e it amiss when Engels perceives a 'brave Emperor
Joseph' behind his revolutionary phrases?

But if, on the one hand, Mr Heinzen obliterates all distinctions, in
addressing himself vaguely to the 'humanity' of Germans, so that he is
obliged to include even the princes in his admonitions, on the other
hand, he finds himself obliged to set up at least one distinction
among Germans, for without a distinction there can be no antagonism,
and without an antagonism, no materials for political Capuchinian
sermons.

Mr Heinzen therefore divides Germans into princes and subjects.

The 'narrow-minded' communists see not only the political distinction
of prince and subject, but also the social distinction of classes.

It is well known that, shortly after the July Revolution, the
victorious bourgeoisie, in its September laws, made "the incitement
of class against class," probably also out of 'humanity,' a criminal
offence, to which imprisonment and fines were attached. It is further
well known that the English bourgeois newspapers could not denounce
the Chartist leaders and Chartist writers more effectively than by
reproaching them with setting class against class. It is even
notorious that, in consequence of inciting class against class, German
writers are incarcerated in fortresses. Is not Mr Heinzen this time
talking the language of the French September laws, the English
bourgeois newspapers, and the German penal code?

But no. The well-meaning Mr Heinzen only fears that the communists
"are seeking to assure the princes a revolutionary Fontanelle." Thus
the Belgian liberals assure us that the radicals are in secret
alliance with the catholics; the French liberals assure us that the
democrats have an understanding with the legitimists. And the liberal
Mr Heinzen assures us that the communists have an understanding with
the princes.

As I once pointed out in the Franco-German Annuals, Germany has her
own Christian-Germanic plague. Her bourgeoisie was so retarded in its
development that it is beginning its struggle with absolute monarchy
and seeking to establish its political power at the moment when in all
developed countries the bourgeoisie is already engaged in the most
violent struggles with the working class, and when its political
illusions are already obsolete so far as the intellect of Europe is
concerned.

In this country, where the political poverty of absolute monarchy
still exists with a whole appendage of decay