If community is once a need of man, and he finds himself furthered by it in his aims, then very soon, because it has become his principle, it prescribes to him its laws too, the laws of--society. The principle of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them, becomes their supreme essence, their God, and, as such,--lawgiver. Communism gives this principle the strictest effect, and Christianity is the religion of society, for, as Feuerbach rightly says although he does not mean it rightly, love is the essence of man; _i. e._ the essence of society or of societary (Communistic) man. All religion is a cult of society, this principle by which societary (cultivated) man is dominated; neither is any god an ego's exclusive god, but always a society's or community's, be it of the society "family" (Lar, Penates) or of a "people" ("national god") or of "all men" ("he is a Father of all men"). Consequently one has a prospect of extirpating religion down to the ground only when one antiquates _society_ and everything that flows from this principle. But it is precisely in Communism that this principle seeks to culminate, as in it everything is to become _common_ for the establishment of--"equality." If this "equality" is won, "liberty" too is not lacking. But whose liberty? _Society's!_ Society is then all in all, and men are only "for each other." It would be the glory of the--love-State. But I would rather be referred to men's selfishness than to their "kindnesses,"[208] their mercy, pity, etc. The former demands _reciprocity_ (as thou to me, so I to thee), does nothing "gratis," and may be won and--_bought_. But with what shall I obtain the kindness? It is a matter of chance whether I am at the time having to do with a "loving" person. The affectionate one's service can be had only by--_begging_, be it by my lamentable appearance, by my need of help, my misery, my--_suffering_. What can I offer him for his assistance? Nothing! I must accept it as a--present. Love is _unpayable_, or rather, love can assuredly be paid for, but only by counter-love ("One good turn deserves another"). What paltriness and beggarliness does it not take to accept gifts year in and year out without service in return, as they are regularly collected _e. g._ from the poor day-laborer? What can the receiver do for him and his donated pennies, in which his wealth consists? The day-laborer would really have more enjoyment if the receiver with his laws, his institutions, etc., all of which the day-laborer has to pay for though, did not exist at all. And yet, with it all, the poor wight _loves_ his master.