ng a truth as
eternal as it is original, he has only recorded the fact that the
German bourgeoisie must capture the political power, that is, he is
saying unconsciously what Engels says, in the brave belief that he is
saying the opposite.

"The injustice in the property relations," continues Mr Heinzen, "is
only maintained by force." Either Mr Heinzen understands by "the
injustice in the property relations" the above-mentioned pressure,
which the German bourgeoisie still suffers in its "most sacred"
interests from the absolute monarchy, and then he only repeats what
has just been said--or he understands by "the injustice in the
property relations" the economic relations of the workers, and in that
case his revelation amounts to this: The existing bourgeois property
relations are "maintained" by the State power, which the bourgeoisie
has organized for the protection of its property relations. The
proletarians must, therefore, overthrow the political power where it
is already in the hands of the bourgeoisie. They must themselves
attain to power, to revolutionary power. Mr Heinzen again says
unconsciously what Engels says, again in the sincere conviction of
having said the opposite. What he says he does not mean, and what he
means he does not say.

Moreover, if the bourgeoisie politically, that is, through the agency
of its State power, maintains "the injustice in the property
relations," it does not create the latter. The "injustice in the
property relations," conditioned by the modern division of labour,
the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., does
not in any way proceed from the political rule of the bourgeoisie,
but, contrariwise, the political rule of the bourgeoisie proceeds from
these modern relations of production, which are proclaimed by the
bourgeois economists to be necessary and eternal laws.

If, therefore, the proletariat should overthrow the political rule of
the bourgeoisie, its victory would be only temporary, only an episode
in the service of the bourgeois revolution, so long as the material
conditions which would render necessary the abolition of the bourgeois
mode of production, and consequently the definitive overthrow of the
political rule of the bourgeoisie, had not yet been created in the
course of historical development. From this point of view, the Reign
of Terror in France did no more than to clear away the feudal ruins
from French soil by its hammer blows.

The anxio