e old society; in so far it is social.
Every revolution overthrows the old power; in so far it is political.

"Prussian" may choose between the paraphrase and the absurdity.

Equally ridiculous is the notion of a political revolution with a
social soul. The revolution as such--the overthrow of the existing
power and the dissolution of the old conditions--is a political act.
But without a revolution, socialism cannot be enforced. It requires
this political act, so far as it has need of the process of
destruction and dissolution. But where its organizing activity begins,
where its proper aim, its soul, emerges, there socialism casts away
the political hull.

FOOTNOTES:

[8] Arnold Ruge was the author of this article.

[9] Marx in later years changed his views about MacCulloch and
Ricardo.

MORALIZING CRITICISM AND CRITICAL MORALITY: A POLEMIC AGAINST KARL
HEINZEN

"I cannot imagine that Mr Engels and our communists are so blind as
not to see that force also dominates property, and that the injustice
in the property relations is only maintained by force. I call that
person a fool and a coward who cherishes animosity towards a bourgeois
because he is accumulating money, and leaves a king in peace because
he has acquired power," states Mr Heinzen.

"Force also dominates property." Property is likewise also a species
of power. The economists call capital, for example, "the command over
other labour." We are thus confronted with two kinds of force or
power: on the one hand, the power of property, that is, of the
property owner; on the other hand, the political power, the State
power. "Force also dominates property" means that property has not
yet got the political power in its hands, but is rather vexed by it,
for example, by arbitrary taxes, by confiscation, by privileges, by
the disturbing interference of the bureaucracy in industry and trade
and the like.

In other words: The bourgeoisie is not yet politically constituted as
a class. The State power is not yet its own power. In countries where
the bourgeoisie has already conquered political power, and where
political rule is nothing less than the rule, not of the individual
bourgeois over the workers, but of the bourgeois class over the whole
of society, Mr Heinzen's dictum has lost its meaning. The propertyless
are, of course, not affected by political rule, so far as it relates
directly to property.

Whilst, therefore, Mr Heinzen fancies he is utteri