingeconomicpower，theCrownresumeditsalliancewiththenobility，andbysodoingcalledforththebourgeoisrevolution，firstinEnglandandtheninFrance。The“politicalconditions“inFrancehadremainedunaltered，whilethe“economicsituation“hadoutgrownthem。Judgedbyhispoliticalstatusthenoblemanwaseverything，theburghernothing;butjudgedbyhissocialpositiontheburghernowformedthemostimportantclassinthestate，whilethenoblemanhadbeenshornofallhissocialfunctionsandwasnowonlydrawingpayment，intherevenuesthatcametohim，forthesefunctionswhichhaddisappeared。Norwasthatall。BourgeoisproductioninitsentiretywasstillhemmedinbythefeudalpoliticalformsoftheMiddleAges，whichthisproduction——notonlymanufacture，butevenhandicraftindustry——hadlongoutgrown;ithadremainedhemmedinbyallthethousandfoldguildprivilegesandlocalandprovincialcustomsbarrierswhichhadbecomemereirritantsandfettersonproduction。Thebourgeoisrevolutionputanendtothis。Not，however，byadjustingtheeconomicsituationtosuitthepoliticalconditions，inaccordancewithHerrDühring’sprecept——thiswaspreciselywhatthenoblesandtheCrownhadbeenvainlytryingtodoforyears——butbydoingtheopposite，bycastingasidetheoldmoulderingpoliticalrubbishandcreatingpoliticalconditionsinwhichthenew“economicsituation“couldexistanddevelop。Andinthispoliticalandlegalatmospherewhichwassuitedtoitsneedsitdevelopedbrilliantly，sobrilliantlythatthebourgeoisiehasalreadycomeclosetooccupyingthepositionheldbythenobilityin1789:itisbecomingmoreandmorenotonlysociallysuperfluous，butasocialhindrance;itismoreandmorebecomingseparatedfromproductiveactivity，and，likethenobilityinthepast，becomingmoreandmoreaclassmerelydrawingrevenues;andithasaccomplishedthisrevolutioninitsownpositionandthecreationofanewclass，theproletariat，withoutanyhocus-pocusofforcewhatever，inapurelyeconomicway。Evenmore:itdidnotinanywaywillthisresultofitsownactionslandactivities——onthecontrary，thisresultestablisheditselfwithirresistibleforce，againstthewillandcontrarytotheintentionsofthebourgeoisie;itsownproductiveforceshavegrownbeyonditscontrol，and，asifnecessitatedbyalawofnature，aredrivingthewholeofbourgeoissocietytowardsruin，orrevolution。Andifthebourgeoisnowmaketheirappealtoforceinordertosavethecollapsing“economicsituation“fromthefinalcrash，thisonlyshowsthattheyarelabouringunderthesamedelusionasHerrDühring:thedelusionthat“politicalconditionsarethedecisivecauseoftheeconomicsituation“;thisonlyshowsthattheyimagine，justasHerrDühringdoes，thatbymakinguseof“theprimary“，“thedirectpoliticalforce“，theycanremodelthose“factsofthesecondorder“{D。Ph。538}，theeconomicsituationanditsinevitabledevelopment;andthatthereforetheeconomicconsequencesofthesteam-engineandthemodernmachinerydrivenbyit，ofworldtradeandthebankingandcreditdevelopmentsofthepresentday，canbeblownoutofexistencebythemwithKruppgunsandMauserrifles。[72]
III。
THEORYOFFORCE
(Continuation)Butletuslookalittlemorecloselyatthisomnipotent“force“ofHerrDühring’s。CrusoeenslavedFriday“swordinhand“
{D。C。23}。Wheredidhegetthesword？EvenontheimaginaryislandsoftheRobinsonCrusoeepic，swordshavenot，uptonow，beenknowntogrowontrees，andHerrDühringprovidesnoanswertothisquestion。IfCrusoecouldprocureaswordforhimself，weareequallyentitledtoassumethatonefinemorningFridaymightappearwithaloadedrevolverinhishand，andthenthewhole“force“relationshipisinverted。Fridaycommands，anditisCrusoewhohastodrudge。WemustapologisetothereadersforreturningwithsuchinsistencetotheRobinsonCrusoeandFridaystory，whichproperlybelongstothenurseryandnottothefieldofscience——
buthowcanwehelpit？WeareobligedtoapplyHerrDühring’saxiomaticmethodconscientiously，anditisnotourfaultifindoingsowehavetokeepallthetimewithinthefieldofpurechildishness。So，then，therevolvertriumphsoverthesword;andthiswillprobablymakeeventhemostchildishaxiomaticiancomprehendthatforceisnomereactofthewill，butrequirestheexistenceofveryrealpreliminaryconditionsbeforeitcancomeintooperation，namely，instruments，themoreperfectofwhichgetsthebetterofthelessperfect;moreover，thattheseinstrumentshavetobeproduced，whichimpliesthattheproducerofmoreperfectinstrumentsofforce，vulgoarms，getsthebetteroftheproducerofthelessperfectinstruments，andthat，inaword，thetriumphofforceisbasedontheproductionofarms，andthisinturnonproductioningeneral——
therefore，on“economicpower“，onthe“economicsituation“，onthematerialmeanswhichforcehasatitsdisposal。
Force，nowadays，isthearmyandnavy，andboth，asweallknowtoourcost，are“devilishlyexpensive“。Force，however，cannotmakeanymoney;atmostitcantakeawaymoneythathasalreadybeenmade——andthisdoesnothelpmucheither——aswehaveseen，alsotoourcost，in。
thecaseoftheFrenchmilliards。[73]Inthelastanalysis，therefore，moneymustbeprovidedthroughthemediumofeconomicproduction;andsooncemoreforceisconditionedbytheeconomicsituation，whichfurnishesthemeansfortheequipmentandmaintenanceoftheinstrumentsofforce。Buteventhatisnotall。Nothingismoredependentoneconomicprerequisitesthanpreciselyarmyandnavy。Armament，composition，organisation，tacticsandstrategydependaboveallonthestagereachedatthetimeinproductionandoncommunications。Itisnotthe“freecreationsofthemind“{D。Ph。43}ofgeneralsofgeniusthathavehadarevolutionisingeffecthere，buttheinventionofbetterweaponsandthechangeinthehumanmaterial，thesoldiers;attheverymostthepartplayedbygeneralsofgeniusislimitedtoadaptingmethodsoffightingtothenewweaponsandcombatants。
Atthebeginningofthefourteenthcentury，gunpowdercamefromtheArabstoWesternEurope，and，aseveryschoolchildknows，completelyrevolutionisedthemethodsofwarfare。Theintroductionofgunpowderandfire-arms，however，wasnotatallanactofforce，butastepforwardinindustry，thatis，aneconomicadvance。Industryremainsindustry，whetheritisappliedtotheproductionorthedestructionofthings。Andtheintroductionoffire-armshadarevolutionisingeffectnotonlyontheconductofwaritself，butalsoonthepoliticalrelationshipsofdominationandsubjection。
Theprocurementofpowderandfire-armsrequiredindustryandmoney，andbothofthesewereinthehandsoftheburghersofthetowns。Fromtheoutsettherefore，fire-armsweretheweaponsofthetowns，andoftherisingtown-supportedmonarchyagainstthefeudalnobility。Thestonewallsofthenoblemen’scastles，hithertounapproachable，fellbeforethecannonoftheburghers，andthebulletsoftheburghers’arquebusespiercedthearmouroftheknights。Withthedefeatofthenobility’sarmour-cladcavalry，thenobility’ssupremacywasbroken;withthedevelopmentofthebourgeoisie，infantryandartillerybecamemoreandmorethedecisivetypesofarmscompelledbythedevelopmentofartillery，themilitaryprofessionhadtoaddtoitsorganisationanewandentirelyindustrialsubsection，engineering。
Theimprovementoffire-armswasaveryslowprocess。Thepiecesofartilleryremainedclumsyandthemusket，inspiteofanumberofinventionsaffectingdetails，wasstillacrudeweapon。Ittookoverthreehundredyearsforaweapontobeconstructedthatwassuitablefortheequipmentofthewholebodyofinfantry。Itwasnotuntiltheearlyeighteenthcenturythattheflint-lockmusketwithabayonetfinallydisplacedthepikeintheequipmentoftheinfantry。Thefootsoldiersofthatperiodwerethemercenariesofprinces;theyconsistedofthemostdemoralisedelementsofsociety，rigorouslydrilledbutquiteunreliableandonlyheldtogetherbytherod;theywereoftenhostileprisonersofwarwhohadbeenpressedintoservice。Theonlytypeoffightinginwhichthesesoldierscouldapplythenewweaponswasthetacticsoftheline，whichreacheditshighestperfectionunderFrederickII。Thewholeinfantryofanarmywasdrawnupintripleranksintheformofaverylong，hollowsquare，andmovedinbattleorderonlyasawhole;attheverymost，eitherofthetwowingsmightmoveforwardorkeepbackalittle。Thiscumbrousmasscouldmoveinformationonlyonabsolutelylevelground，andeventhenonlyveryslowly(seventy-fivepacesaminute);achangeofformationduringabattlewasimpossible，andoncetheinfantrywasengaged，victoryordefeatwasdecidedrapidlyandatoneblow。
IntheAmericanWarofIndependence，[74]theseunwieldylinesweremetbybandsofrebels，whoalthoughnotdrilledwereallthebetterabletoshootfromtheirrifledguns;theywerefightingfortheirvitalinterests，andthereforedidnotdesertlikethemercenaries;
nordidtheydotheEnglishthefavourofencounteringthemalsoinlineandonclear，evenground。Theycameoninopenformation，aseriesofrapidlymovingtroopsofsharpshooters，undercoverofthewoods。Herethelinewaspowerlessandsuccumbedtoitsinvisibleandinaccessibleopponents。Skirmishingwasreinvented——anewmethodofwarfarewhichwastheresultofachangeinthehumanwarmaterial。
WhattheAmericanRevolutionhadbeguntheFrenchRevolution[75]completed，alsointhemilitarysphere。Italsocouldopposetothewell-trainedmercenaryarmiesoftheCoalitiononlypoorlytrainedbutgreatmassesofsoldiers，thelevyoftheentirenation。ButthesemasseshadtoprotectParis，thatis，toholdadefinitearea，andforthispurposevictoryinopenmassbattlewasessential。Mereskirmisheswouldnotachieveenough;
aformhadtobefoundtomakeuseoflargemassesandthisformwasdiscoveredinthecolumn。Columnformationmadeitpossibleforevenpoorlytrainedtroopstomovewithafairdegreeoforder，andmoreoverwithgreaterspeed(ahundredpacesandmoreinaminute);itmadeitpossibletobreakthroughtherigidformsoftheoldlineformation;tofightonanyground，andthereforeevenongroundwhichwasextremelydisadvantageoustothelineformation;togroupthetroopsinanywayifintheleastappropriate;
and，inconjunctionwithattacksbyscatteredbandsofsharpshooters，tocontaintheenemy’slines，keepthemengagedandwearthemoutuntilthemomentcameformassesheldinreservetobreakthroughthematthedecisivepointintheposition。Thisnewmethodofwarfare，basedonthecombinedactionofskirmishersandcolumnsandonthepartitioningofthearmyintoindependentdivisionsorarmycorps，composedofallarmsoftheservice——amethodbroughttofullperfectionbyNapoleoninbothitstacticalandstrategicalaspects——hadbecomenecessaryprimarilybecauseofthechangedpersonnel:thesoldieryoftheFrenchRevolution。Besides，twoveryimportanttechnicalprerequisiteshadbeencompliedwith:first，thelightercarriagesforfieldgunsconstructedbyGribeauval，whichalonemadepossiblethemorerapidmovementnowrequiredofthem;andsecondly，theslantingofthebutt，whichhadhithertobeenquitestraight，continuingthelineofthebarrel。IntroducedinFrancein1777，itwascopiedfromhuntingweaponsandmadeitpossibletoshootataparticularindividualwithoutnecessarilymissinghim。Butforthisimprovementitwouldhavebeenimpossibletoskirmishwiththeoldweapons。
Therevolutionarysystemofarmingthewholepeoplewassoonrestrictedtocompulsoryconscription(withsubstitutionfortherich，whopaidfortheirrelease)andinthisformitwasadoptedbymostofthelargestatesontheContinent。OnlyPrussiaattemptedthroughitsLandwehrsystem，[76]todrawtoagreaterextentonthemilitarystrengthofthenation。Prussiawasalsothefirststatetoequipitswholeinfantry——aftertherifledmuzzle-loader，whichhadbeenimprovedbetween1830and1860andfoundfitforuseinwar，hadplayedabriefrole——
withthemostup-to-dateweapon，therifledbreech-loader。Itssuccessesin1866wereduetothesetwoinnovations。[77]
TheFranco-GermanWarwasthefirstinwhichtwoarmiesfacedeachotherbothequippedwithbreech-loadingrifles，andmoreoverbothfundamentallyinthesametacticalformationsasinthetimeoftheoldsmoothboreflint-locks。TheonlydifferencewasthatthePrussianshadintroducedthecompanycolumnformationinanattempttofindaformoffightingwhichwasbetteradaptedtothenewtypeofarms。Butwhen，atSt。PrivatonAugust18，[78]thePrussianGuardtriedtoapplythecompanycolumnformationseriously，thefiveregimentswhichwerechieflyengagedlostinlessthantwohoursmorethanathirdoftheirstrength(176officersand5，114men)。Fromthattimeonthecompanycolumn，too，wascondemnedasabattleformation，nolessthanthebattalioncolumnandtheline;allideaoffurtherexposingtroopsinanykindofcloseformationtoenemygun-firewasabandoned，andontheGermansideallsubsequentfightingwasconductedonlyinthosecompactbodiesofskirmishersintowhichthecolumnshadsofarregularlydissolvedofthemselvesunderadeadlyhailofbullets，althoughthishadbeenopposedbythehighercommandsascontrarytoorder;andinthesamewaytheonlyformofmovementwhenunderfirefromenemyriflesbecamethedouble。Onceagainthesoldierhadbeenshrewderthantheofficer;itwashewhoinstinctivelyfoundtheonlywayoffightingwhichhasprovedofserviceuptonowunderthefireofbreech-loadingrifles，andinspiteofoppositionfromhisofficershecarrieditthroughsuccessfully。
TheFranco-GermanWarmarkedaturning-pointofentirelynewimplications。
Inthefirstplacetheweaponsusedhavereachedsuchastageofperfectionthatfurtherprogresswhichwouldhaveanyrevolutionisinginfluenceisnolongerpossible。Oncearmieshavegunswhichcanhitabattalionatanyrangeatwhichitcanbedistinguished，andrifleswhichareequallyeffectiveforhittingindividualmen，whileloadingthemtakeslesstimethanaiming，thenallfurtherimprovementsareofminorimportanceforfieldwarfare。Theeraofevolutionistherefore，inessentials，closedinthisdirection。Andsecondly，thiswarhascompelledallcontinentalpowerstointroduceinastricterformthePrussianLandwehrsystem，andwithitamilitaryburdenwhichmustbringthemtoruinwithinafewyears。Thearmyhasbecomethemainpurposeofthestate，andanendinitself;thepeoplesarethereonlytoprovidesoldiersandfeedthem。MilitarismdominatesandisswallowingEurope。Butthismilitarismalsobearswithinitselftheseedofitsowndestruction。Competitionamongtheindividualstatesforcesthem，ontheonehand，tospendmoremoneyeachyearonthearmyandnavy，artillery，etc。，thusmoreandmorehasteningtheirfinancialcollapse;and，ontheotherhand，toresorttouniversalcompulsorymilitaryservicemoreandmoreextensively，thusinthelongrunmakingthewholepeoplefamiliarwiththeuseofarms，andthereforeenablingthematagivenmomenttomaketheirwillprevailagainstthewarlordsincommand。
Andthismomentwillarriveassoonasthemassofthepeople——townandcountryworkersandpeasants——willhaveawill。Atthispointthearmiesoftheprincesbecometransformedintoarmiesofthepeople;
themachinerefusestoworkandmilitarismcollapsesbythedialecticsofitsownevolution。Whatthebourgeoisdemocracyof1848couldnotaccomplish，justbecauseitwasbourgeoisandnotproletarian，namely，togivethelabouringmassesawillwhosecontentwouldbeinaccordwiththeirclassposition——socialismwillinfalliblysecure。Andthiswillmeantheburstingasunderfromwithinofmilitarismandwithitofallstandingarmies。
Thatisthefirstmoralofourhistoryofmoderninfantry。Thesecondmoral，whichbringsusbackagaintoHerrDühring，isthatthewholeorganisationandmethodofwarfareofthearmies，andalongwiththesevictoryordefeat，provetobedependentonmaterial，thatis，economicconditions:onthehumanmaterialandthearmaments，andthereforeonthequalityandquantityofthepopulationandontechnicaldevelopment。OnlyahuntingpeopleliketheAmericanscouldrediscoverskirmishingtactics——andtheywerehuntersasaresultofpurelyeconomiccauses，justasnow，asaresultofpurelyeconomiccauses，thesesameYankeesoftheoldStateshavetransformedthemselvesintofarmers，industrialists，seamenandmerchantswhonolongerskirmishintheprimevalforests，butinsteadallthemoreeffectivelyinthefieldofspeculation，wheretheyhavelikewisemademuchprogressinmakinguseoflargemasses——OnlyarevolutionsuchastheFrench，whichbroughtabouttheeconomicemancipationofthebourgeoisand，especially，ofthepeasant，couldfindthemassarmiesandatthesametimethefreeformsofmovementwhichshatteredtheoldrigidlines——themilitarycounterpartsoftheabsolutismwhichtheyweredefending。
Andwehaveseenincaseaftercasehowadvancesintechnique，assoonastheybecameapplicablemilitarilyandinfactweresoapplied，immediatelyandalmostforciblyproducedchangesandevenrevolutionsinthemethodsofwarfare，oftenindeedagainstthewillofthearmycommand。AndnowadaysanyzealousN。C。O。couldexplaintoHerrDühringhowgreatly，besides，theconductofawardependsontheproductivityandmeansofcommunicationofthearmy’sownhinterlandaswellasofthetheatreofwar。Inshort，alwaysandeverywhereitistheeconomicconditionsandtheinstrumentsofeconomicpowerwhichhelp“force“tovictory，withoutwhichforceceasestobeforce。Andanyonewhotriedtoreformmethodsofwarfarefromtheoppositestandpoint，onthebasisofDühringianprinciples，wouldcertainlyearnnothingbutabeating。*4
Ifwepassnowfromlandtosea，wefindthatinthelasttwentyyearsaloneanevenmorecompleterevolutionhastakenplacethere。ThewarshipoftheCrimeanWar[79]wasthewoodentwo-andthree-deckerof60to100guns;thiswasstillmainlypropelledbysail，withonlyalow-poweredauxiliarysteam-engine。Thegunsonthesewarshipswereforthemostpart32-pounders，weighingapproximately50
centners，withonlyafew68-poundersweighing95centners。Towardstheendofthewar，iron-cladfloatingbatteriesmadetheirappearance;theywereclumsyandalmostimmobilemonsters，buttothegunsofthatperiodtheywereinvulnerable。Soonwarships，too，wereswathedinironarmourplating;
atfirsttheplateswerestillthin，athicknessoffourinchesbeingregardedasextremelyheavyarmour。Butsoontheprogressmadewithartilleryoutstrippedthearmour-plating;eachsuccessiveincreaseinthestrengthofthearmourusedwascounteredbyanewandheaviergunwhicheasilypiercedtheplates。
Inthiswaywehavealreadyreachedarmour-platingten，twelve，fourteenandtwenty-fourinchesthick(Italyproposestohaveashipbuiltwithplatesthreefeetthick)ontheonehand，andontheother，rifledgunsof25，35，80andeven100tons(at20centners)inweight，whichcanhurlprojectilesweighing300，400，1，700andupto2，000poundstodistanceswhichwereneverdreamedofbefore。Thewarshipofthepresentdayisagiganticarmouredscrewdrivensteamerof8，000to9，000tonsdisplacementand6，000to8，000horsepower，withrevolvingturretsandfouroratmostsixheavyguns，thebowbeingextendedunderwaterintoaramforrunningdownenemyvessels。Itisasinglecolossalmachine，inwhichsteamnotonlydrivestheshipatahighspeed，butalsoworksthesteering-gear，raisestheanchor，swingstheturrets，changestheelevationofthegunsandloadsthem，pumpsoutwater，hoistsandlowerstheboats——someofwhicharethemselvesalsosteam-driven——andsoforth。Andtherivalrybetweenarmour-platingandthefirepowerofgunsissofarfrombeingatanendthatnowadaysashipisalmostalwaysnotuptorequirements，alreadyoutofdate，beforeitislaunched。Themodernwarshipisnotonlyaproduct，butatthesametimeaspecimenofmodernlarge-scaleindustry，afloatingfactory——producingmainly，tobesure，alavishwasteofmoney。
Thecountryinwhichlarge-scaleindustryismosthighlydevelopedhasalmostamonopolyoftheconstructionoftheseships。AllTurkish，almostallRussianandmostGermanarmouredvesselshavebeenbuiltinEngland;
armour-platesthatareatallserviceablearehardlymadeoutsideofSheffield;
ofthethreesteelworksinEuropewhichaloneareabletomaketheheaviestguns，two(WoolwichandElswick)areinEngland，andthethird(Krupp[80])
inGermany。Inthissphereitismostpalpablyevidentthatthe“directpoliticalforce“{D。Ph。538}which，accordingtoHerrDühring，isthe“decisivecauseoftheeconomicsituation“{D。K。G。231}，isonthecontrarycompletelysubordinatetotheeconomicsituation，thatnotonlytheconstructionbutalsotheoperationofthemarineinstrumentofforce，thewarship，hasitselfbecomeabranchofmodernlarge-scaleindustry。
Andthatthisissodistressesnoonemorethanforceitself，thatis，thestate，whichhasnowtopayforoneshipasmuchasawholesmallfleetusedtocost;whichhastoresignitselftoseeingtheseexpensivevesselsbecomeobsolete，andthereforeworthless，evenbeforetheyslideintothewater;andwhichmustcertainlybejustasdisgustedasHerrDühringthatthemanofthe“economicsituation“，theengineer，isnowoffargreaterimportanceonboardthanthemanof“directforce“，thecaptain。We，onthecontrary，haveabsolutelynocausetobevexedwhenweseethat，inthiscompetitivestrugglebetweenarmour-platingandguns，thewarshipisbeingdevelopedtoapitchofperfectionwhichismakingitbothoutrageouslycostlyandunusableinwar，*andthatthisstrugglemakesmanifestalsointhesphereofnavalwarfarethoseinherentdialecticallawsofmotiononthebasisofwhichmilitarism，likeeveryotherhistoricalphenomenon，isbeingbroughttoitsdoominconsequenceofitsowndevelopment。
Here，too，thereforeweseeabsolutelyclearlythatitisnotbyanymeanstruethat“theprimarymustbesoughtindirectpoliticalforceandnotinanyindirecteconomicpower“{D。Ph。538}。Onthecontrary。
Forwhatinfactdoes“theprimary“inforceitselfprovetobe？Economicpower，thedisposalofthemeansofpoweroflarge-scaleindustry。Navalpoliticalforce，whichreposesonmodernwarships，provestobenotatall“direct“butonthecontrarymediatedbyeconomicpower，highlydevelopedmetallurgy，commandofskilledtechniciansandhighlyproductivecoal-mines。
Andyetwhatistheuseofitall？IfweputHerrDühringinsupremecommandinthenextnavalwar，hewilldestroyallfleetsofarmouredships，whicharetheslavesoftheeconomicsituation，withouttorpedoesoranyotherartifices，solelybyvirtueofhisdirectforce。”
IV。
THEORYOFFORCE
(Conclusion)“Itisacircumstanceofgreatimportancethatasamatteroffactthedominationovernature，generallyspeaking。”
(！)，“onlyproceeded。”(adominationproceeded！)“throughthedominationoverman。Thecultivationoflandedpropertyintractsofconsiderablesizenevertookplaceanywherewithouttheantecedentsubjectionofmaninsomeformofslave-labourorcorvée。Theestablishmentofaneconomicdominationoverthingshaspresupposedthepolitical，socialandeconomicdominationofmanoverman。Howcouldalargelandedproprietorevenbeconceivedwithoutatonceincludinginthisideaalsohisdominationoverslavesserfs，orothersindirectlyunfree？Whatcouldtheeffortsofanindividual，atmostsupplementedbythoseofhisfamily，havesignifiedorsignifyinextensivelypracticedagriculture？Theexploitationoftheland，ortheextensionofeconomiccontroloveritonascaleexceedingthenaturalcapacitiesoftheindividual，wasonlymadepossibleinprevioushistorybytheestablishment，eitherbeforeorsimultaneouslywiththeintroductionofdominionoverland，oftheenslavementofmanwhichthisinvolves。Inthelaterperiodsofdevelopmentthisservitudewasmitigated……itspresentforminthemorehighlycivilisedstatesiswage-labour，toagreaterorlesserdegreecarriedonunderpolicerule。Thuswage-labourprovidesthepracticalpossibilityofthatformofcontemporarywealthwhichisrepresentedbydominionoverwideareasoflandand“(！)
“extensivelandedproperty。Itgoeswithoutsayingthatallothertypesofdistributivewealthmustbeexplainedhistoricallyinasimilarway，andtheindirectdependenceofmanonman，whichisnowtheessentialfeatureoftheconditionswhicheconomicallyaremostfullydeveloped，cannotbeunderstoodandexplainedbyitsownnature，butonlyasasomewhattransformedheritageofanearlierdirectsubjugationandexpropriation“{D。C。18-19}。
ThusHerrDühring。
Thesis:Thedominationofnature(byman)presupposesthedominationofman(byman)。
Proof:Thecultivationoflandedpropertyintractsofconsiderablesizenevertookplaceanywhereexceptbytheuseofbondmen。
Proofoftheproof:Howcantherebelargelandownerswithoutbondmen，asthelargelandowner，evenwithhisfamily，couldworkonlyatinypartofhispropertywithoutthehelpofbondmen？
Therefore，inordertoprovethatmanfirsthadtosubjugatemanbeforehecouldbringnatureunderhiscontrol，HerrDühringtransforms“nature“withoutmoreadointo“landedpropertyintractsofconsiderablesize“，andthenthislandedproperty——ownershipunspecified——isimmediatelyfurthertransformedintothepropertyofalargelandedproprietor，whonaturallycannotworkhislandwithoutbondmen。
Inthefirstplace“dominationovernature“andthe“cultivationoflandedproperty“arebynomeansthesamething。Inindustry，dominationovernatureisexercisedonquiteanotherandmuchgreaterscalethaninagriculture，whichisstillsubjecttoweatherconditionsinsteadofcontrollingthem。
Secondly，ifweconfineourselvestothecultivationoflandedpropertyconsistingoftractsofconsiderablesize，thequestionarises:
whoselandedpropertyisit？Andthenwefindintheearlyhistoryofallcivilisedpeoples，notthe“largelandedproprietors“whomHerrDühringinterpolatesherewithhiscustomarysleightofhand，whichhecalls“naturaldialectics“，[82]buttribalandvillagecommunitieswithcommonownershipoftheland。FromIndiatoIrelandthecultivationoflandedpropertyintractsofconsiderablesizewasoriginallycarriedonbysuchtribalandvillagecommunities;sometimesthearablelandwastilledjointlyforaccountofthecommunity，andsometimesinseparateparcelsoflandtemporarilyallottedtofamiliesbythecommunity，whilewoodlandandpasturelandcontinuedtobeusedincommon。Itisonceagaincharacteristicof“themostexhaustivespecialisedstudies“madebyHerrDühring“inthedomainofpoliticsandlaw“{D。Ph。537}thatheknowsnothingofallthis;thatallhisworksbreathetotalignoranceofMaurer’sepoch-makingwritingsontheprimitiveconstitutionoftheGermanmark，[83]thebasisofallGermanlaw，andoftheever-increasingmassofliterature，chieflystimulatedbyMaurer，whichisdevotedtoprovingtheprimitivecommonownershipofthelandamongallcivilisedpeoplesofEuropeandAsia，andtoshowingthevariousformsofitsexistenceanddissolution。JustasinthedomainofFrenchandEnglishlawHerrDühring“himselfacquiredallhisignorance“，greatasitwas，soitiswithhisevenmuchgreaterignoranceinthedomainofGermanlaw。Inthisdomainthemanwhofliesintosuchaviolentrageoverthelimitedhorizonofuniversityprofessorsishimselftodayattheverymost，stillwheretheprofessorsweretwentyyearsago。
Itisapure“freecreationandimagination“{43}onHerrDühring’spartwhenheassertsthatlandedproprietorsandbondmenwererequiredforthecultivationoflandedpropertyintractsofconsiderablesize。
InthewholeoftheOrient，wherethevillagecommunityorthestateownstheland，theverytermlandlordisnottobefoundinthevariouslanguages，apointonwhichHerrDühringcanconsulttheEnglishjurists，whoseeffortsinIndiatosolvethequestion:whoistheowneroftheland？——
wereasvainasthoseofthelatePrinceHeinrichLXXIIofReuss-Greiz-Schleiz-Lobenstein-Eberswalde[84]inhisattemptstosolvethequestionofwhowasthenight-watchman。ItwastheTurkswhofirstintroducedasortoffeudalownershipoflandinthecountriesconqueredbythemintheOrient。
Greecemadeitsentryintohistory，asfarbackastheheroicepoch，withasystemofsocialestateswhichitselfwasevidentlytheproductofalongbutunknownprehistory;eventhere，however，thelandwasmainlycultivatedbyindependentpeasants;thelargerestatesofthenoblesandtribalchiefsweretheexception;moreovertheydisappearedsoonafter。Italywasbroughtundercultivationchieflybypeasants;when，inthefinalperiodoftheRomanRepublic，thegreatcomplexesofestates，thelatifundia，displacedthesmallpeasantsandreplacedthemwithslaves，theyalsoreplacedtillagewithstockraising，and，asPlinyalreadyrealised，broughtItalytoruin(latifundiaItaliamperdidere)。DuringtheMiddleAges，peasantfarmingwaspredominantthroughoutEurope(especiallyinbringingvirginsoilintocultivation);andinrelationtothequestionwearenowconsideringitisofnoimportancewhetherthesepeasantshadtopaydues，andifsowhatdues，toanyfeudallords。ThecolonistsfromFriesland，LowerSaxony，FlandersandtheLowerRhine，whobroughtundercultivationthelandeastoftheElbewhichhadbeenwrested。fromtheSlavs，didthisasfreepeasantsunderveryfavourablequit-renttenures，andnotatallunder“someformofcorvée“{D。C。18}——InNorthAmerica，byfarthelargestportionofthelandwasopenedforcultivationbythelabouroffreefarmers，whilethebiglandlordsoftheSouth，withtheirslavesandtheirrapacioustillingoftheland，exhaustedthesoiluntilitcouldgrowonlyfirs，sothatthecultivationofcottonwasforcedfurtherandfurtherwest。InAustraliaandNewZealand，allattemptsoftheBritishgovernmenttoestablishartificiallyalandedaristocracycametonothing。Inshort，ifweexceptthetropicalandsubtropicalcolonies，wheretheclimatemakesagriculturallabourimpossibleforEuropeans，thebiglandlordwhosubjugatesnaturebymeansofhisslavesorserfsandbringsthelandundercultivationprovestobeapurefigmentoftheimagination。Theveryreverseisthecase。Wherehemakeshisappearanceinantiquity，asinItaly，hedoesnotbringwastelandintocultivation，buttransformsarablelandbroughtundercultivationbypeasantsintostockpastures，depopulatingandruiningwholecountries。Onlyinamorerecentperiod，whentheincreasingdensityofpopulationhadraisedthevalueofland，andparticularlysincethedevelopmentofagriculturalsciencehadmadeevenpoorerlandmorecultivable——itisonlyfromthisperiodthatlargelandownersbegantoparticipateonanextensivescaleinbringingwastelandandgrass-landundercultivation——andthismainlythroughtherobberyofcommonlandfromthepeasants，bothinEnglandandinGermany。
Buttherewasanothersideeventothis。ForeveryacreofcommonlandwhichthelargelandownersbroughtintocultivationinEngland，theytransformedatleastthreeacresofarablelandinScotlandintosheep-runsandeventuallyevenintomerebig-gamehunting-grounds。
WeareconcernedhereonlywithHerrDühring’sassertionthatthebringingintocultivationoftractsoflandofconsiderablesizeandthereforeofpracticallythewholeareanowcultivated，“neverandnowhere“tookplaceexceptthroughtheagencyofbiglandlordsandtheirbondmen——anassertionwhich，aswehaveseen，“presupposes“areallyunprecedentedignoranceofhistory。Itisnotnecessary，therefore，forustoexaminehereeithertowhatextent，atdifferentperiods，areaswhichwerealreadymadeentirelyormainlycultivablewerecultivatedbyslaves(asinthehey-dayofGreece)orserfs(asinthemanorsoftheMiddleAges);orwhatwasthesocialfunctionofthelargelandownersatvariousperiods。
AndafterHerrDühringhasshownusthismasterpieceoftheimagination——inwhichwedonotknowwhethertheconjuringtrickofdeductionorthefalsificationofhistoryismoretobeadmired——heexclaimstriumphantly:
“Itgoeswithoutsayingthatallothertypesofdistributivewealthmustbeexplainedhistoricallyinsimilarmanner！“{19。}
Whichofcoursesaveshimthetroubleofwastingevenasinglewordmoreontheorigin，forexample，ofcapital。
If，withhisdominationofmanbymanasapriorconditionforthedominationofnaturebyman，HerrDühringonlywantedtostateinageneralwaythatthewholeofourpresenteconomicorder，thelevelofdevelopmentnowattainedbyagricultureandindustry，istheresultofasocialhistorywhichevolvedinclassantagonisms，inrelationshipsofdominationandsubjection，heissayingsomethingwhichlongago，eversincetheCommunistManifesto，becameacommonplace。Butthequestionatissueishowwearetoexplaintheoriginofclassesandrelationsbasedondomination，andifHerrDühring’sonlyansweristheoneword“force“，weareleftexactlywherewewereatthestart。Themerefactthattheruledandexploitedhaveatalltimesbeenfarmorenumerousthantherulersandtheexploiters，andthatthereforeitisinthehandsoftheformerthattherealforcehasreposed，isenoughtodemonstratetheabsurdityofthewholeforcetheory。Therelationshipsbasedondominationandsubjectionhavethereforestilltobeexplained。
Theyaroseintwoways。
Asmenoriginallymadetheirexitfromtheanimalworld——inthenarrowersenseoftheterm——sotheymadetheirentryintohistory:
stillhalfanimal，brutal，stillhelplessinfaceoftheforcesofnature，stillignorantoftheirownstrength;andconsequentlyaspoorastheanimalsandhardlymoreproductivethanthey。Thereprevailedacertainequalityintheconditionsofexistence，andfortheheadsoffamiliesalsoakindofequalityofsocialposition——atleastanabsenceofsocialclasses——whichcontinuedamongtheprimitiveagriculturalcommunitiesofthecivilisedpeoplesofalaterperiod。Ineachsuchcommunitytherewerefromthebeginningcertaincommonintereststhesafeguardingofwhichhadtobehandedovertoindividuals，true，underthecontrolofthecommunityasawhole:adjudicationofdisputes;repressionofabuseofauthoritybyindividuals;controlofwatersupplies，especiallyinhotcountries;
andfinallywhenconditionswerestillabsolutelyprimitive，religiousfunctions。Suchofficesarefoundinaboriginalcommunitiesofeveryperiod——intheoldestGermanmarksandeventodayinIndia。Theyarenaturallyendowedwithacertainmeasureofauthorityandarethebeginningsofstatepower。Theproductiveforcesgraduallyincrease;theincreasingdensityofthepopulationcreatesatonepointcommoninterests，atanotherconflictinginterests，betweentheseparatecommunities，whosegroupingintolargerunitsbringsaboutinturnanewdivisionoflabour，thesettingupoforganstosafeguardcommoninterestsandcombatconflictinginterests。
Theseorganswhich，ifonlybecausetheyrepresentthecommoninterestsofthewholegroup，holdaspecialpositioninrelationtoeachindividualcommunity——incertaincircumstancesevenoneofopposition——soonmakethemselvesstillmoreindependent，partlythroughheredityoffunctions，whichcomesaboutalmostasamatterofcourseinaworldwhereeverythingoccursspontaneously，andpartlybecausetheybecomeincreasinglyindispensableowingtothegrowingnumberofconflictswithothergroups。Itisnotnecessaryforustoexamineherehowthisindependenceofsocialfunctionsinrelationtosocietyincreasedwithtimeuntilitdevelopedintodominationoversociety;howhewhowasoriginallytheservant，whereconditionswerefavourable，changedgraduallyintothelord;howthislord，dependingontheconditions，emergedasanOrientaldespotorsatrap，thedynastofaGreektribe，chieftainofaCelticclan，andsoon;towhatextenthesubsequentlyhadrecoursetoforceinthecourseofthistransformation;andhowfinallytheindividualrulersunitedintoarulingclass。Hereweareonlyconcernedwithestablishingthefactthattheexerciseofasocialfunctionwaseverywherethebasisofpoliticalsupremacy;andfurtherthatpoliticalsupremacyhasexistedforanylengthoftimeonlywhenitdischargeditssocialfunctions。HowevergreatthenumberofdespotismswhichroseandfellinPersiaandIndia，eachwasfullyawarethataboveallitwastheentrepreneurresponsibleforthecollectivemaintenanceofirrigationthroughouttherivervalleys，withoutwhichnoagriculturewaspossiblethere。ItwasreservedfortheenlightenedEnglishtolosesightofthisinIndia;theylettheirrigationcanalsandsluicesfallintodecay，andarenowatlastdiscovering，throughtheregularlyrecurringfamines，thattheyhaveneglectedtheoneactivitywhichmighthavemadetheirruleinIndiaatleastaslegitimateasthatoftheirpredecessors。
