< prev
next>
160
THE EGO AND HIS OWN
longer dependent on fortune, but free.
In the most natural way in the world this endeavor
first utters itself as hatred of the " unfortunate "
against the "fortunate," i. e., of those for whom for-
tune has done little or nothing, against those for
whom it has done everything.
But properly the ill-feeling is not directed against
the fortunate, but against fortune, this rotten spot of
the commonalty.
As the Communists first declare free activity to be
man's essence, they, like all work-day dispositions,
need a Sunday; like all material endeavors, they need
a God, an uplifting and edification alongside their
witless " labor."
That the Communist sees in you the man, the bro-
ther, is only the Sunday side of Communism. Accord-
ing to the work-day side he does not by any means
take you as man simply, but as human laborer or
laboring man. The first view has in it the liberal
principle; in the second, illiberality is concealed. If
you were a " lazybones," he would not indeed fail to
recognize the man in you, but would endeavor to
cleanse him as a " lazy man " from laziness and to
convert you to the faith that labor is man's " destiny
and calling."
Therefore he shows a double face : with the one he
takes heed that the spiritual man be satisfied, with the
other he looks about him for means for the material
or corporeal man. He gives man a twofold post,--an
office of material acquisition and one of spiritual.
The commonalty had thrown open spiritual and
material goods, and left it with each one to reach out
MEN OF THE OLD TIME AND THE NEW 161
for them if he liked.
Communism really procures them for each one,
presses them upon him, and compels him to acquire
them. It takes seriously the idea that, because only
spiritual and material goods make us men, we must
unquestionably acquire these goods in order to be
man. The commonalty made acquisition free; Com-
munism compels to acquisition, and recognizes only
the acquirer, him who practises a trade. It is not
enough that the trade is free, but you must take it
up.
So all that is left for criticism to do is to prove
that the acquisition of these goods does not yet by any
means make us men.
With the liberal commandment that every one is to
make a man of himself, or every one to make himself
man, there was posited the necessity that every one
must gain time for this labor of humanization, i. e.
that it should become possible for every one to labor
on himself.
The commonalty thought it had brought this about
if it handed over everything human to competition,
but gave the individual a right to every human
thing. " Each may strive after everything! "
Social liberalism finds that the matter is not settled
with the " may," because may means only " it is for-
bidden to none " but not " it is made possible to every
one." Hence it affirms that the commonalty is liberal
only with the mouth and in words, supremely illiberal
in act. It on its part wants to give all of us the
means to be able to labor on ourselves.
By the principle of labor that of fortune or compe-