what the reaction does not know, just because these relations are so bourgeois. In face of this, all bourgeois attempts at restraining reaction are as impotent as all the moral indignations and all the exalted proclamations of the democrats. A new revolution will only be possible as a result of a new crisis. And the one is as inevitable as the other." The last words of their review was a crushing denunciation and merciless criticism of a proclamation by Mazzini, Ledru-Rollin, Ruge, and Daraz, who had constituted themselves a European central committee, to the whole of the European refugees to unite under one flag, and in which the failure of the revolution was explained with bland simplicity—i.e., as the result of quarrels and jealousies of the various leaders!
Of course, Marx and Engels denounce this as pure philistinism, and show that the bourgeois sentimentalists who think that the enthusiasms and ideals of a few are sufficient to induce a revolution at will in any desired direction, have simply put the cart before the horse, and, therefore, will never get any "forrarder."
In this same review, Engels wrote a number of other articles and series of articles, such as on the Ten Hours Bill, and on the German Peasants' War, which was later published as a pamphlet, and is the first historical description of pre-capitalist relations from the point of view of the materialistic conception of history.
The views held by Marx and Engels on the impossibility of making revolution at any time at will, necessarily caused great dissensions in the ranks of the Communist League. The older members, such as Eccarius, Pfander, Seiler, Freiligrath, Ferdinand Wolff, and Bauer, all with the exception of Schapper and Willich, followed Marx and Engels. The younger, with exceptions here and there, such as Wilhelm Liebknecht and Conrad Schramm, followed the general current of the refugees against them.
The crisis came to a head in the sitting of the central executive committee, September, 1850, in which, although the Marx-Engels tendency had a majority, it became evident that no compromise was possible between the two sections. As a result, both Marx and Engels were unable to do much practical work for some time, and they withdrew themselves into their theoretical works.
Back to Manchester
In the meantime, Engels' father was not content to see his son in the midst of the revolutionary movement in England, and he wrote offering him a post in Calcutta; this, however, Engels refused. He found, however, that by means of journalism, which was the career he had decided to follow, he could earn no more than enough to keep himself.
On the other hand, Marx had a wife and three young children, and could, by means of his writings, earn very little to support his family. Engels felt he could not stand by and see a great man like Marx, whose genius he recognised from the first days of their more intimate rela-
