conveylive.com

Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Sandy Moore
Sandy Moore
Sep 29, 2009
0 Comments | 3988 Views | 1 Hits


by Karl Marx

 

Deutsch-Französische Jahrbucher

, February, 1844

For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism
of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism. The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths”] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man
[“Unmensch”], where he seeks and must seek his true reality. The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man.


Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet
won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But, man is no abstract being
squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man — state, society. This state and this
society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they
are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic
compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its
moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and
justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence
has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the
struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a
protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their
real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call
on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is,
therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall
continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off
the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that
he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and
regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is
only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around
himself.


It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish
the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of
history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human
self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the
criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of
theology into the criticism of politics.


The following exposition [a full-scale critical study of Hegel's Philosophy of Right was
supposed to follow this introduction] — a contribution to this undertaking — concerns
itself not directly with the original but with a copy, with the German philosophy of the
state and of law. The only reason for this is that it is concerned with Germany.
If we were to begin with the German status quo itself, the result — even if we were to do
it in the only appropriate way, i.e., negatively — would still be an anachronism. Even the
negation of our present political situation is a dusty fact in the historical junk room of
modern nations. If I negate the situation in Germany in 1843, then according to the
French calendar I have barely reached 1789, much less the vital centre of our present age.
Indeed, German history prides itself on having travelled a road which no other nation in
the whole of history has ever travelled before, or ever will again. We have shared the
restorations of modern nations without ever having shared their revolutions. We have
been restored, firstly, because other nations dared to make revolutions, and, secondly,
because other nations suffered counter-revolutions; open the one hand, because our
masters were afraid, and, on the other, because they were not afraid. With our shepherds
to the fore, we only once kept company with freedom, on the day of its internment.
One school of thought that legitimizes the infamy of today with the infamy of yesterday,
a school that stigmatizes every cry of the serf against the knout as mere rebelliousness
once the knout has aged a little and acquired a hereditary significance and a history, a
school to which history shows nothing but its a posteriori, as did the God of Israel to his
servant Moses, the historical school of law — this school would have invented German
history were it not itself an invention of that history. A Shylock, but a cringing Shylock,
that swears by its bond, its historical bond, its Christian-Germanic bond, for every pound
of flesh cut from the heart of the people.


Good-natured enthusiasts, Germanomaniacs by extraction and free-thinkers by reflexion,
on the contrary, seek our history of freedom beyond our history in the ancient Teutonic
forests. But, what difference is there between the history of our freedom and the history
of the boar's freedom if it can be found only in the forests? Besides, it is common
knowledge that the forest echoes back what you shout into it. So peace to the ancient
Teutonic forests!


War on the German state of affairs! By all means! They are below the level of history,
they are beneath any criticism, but they are still an object of criticism like the criminal
who is below the level of humanity but still an object for the executioner. In the struggle
against that state of affairs, criticism is no passion of the head, it is the head of passion. It
is not a lancet, it is a weapon. Its object is its enemy, which it wants not to refute but to
exterminate. For the spirit of that state of affairs is refuted. In itself, it is no object worthy
of thought, it is an existence which is as despicable as it is despised. Criticism does not
need to make things clear to itself as regards this object, for it has already settled
accounts with it. It no longer assumes the quality of an end-in-itself, but only of a means.
Its essential pathos is indignation, its essential work is denunciation.


It is a case of describing the dull reciprocal pressure of all social spheres one on another,
a general inactive ill-humor, a limitedness which recognizes itself as much as it mistakes
itself, within the frame of government system which, living on the preservation of all
wretchedness, is itself nothing but wretchedness in office.


What a sight! This infinitely proceeding division of society into the most manifold races
opposed to one another by petty antipathies, uneasy consciences, and brutal mediocrity,
and which, precisely because of their reciprocal ambiguous and distrustful attitude, are
all, without exception although with various formalities, treated by their rulers as
conceded existences. And they must recognize and acknowledge as a concession of
heaven the very fact that they are mastered, ruled, possessed! And, on the other side, are
the rulers themselves, whose greatness is in inverse proportion to their number!
Criticism dealing with this content is criticism in a hand-to-hand fight, and in such a fight
the point is not whether the opponent is a noble, equal, interesting opponent, the point is
to strike him. The point is not to let the Germans have a minute for self-deception and
resignation. The actual pressure must be made more pressing by adding to it
consciousness of pressure, the shame must be made more shameful by publicizing it.
Every sphere of German society must be shown as the partie honteuse of German society:
these petrified relations must be forced to dance by singing their own tune to them! The
people must be taught to be terrified at itself in order to give it courage. This will be
fulfilling an imperative need of the German nation, and the needs of the nations are in
themselves the ultimate reason for their satisfaction.


This struggle against the limited content of the German status quo cannot be without
interest even for the modern nations, for the German status quo is the open completion of
the ancien regime and the ancien regime is the concealed deficiency of the modern state.
The struggle against the German political present is the struggle against the past of the
modern nations, and they are still burdened with reminders of that past. It is instructive
for them to see the ancien regime, which has been through its tragedy with them, playing
its comedy as a German revenant. Tragic indeed was the pre-existing power of the world,
and freedom, on the other hand, was a personal notion; in short, as long as it believed and
had to believe in its own justification. As long as the ancien regime, as an existing world
order, struggled against a world that was only coming into being, there was on its side a
historical error, not a personal one. That is why its downfall was tragic.


On the other hand, the present German regime, an anachronism, a flagrant contradiction
of generally recognized axioms, the nothingness of the ancien regime exhibited to the
world, only imagines that it believes in itself and demands that the world should imagine
the same thing. If it believed in its own essence, would it try to hide that essence under
the semblance of an alien essence and seek refuge in hypocrisy and sophism? The
modern ancien regime is rather only the comedian of a world order whose true heroes are
dead. History is thorough and goes through many phases when carrying an old form to
the grave. The last phases of a world-historical form is its comedy. The gods of Greece,
already tragically wounded to death in Aeschylus's tragedy Prometheus Bound, had to
re-die a comic death in Lucian's Dialogues. Why this course of history? So that humanity
should part with its past cheerfully. This cheerful historical destiny is what we vindicate
for the political authorities of Germany.


Meanwhile, once modern politico-social reality itself is subjected to criticism, once
criticism rises to truly human problems, it finds itself outside the German status quo, or
else it would reach out for its object below its object. An example. The relation of
industry, of the world of wealth generally, to the political world is one of the major
problems of modern times. In what form is this problem beginning to engage the
attention of the Germans? In the form of protective duties, of the prohibitive system, or
national economy. Germanomania has passed out of man into matter,, and thus one
morning our cotton barons and iron heroes saw themselves turned into patriots. People
are, therefore, beginning in Germany to acknowledge the sovereignty of monopoly on the
inside through lending it sovereignty on the outside. People are, therefore, now about to
begin, in Germany, what people in France and England are about to end. The old corrupt
condition against which these countries are revolting in theory, and which they only bear
as one bears chains, is greeted in Germany as the dawn of a beautiful future which still
hardly dares to pass from crafty theory to the most ruthless practice. Whereas the
problem in France and England is: Political economy, or the rule of society over wealth;
in Germany, it is: National economy, or the mastery of private property over nationality.
In France and England, then, it is a case of abolishing monopoly that has proceeded to its
last consequences; in Germany, it is a case of proceeding to the last consequences of
monopoly. There is an adequate example of the German form of modern problems, an
example of how our history, like a clumsy recruit, still has to do extra drill on things that
are old and hackneyed in history.


If, therefore, the whole German development did not exceed the German political
development, a German could at the most have the share in the problems-of-the-present
that a Russian has. But, when the separate individual is not bound by the limitations of
the nation, the nation as a whole is still less liberated by the liberation of one individual.
The fact that Greece had a Scythian among its philosophers did not help the Scythians to
make a single step towards Greek culture. [An allusion to Anacharsis.]
Luckily, we Germans are not Scythians.


As the ancient peoples went through their pre-history in imagination, in mythology, so we
Germans have gone through our post-history in thought, in philosophy. We are
philosophical contemporaries of the present without being its historical contemporaries.
German philosophy is the ideal prolongation of German history. If therefore, instead of
of the oeuvres incompletes of our real history, we criticize the oeuvres posthumes of our
ideal history, philosophy, our criticism is in the midst of the questions of which the
present says: that is the question. What, in progressive nations, is a practical break with
modern state conditions, is, in Germany, where even those conditions do not yet exist, at
first a critical break with the philosophical reflexion of those conditions.


German philosophy of right and state is the only German history which is al pari ["on a
level"] with the official modern present. The German nation must therefore join this, its
dream-history, to its present conditions and subject to criticism not only these existing
conditions, but at the same time their abstract continuation. Its future cannot be limited
either to the immediate negation of its real conditions of state and right, or to the
immediate implementation of its ideal state and right conditions, for it has the immediate
negation of its real conditions in its ideal conditions, and it has almost outlived the
immediate implementation of its ideal conditions in the contemplation of neighboring
nations.


Hence, it is with good reason that the practical political part in Germany demands the
negation of philosophy.


It is wrong, not in its demand but in stopping at the demand, which it neither seriously
implements nor can implement. It believes that it implements that negation by turning its
back to philosophy and its head away from it and muttering a few trite and angry phrases
about it. Owing to the limitation of its outlook, it does not include philosophy in the
circle of German reality or it even fancies it is beneath German practice and the theories
that serve it. You demand that real life embryos be made the starting-point, but you forget
that the real life embryo of the German nation has grown so far only inside its cranium.
In a word — You cannot abolish philosophy without making it a reality.
The same mistake, but with the factors reversed, was made by the theoretical party
originating from philosophy.


In the present struggle it saw only the critical struggle of philosophy against the German
world; it did not give a thought to the fact that philosophy up to the present itself belongs
to this world and is its completion, although an ideal one. Critical towards its counterpart,
it was uncritical towards itself when, proceeding from the premises of philosophy, it
either stopped at the results given by philosophy or passed off demands and results from
somewhere else as immediate demands and results of philosophy — although these,
provided they are justified, can be obtained only by the negation of philosophy up to the
present, of philosophy as such. We reserve ourselves the right to a more detailed
description of this section: It thought it could make philosophy a reality without
abolishing it.


The criticism of the German philosophy of state and right, which attained its most
consistent, richest, and last formulation through Hegel, is both a critical analysis of the
modern state and of the reality connected with it, and the resolute negation of the whole
manner of the German consciousness in politics and right as practiced hereto, the most
distinguished, most universal expression of which, raised to the level of science, is the
speculative philosophy of right itself. If the speculative philosophy of right, that abstract
extravagant thinking on the modern state, the reality of which remains a thing of the
beyond, if only beyond the Rhine, was possible only in Germany, inversely the German
thought-image of the modern state which makes abstraction of real man was possible
only because and insofar as the modern state itself makes abstraction of real man, or
satisfies the whole of man only in imagination. In politics, the Germans thought what
other nations did. Germany was their theoretical conscience. The abstraction and
presumption of its thought was always in step with the one-sidedness and lowliness of its
reality. If, therefore, the status quo of German statehood expresses the completion of the
ancien regime, the completion of the thorn in the flesh of the modern state, the status quo
of German state science expresses the incompletion of the modern state, the defectiveness
of its flesh itself.


Already as the resolute opponent of the previous form of German political consciousness
the criticism of speculative philosophy of right strays, not into itself, but into problems
which there is only one means of solving — practice.
It is asked: can Germany attain a practice a la hauteur des principles — i.e., a revolution
which will raises it not only to the official level of modern nations, but to the height of
humanity which will be the near future of those nations?
The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force
must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon
as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it
demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes
radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man
himself. The evident proof of the radicalism of German theory, and hence of its practical
energy, is that is proceeds from a resolute positive abolition of religion. The criticism of
religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man — hence, with the
categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved,
abandoned, despicable essence, relations which cannot be better described than by the cry
of a Frenchman when it was planned to introduce a tax on dogs: Poor dogs! They want to
treat you as human beings!


Even historically, theoretical emancipation has specific practical significance for
Germany. For Germany's revolutionary past is theoretical, it is the Reformation. As the
revolution then began in the brain of the monk, so now it begins in the brain of the
philosopher.


Luther, we grant, overcame bondage out of devotion by replacing it by bondage out of
conviction. He shattered faith in authority because he restored the authority of faith. He
turned priests into laymen because he turned laymen into priests. He freed man from
outer religiosity because he made religiosity the inner man. He freed the body from
chains because he enchained the heart.


But, if Protestantism was not the true solution of the problem, it was at least the true
setting of it. It was no longer a case of the layman's struggle against the priest outside
himself but of his struggle against his own priest inside himself, his priestly nature. And
if the Protestant transformation of the German layman into priests emancipated the lay
popes, the princes, with the whole of their priestly clique, the privileged and philistines,
the philosophical transformation of priestly Germans into men will emancipate the
people. But, secularization will not stop at the confiscation of church estates set in motion
mainly by hypocritical Prussia any more than emancipation stops at princes. The Peasant
War, the most radical fact of German history, came to grief because of theology. Today,
when theology itself has come to grief, the most unfree fact of German history, our status
quo, will be shattered against philosophy. On the eve of the Reformation, official
Germany was the most unconditional slave of Rome. On the eve of its revolution, it is the
unconditional slave of less than Rome, of Prussia and Austria, of country junkers and
philistines.


Meanwhile, a major difficult seems to stand in the way of a radical German revolution.
For revolutions require a passive element, a material basis. Theory is fulfilled in a people
only insofar as it is the fulfilment of the needs of that people. But will the monstrous
discrepancy between the demands of German thought and the answers of German reality
find a corresponding discrepancy between civil society and the state, and between civil
society and itself? Will the theoretical needs be immediate practical needs? It is not
enough for thought to strive for realization, reality must itself strive towards thought.
But Germany did not rise to the intermediary stage of political emancipation at the same
time as the modern nations. It has not yet reached in practice the stages which it has
surpassed in theory. How can it do a somersault, not only over its own limitations, but at
the same time over the limitations of the modern nations, over limitations which it must
in reality feel and strive for as for emancipation from its real limitations? Only a
revolution of radical needs can be a radical revolution and it seems that precisely the
preconditions and ground for such needs are lacking.


If Germany has accompanied the development of the modern nations only with the
abstract activity of thought without taking an effective share in the real struggle of that
development, it has, on the other hand, shared the sufferings of that development, without
sharing in its enjoyment, or its partial satisfaction. To the abstract activity on the one
hand corresponds the abstract suffering on the other. That is why Germany will one day
find itself on the level of European decadence before ever having been on the level of
European emancipation. It will be comparable to a fetish worshipper pining away with
the diseases of Christianity.


If we now consider the German governments, we find that because of the circumstances
of the time, because of Germany's condition, because of the standpoint of German
education, and, finally, under the impulse of its own fortunate instinct, they are driven to
combine the civilized shortcomings of the modern state world, the advantages of which
we do not enjoy, with the barbaric deficiencies of the ancien regime, which we enjoy in
full; hence, Germany must share more and more, if not in the reasonableness, at least in
the unreasonableness of those state formations which are beyond the bounds of its status
quo. Is there in the world, for example, a country which shares so naively in all the
illusions of constitutional statehood without sharing in its realities as so-called
constitutional Germany? And was it not perforce the notion of a German government to
combine the tortures of censorship with the tortures of the French September laws [1835
anti-press laws] which provide for freedom of the press? As you could find the gods of all
nations in the Roman Pantheon, so you will find in the Germans' Holy Roman Empire all
the sins of all state forms. That this eclecticism will reach a so far unprecedented height is
guaranteed in particular by the political-aesthetic gourmanderie of a German king
[Frederick William IV] who intended to play all the roles of monarchy, whether feudal or
democratic, if not in the person of the people, at least in his own person, and if not for the
people, at least for himself. Germany, as the deficiency of the political present constituted
a world of its own, will not be able to throw down the specific German limitations
without throwing down the general limitation of the political present.


It is not the radical revolution, not the general human emancipation which is a utopian
dream for Germany, but rather the partial, the merely political revolution, the revolution
which leaves the pillars of the house standing. On what is a partial, a merely political
revolution based? On part of civil society emancipating itself and attaining general
domination; on a definite class, proceeding from its particular situation; undertaking the
general emancipation of society. This class emancipates the whole of society, but only
provided the whole of society is in the same situation as this class — e.g., possesses
money and education or can acquire them at will.


No class of civil society can play this role without arousing a moment of enthusiasm in
itself and in the masses, a moment in which it fraternizes and merges with society in
general, becomes confused with it and is perceived and acknowledged as its general
representative, a moment in which its claims and rights are truly the claims and rights of
society itself, a moment in which it is truly the social head and the social heart. Only in
the name of the general rights of society can a particular class vindicate for itself general
domination. For the storming of this emancipatory position, and hence for the political
exploitation of all sections of society in the interests of its own section, revolutionary
energy and spiritual self-feeling alone are not sufficient. For the revolution of a nation,
and the emancipation of a particular class of civil society to coincide, for one estate to be
acknowledged as the estate of the whole society, all the defects of society must
conversely be concentrated in another class, a particular estate must be the estate of the
general stumbling-block, the incorporation of the general limitation, a particular social
sphere must be recognized as the notorious crime of the whole of society, so that
liberation from that sphere appears as general self-liberation. For one estate to be par
excellence the estate of liberation, another estate must conversely be the obvious estate of
oppression. The negative general significance of the French nobility and the French
clergy determined the positive general significance of the nearest neighboring and
opposed class of the bourgeoisie.


But no particular class in Germany has the constituency, the penetration, the courage, or
the ruthlessness that could mark it out as the negative representative of society. No more
has any estate the breadth of soul that identifies itself, even for a moment, with the soul
of the nation, the geniality that inspires material might to political violence, or that
revolutionary daring which flings at the adversary the defiant words: I am nothing but I
must be everything. The main stem of German morals and honesty, of the classes as well
as of individuals, is rather that modest egoism which asserts it limitedness and allows it to
be asserted against itself. The relation of the various sections of German society is
therefore not dramatic but epic. Each of them begins to be aware of itself and begins to
camp beside the others with all its particular claims not as soon as it is oppressed, but as
soon as the circumstances of the time relations, without the section's own participation,
creates a social substratum on which it can in turn exert pressure. Even the moral
self-feeling of the German middle class rests only on the consciousness that it is the
common representative of the philistine mediocrity of all the other classes. It is therefore
not only the German kinds who accede to the throne mal a propos, it is every section of
civil society which goes through a defeat before it celebrates victory and develops its own
limitations before it overcomes the limitations facing it, asserts its narrow-hearted
essence before it has been able to assert its magnanimous essence; thus the very
opportunity of a great role has passed away before it is to hand, and every class, once it
begins the struggle against the class opposed to it, is involved in the struggle against the
class below it. Hence, the higher nobility is struggling against the monarchy, the
bureaucrat against the nobility, and the bourgeois against them all, while the proletariat is
already beginning to find itself struggling against the bourgeoisie. The middle class
hardly dares to grasp the thought of emancipation from its own standpoint when the
development of the social conditions and the progress of political theory already declare
that standpoint antiquated or at least problematic.


In France, it is enough for somebody to be something for him to want to be everything; in
Germany, nobody can be anything if he is not prepared to renounce everything. In
France, partial emancipation is the basis of universal emancipation; in Germany,
universal emancipation is the conditio sine qua non of any partial emancipation. In
France, it is the reality of gradual liberation that must give birth to complete freedom, in
Germany, the impossibility of gradual liberation. In France, every class of the nation is a
political idealist and becomes aware of itself at first not as a particular class but as a
representative of social requirements generally. The role of emancipator therefore passes
in dramatic motion to the various classes of the French nation one after the other until it
finally comes to the class which implements social freedom no longer with the provision
of certain conditions lying outside man and yet created by human society, but rather
organizes all conditions of human existence on the premises of social freedom. On the
contrary, in Germany, where practical life is as spiritless as spiritual life is unpractical, no
class in civil society has any need or capacity for general emancipation until it is forced
by its immediate condition, by material necessity, by its very chains.


Where, then, is the positive possibility of a German emancipation?


Answer: In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is
not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which
has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because
no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no
historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the
consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere,
finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres
of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the
complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of
man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.
The proletariat is beginning to appear in Germany as a result of the rising industrial
movement. For, it is not the naturally arising poor but the artificially impoverished, not
the human masses mechanically oppressed by the gravity of society, but the masses
resulting from the drastic dissolution of society, mainly of the middle estate, that form the
proletariat, although, as is easily understood, the naturally arising poor and the
Christian-Germanic serfs gradually join its ranks.


By heralding the dissolution of the hereto existing world order, the proletariat merely
proclaims the secret of its own existence, for it is the factual dissolution of that world
order. By demanding the negation of private property, the proletariat merely raises to the
rank of a principle of society what society has raised to the rank of its principle, what is
already incorporated in it as the negative result of society without its own participation.
The proletarian then finds himself possessing the same right in regard to the world which
is coming into being as the German king in regard to the world which has come into
being when he calls the people hispeople, as he calls the horse his horse. By declaring the
people his private property, the king merely proclaims that the private owner is king.
As philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat, so the proletariat finds its
spiritual weapon in philosophy. And once the lightning of thought has squarely struck
this ingenuous soil of the people, the emancipation of the Germans into men will be
accomplished.


Let us sum up the result:


The only liberation of Germany which is practically possible is liberation from the point
of view of that theory which declares man to be the supreme being for man. German can
emancipate itself from the Middle Ages only if it emancipates itself at the same time
from the partial victories over the Middle Ages. In Germany, no form of bondage can be
broken without breaking all forms of bondage. Germany, which is renowned for its
thoroughness, cannot make a revolution unless it is a thorough one. The emancipation of
the German is the emancipation of man. The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its
heart the proletariat. Philosophy cannot realize itself without the transcendence
[Aufhebung] of the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot transcend itself without the
realization [Verwirklichung] of philosophy.


When all the inner conditions are met, the day of the German resurrection will be
heralded by the crowing of the cock of Gaul.

Author's note: Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Keywords: Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, by Karl Marx Deutsch-Französische Jahrbucher, February, 1844



Please Signup to comment on this article