First: 'bourgeois liberty':
The fight of the [ the liberal movement] against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchyn ... became more earnest.This, Marx said, was "silly" because
By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to 'True' Socialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement.
To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires, and officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.
It was a sweet finish, after the bitter pills of flogging and bullets, with which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings
(Interesting this. Marx here is defending 'bourgeois liberties'. However, he also seems to suggest that they will be transcended, and that their primary value is in helping the workers movement. It's maybe a one-all draw in the 'was Marx a democratric constitutionalist' debate).
While this “True” Socialism thus served the government as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of German Philistines.
Second: 'politics of fear':
A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism.To find out what did get in the book, buy it at Amazon, or if you're in town you can now find it in the Oxford University Bookshop.