an impossibility, because the law was framed to protect just that private property. And no more could the republic be "mild," because the possessing classes naturally did not tolerate such interference with their property with their hands in their laps but, on the contrary, eagerly sought for an opportunity to put an end to such nonchalant "mob rule." The struggle between the proletariat of that day and the possessing classes, fatedly and inevitably, had to be fought with terroristic weapons. By means of terror alone, in a condition replete with insoluble economic contradictions, could the proletariat then maintain its rule. Had the proletariat attained a higher stage of development and, on the other hand, had the then economic conditions been sufficiently advanced to secure its welfare, then there would have been no need for it to resort to measures of terror.
Let us have a look at the bourgeoisie, praised so highly by the historians because of its penchant for "lawfulness." By no means: did it leave its enemies in peace, and in critical moments did not shrink from
26
