principle, above the breach
between bourgeoisie and proletariat, recognises only its historic
significance for the present, but not its justification for the future:
wishes, indeed, to bridge over this chasm, to do away with all class
antagonisms. Hence it recognises as justified, so long as the struggle
exists, the exasperation of the proletariat towards its oppressors as a
necessity, as the most important lever for a labour movement just
beginning; but it goes beyond this exasperation, because Communism is a
question of humanity and not of the workers alone. Besides, it does not
occur to any Communist to wish to revenge himself upon individuals, or to
believe that, in general, the single bourgeois can act otherwise, under
existing circumstances, than he does act. English Socialism, _i.e_.
Communism, rests directly upon the irresponsibility of the individual.
Thus the more the English workers absorb communistic ideas, the more
superfluous becomes their present bitterness, which, should it continue
so violent as at present, could accomplish nothing; and the more their
action against the bourgeoisie will lose its savage cruelty. If, indeed,
it were possible to make the whole proletariat communistic before the war
breaks out, the end would be very peaceful; but that is no longer
possible, the time has gone by. Meanwhile, I think that before the
outbreak of open, declared war of the poor against the rich, there will
be enough intelligent comprehension of the social question among the
proletariat, to enable the communistic party, with the help of events, to
conquer the brutal element of the revolution and prevent a "Ninth
Thermidor." In any case, the experience of the French will not have been
undergone in vain, and most of the Chartist leaders are, moreover,
already Communists. And as Communism stands above the strife between
bourgeoisie and proletariat, it will be easier for the better elements of
the bourgeoisie (which are, however, deplorably few, and can look for
recruits only among the rising generation) to unite with it than with
purely proletarian Chartism.

If these conclusions have not been sufficiently established in the course
of the present work, there may be other opportunities for demonstrating
that they are necessary consequences of the historical development of
England. But this I maintain, the war of the poor against the rich now
carried on in detail and indirectly will become direct and universal.