Marx and Jewish Emancipation

Author(s): Shlomo Avineri

Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1964), pp. 445-450
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2707911 .
Accessed: 27/11/2013 07:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:43:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARX AND JEWISH EMANCIPATION

BY

SHLOMO AVINERI

That Karl Marx was an inveterateantisemiteis today considereda commonplace which is hardly ever questioned. Marxists feel rather uneasy
about it and try to evade the issue by pushing his essay Zur Judenfrage
into the background,wishfullyhopingthat it will be ultimatelyforgotten.
The essay is seldomtranslatedor even separatelypublishedin the original
German,nor is it quoted by orthodoxMarxistsabove the absoluteminimum.
They, as well as non-Marxists,are usually perplexedby the enormityof
Marx's anti-Jewishoutbursts;1 others see in it one more evidence of an
antisemiticundercurrentin European socialism.2That Marx's essay was
later accompanied by such uncomplimentaryremarks about Lassalle as

8 seemsto giveweight
Braun,'or 'EphraimGescheit,'
'BaronItzig,''Jiudel

to this contention.The fact that Bebel and Bernstein,as firsteditorsof the

Marx-Engels correspondence,carefullydeleted every anti-Jewishremark
of the Master fromtheiredition,only atteststo the burdenMarx left as a
legacy to his disciples in this as in many otherrespects.
Marx's essay is an answerto Bruno Bauer's two treatiseson the Jews.4
has
It
mainly two aspects: first,it is Marx's earliest attemptto formhis
with the Young Hegelian tradition
own social philosophyin confrontation
in general and with Bauer's 'critical school' in particular.Secondly,it is a
fierceinvectiveagainst what Marx conceivesto be the spiritand essenceof
Judaismas a historicalphenomenon.Bauer, accordingto Marx, in denying
the Jews political and civic rights,is mistakenin failingto distinguishbetween the political and the human emancipation.Political emancipation,
whichmeans accordingto Marx political formalequality, can be achieved
withinbourgeoissociety,whereashumanemancipation,whichsignifiestranscending alienation, necessarily presupposes the destructionof bourgeois
society as the sphereof men's egotisticinterestscontrastedwith universal
human attributes.The problemposed by Jewishemancipationoccurs, according to Marx, wholly within bourgeois society and should hence be
treatedaccordingto the generalformalprinciplesof equality underlyingit.

Bauermissesthis,and hencehis attitudeis mistaken.

abouttheJewsis in thesecondpart
But thebruntof Marx'sargument
Judaismwiththe practiceof sellingand
of his essay,wherehe identifies
oftheJewishspirit,and
seesbourgeois
societyas themanifestation
buying,
oftheJewis theemancipation
endsby sayingthat"thesocialemancipation

-S. Hook,FromHegelto Marx (NewYork,1936),100-3; A. Cornu,Karl Marx

and Myth
Engels(Paris,1958),II, 254-71; R. C. Tucker,Philosophy
et Friedrich
1961), 110-13.K. Kautsky,in hisRasse und Judentum
in Karl Marx (Cambridge,
Marx'sessayat all.
No. 20 to Die Neue Zeit,1914) doesnotmention
(Supplement
HistoriaJudaica,XI (1949),
"Was Marx an anti-Semite?,"
2E.g., E. Silberner,
(Berlin,1962), 119-27.
3-52; thesameauthor,Sozialistenzur Judenfrage
3 Marx-Engels
(Berlin,1929),3e. Abt.,III, 213; II, 324,334,369.
Gesamtausgabe
4 B. Bauer,Die Judenfrage
1843); B. Bauer,"Die Fahigkeitder
(Braunschweig,
Bogenaus derSchweiz,
freizu sein,"Einundzwanzig
Judenund Christen
heutigen
The Re1843),56-71.Cf.N. Rotenstreich,
ed. G. Herweg(Zurichand Winterthur,
curring
Pattern(London,1963),fora detailedstudyof Bauer'sas wellas Marx's
views.
445

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:43:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

446

SHLOMO

AVINERI

of societyfromJudaism.", This imageof Judaismis generallyconceived

to be Marx'sLast Judgment
on the Jews,and recentlyan Americanwent
to the lengthof crediting
Marx witha racialistantisemitism,
postulating
a quasi-Naziviewof advocatinga physicalannihilation
of theJews.6
Marx'sratherunflattering
imageof Judaismsomehowovershadows
the
questionabouthisactualattitudeto thepracticalquestionwhichcausedthe
essayto be written,
i.e. thepositionof theJewsin Prussia.It is certainly
rightto supposethatthisquestionwas a secondaryone fromMarx's own
pointofview: thephilosophical
withBauertookprecedence.
argument
Still,
it has beenverymuchoverlooked
thatMarx comesback in a latercontext
to thisquestionof Jewishemancipation,
and in thiscase engagesin a very
detailedargument
abouttheproblemitself.This is doneby Marx a yearor
so laterin The Holy Family.In thegeneralargument
againstBauer,three
sub-sections
Marx
are devotedto Bauer's attitudeto theJewishquestion.7
heretakesissuewitha seriesof articlesby Bauer whichwerewrittenby
way of responseto someJewishreactionsto his initialessays of 1843.8
Again,Marx's argument
is on two levels,a philosophical
and a historical
one.On thefirstlevelMarx reiterates
his contention
thatBauer mixesup
politicalwithhumanemancipation,
and on thiscountMarxdoesnotreally
add anything
to whathad alreadybeensaid by himin his first
significant
articlein theDeutsch-Franzosische
Jahrbiucher.
It is, however,
on the secondplane that Marx plungesdeeplyintothe
variousissues connectedwiththe polemicalliteraturewhichsprungup
at that time.Here he takes
aroundthe questionof Jewishemancipation
sidesin theargument
between
Bauerand a hostofJewishpolemicists
(Philippson,SamuelHirsch,Salomon,GabrielRiesser,et al.). The significant
factis thatMarxcompletely
endorsestheviewsheldby theJewishwriters,
thoughwrilyaddingthatin spiteof the factthattheyare farinferior
to
Baueras polemicists,
thelatterdoesnotgetthebetterofthemin argument.
At the outsetMarx supportsone of Gustav Philippson'sarguments
againstBauer.According
to Philippson,
Bauer'spointofdeparture
is irreleinstead
of
the
of
in
Jewish
vant;
posing question
emancipation the context
of existingsocietywithinwhichthe questionhas arisen,"Bauer imagines
a peculiarkindof state-a philosophical
ideal of a state,a stateas it has
neverexistedand couldneverexist,a state in whichthe Sovereigngives
and in whichall thecitizens,from
publiclectureson logicand metaphysics,
the ChiefMinisterdownto the lamp cleanerof the Royal Theatertake
of everywordutteredby the crownedPronotes,like Chinesemandarins,
5K. Marx,Early Writings,
trans.T. B. Bottomore(London,1963),40 (MarxEngels,Werke[Berlin,1961],I, 377).
6 D. D. Runes,Karl Marx,A WorldWithout
Jews(New York,1959),ix.
7K. Marx and F. Engels,The Holy Family,trans.R. Dixon (Moscow,1956),
117-21,127-32,143-59(Werke,II, 91-95,99-104,112-25); thatthosesectionswere
written
by Marx,cf.Werke,II, 724.
8 B. Bauer,"NeuesteSchriften
iuberdie Judenfrage,"
in Allgemeine
LiteraturHeftI (December1843) and HeftIV (March1844).
Zeitung,

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:43:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARX AND JEWISH

EMANCIPATION

447

fessor,so as to make sure that every executiveact will be in accordance

withwhat was writtendownin theirschool notebook."9 Marx remarksthat
thisis valid criticism,as Bauer "confusesthe state withhumanity,the rights
of man withman, and political emancipationwith human emancipation."10
Bauer's theologicalpremises,which combinehis Christianvaluation of
Judaism with his attitude to Jewishcontemporaryemancipation,are the
focal point of Marx's attack on the second,historicallevel. Bauer and his
school,Marx asserts,pose the questionin a wrongway: "It thus distorted
the Jewishquestionin such a way that it did not need to investigatepolitical emancipation. . . but could be satisfiedwith a criticismof Jewishreligion and a descriptionof the Christian-Germanstate." 11
Marx points out that XVIIIth-centuryEnlightenment,
by creatingthe
modernbourgeoisworld,succeededin neutralizingreligiousdissentfromthe
political sphere,makingreligionirrelevantin the realm of the state. Bauer
and his colleagues,on the otherhand, would like to go back in historyand
do away with this political neutralizationof the religious elementin the
modernworld. Bauer sees the Jewishquestion as a religiousone; no one
would denythat,Marx remarks,but it is not only a religiousquestion.The
rootsof the religiousproblemare deeply imbeddedin the actual livingconditions of the Jews,and these-like Jewishreligionitself-are being constantlyrecreatedand preservedby bourgeoissociety.Marx reiterateshere
his Feuerbachian,anthropologicalattitudeto religion,and thoughhe does
not budge an inch fromhis earlier approach whichidentifiedJudaismwith
the bourgeoisworld,his basic attitudeand its practical consequencesdo not
fundamentallydifferfromthose generallyheld by people who supported
Jewishemancipation;even a liberal like Macaulay could not help making
clear his aversionto both Jewishreligionand economicactivityin his essay
advocatingtheirenfranchisement.12
The religiousproblemof Judaismcannot,accordingto Marx, be solved
withinexistingsociety (as it is just one phenomenalmanifestationof human
alienation in general); therefore,the political and civil rightsof the Jews
cannot be decided upon in a religiouscontext: "If a Jew demands freedom
and neverthelesswill not renouncehis religion,he . . . sets no condition
contraryto political freedom,"Marx points out.13 This is in directopposition to Bauer who made it a condition for emancipationthat the Jews
should renouncetheirreligion.Marx says that Bauer's attitudeis characteristicand typical of the Christian-Prussianattitude,and he goes to some
lengthto show that Bauer hypostasizeshis idea of a Christianstate 14 on
the Prussian absolutistLandeskirche.Marx jokinglyremarksthat forBauer
"'his faith in Jehovahis changedinto faithin the Prussian State." 15 Marx
then goes on to supportanotherJewishwriter,Gabriel Riesser (who eventually became a memberof the 1848 FrankfortConstituentAssembly),
against Bauer: "Herr Riesser correctlyexpressesthe meaningof the Jews'
9 G. Philippson,
vonBrunoBauer (Dessau, 1843),5.
Die Judenfrage
10The HolyFamily,118 (Werke,II, 92).
11Ibid.,121 (Werke,II, 95).
12T. B. Macaulay,"CivilDisabilitiesof the Jews"(1831), Criticaland Historical Essays (London,1951),II, 228f.
13 TheHolyFamily,
150(Werke,II, 118). 14 Ibid.,151(Werke,II, 118). 15 Ibid.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:43:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

448

SHLOMO

AVINERI

whenhe denmands,
oftheirfreehumanity
desireforrecognition
amongother
of movement,
things,the freedom
sojourn,travel,earningone'sliving,etc.
of 'freehumanity'
are explicitly
as suchin
Thesemanifestations
recognized
the FrenchDeclarationof the Rightsof Man. The Jewhas all the more
as the 'freecivil society'is
rightto the recognition
of his 'freehumanity'
thoroughly
commercial
and Jewishand theJewis a necessary
linkin it."16
of bourgeoissocietyand of the role the Jewsplay in it,
Marx's criticism
according
to his view,doesnotpreventhimfromdemanding
fullciviland
politicalrightsfortheJews;notbecauseJewishemancipation
signifies
the
journey'send,butbecausethoserightsare in accordancewiththepremises
of bourgeoissocietyitself.'7That thoseprinciplesare but a milestoneon
theroad to ultimatesalvationis besidethe pointwhenconsidered
in this
context;nay more,theybecomea necessarystage towardsthis ultimate
Marxsupports
emancipation.
Riesseralso on anotheroccasionbymaintainingthattheonlylegitimate
attitudeto theJewishclaimsis to gaugethem
by the criteriaof the objectivejuridicalnormsof bourgeoissociety;an
approachlike thatof Bauer,based as it is on subjectivefeelingand consciousness('Gemiitund Gewissen')throwsthedoorwideopento a hostof
considerations
whichare by definition
in deciding
inadequateand irrelevant
questionsofrights.18
Bauer'stheological
approachalso causeshimto viewJudaismas outside
thepale of historical
processand theJewsas existingoutsidethe realmof
history,havingno historicaljustification
for theircontinuing
existence.
Bauer deniesRabbi SamuelHirsch'scontention
thatthe Jewsplayedany
part in history.'9
Of course,the Jewscontributed
to history,
'something'
Bauer asserts,butthen"an eyesoreis something
too-does it meanit contributesto developmy eyesight?"Marx seemsto have put some of the
ancestralrabbinicalvehemence
into his rejoinderin defending
the rabbi
againstthe criticaltheologian:"Something
whichhas been an eyesoreto
me sincemy birth,as the Jewshave been to the Christianworld,which
16lbid.,153 (Werke,II, 120).
17This cleardistinction
betweenhis attitudetowardJudaismand the political
questionofJewishemancipation
is manifested
by Marx in a letterto ArnoldRuge.
Here Marx relateshowas editorof the Rheinische
Zeitunghe was approachedby
theleaderoftheJewish
in Colognein connection
community
witha Jewishpetition
on emancipation
to be presentedto the RhenishDiet. Marx informs
Ruge that
thoughthe'Israelitereligion'
to him,he willsupportthe
is 'destestable'
(widerlich)
petitionso as to bringmorerationality
intothe existing'Christianstate' (Letter
to Ruge,13 March1843,MEGA, I, 1/2, 308).
18 TheHolyFamily,
130 (Werke,II, 102). It is noteworthy
thatthiswasalsothe
anglefromwhichHegelviewedthecriteria
by whichJewishemancipation
shouldbe
judged.Marx is in fullagreement
withHegelin thatbothdetestJudaism,
though
fordifferent
yetbothgo out oftheirwayto pointout thatJewishemancireasons,
of theuniversal
pationis a necessary
normsofmodernsociety.Cf. G. W.
corollary
F. Hegel,Grundlinien
der Philosophiedes Rechts,ed. J. Hoffmeister
(Hamburg,
1955),? 209,270,as wellas my"A Noteon Hegel'sViewson Jewish
Emancipation,"
JewishSocialStudies,XXV (April1963),145-51.
19S. Hirsch,Das Judentum,
derchristliche
Staat unddiemoderne
Kritik:Briefe
zur Beleuchtung
derJudenfrage
vonBrunoBauer (Leipzig,1943),24.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:43:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MARX AND JEWISH

EMANCIPATION

449

growsand develops withme, is not an ordinarysore, but a wonderfulone,

one that really belongs to my eye and must even contributeto a highly
original developmentof my eyesight. ... However, the criticismquoted
above revealed to Herr Bruno [Bauer] the significanceof Jewryin 'the
makingof moderntimes.'2220
Marx comes back to this aspect of the place of Judaismin the historical
processin anothercontext,and thoughthe tone is less incisiveit is not less
determined.Marx points out again that the Christiantheologian element
in Bauer's thoughtmakes him suppose that Judaismactually lost its place
in Universal History at the comingof Christ. Marx points out that Bauer
is thus merely giving vent to his theological prejudices, clothingin new
21 To Marx, Judaphilosophicalgarmentthe 'old theologicalsuperstition.'
ism exists withinand throughthe historicalprocess,it can be understood
only historicallyand "the emancipationof the Jewsto make human beings
of them,or the human emancipationof Jewry,is thereforenot to be conceived in the mannerof Herr Bauer, as the special task of the Jews,but as
the generalpractical task of the whole worldtoday, whichis Jewishto the
core. . . . Herr Bauer, a genuinethough critical theologianor theological
22
criticcould not get beyondthe religiouscontradiction."
One of Bauer's argumentsagainst the Jewspreservingtheirreligionafter
being emancipatedwas that nationalismis dying out anyway, so there is
no special need to preserveone specificnationalismwhile the world is developingtowardsa supra-nationalcosmopolis;the Jewshave to mergetheir
individualityin this universalism.Marx's answer to this is significanton
threecounts: (a) in regardto any notionshe may have had about the future
existenceof the Jews as an ethnicgroup; (b) in connectionwiththe developmentof his thoughton the general problemof nationalism; and (c) regardinghis attitudeto the question of historicalpredictability.Marx says
in fact that thereis no proofwhatsoeverto the contentionthat the different
nationalitiesare doomed to disappearance; further,any attemptat historical prophecyis dangerously near to bringingtheologyback into the picture.23

In his firstessay on the Jews in the Deutsch-FranzosischeJahrbiucher

Marx definedthe modernstate as being characterizedby the separationof
religionfromthe state.24Now in The Holy Family Marx goes one step
furtherin tryingto find a formalcriterionby means of which it will be
possibleto gauge the degreeof modernityany particularstate has achieved.
Anyonewho has followedMarx's argumentclosely will not be surprisedto
find that Marx takes the degree to which Jews enjoy political and civil
rightsas the criterionfor themodernityof any particularstate. The Rights
of Man (i.e. "political" emancipation),have firstof all to be achieved in
orderto be transcended.To quote Marx: "The Jews (like the Christians)
are fullypolitically emancipatedin various states. Both Jews and Christians are far frombeing humanly emancipated. Hence there must be a
betweenpolitical and humanemancipation.The essenceof politidifference
cal emancipation,i.e. of the developed, modern state, must thereforebe
20 TheHolyFamily,
21 Ibid.,147 (Werke,
119 (Werke,II, 93).
II, 11516)
22Ibid.,148 (Werke,II, 116).
23Ibid.,132 (Werke,II, 104).
24 Werke,
I, 350-56,360.

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:43:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

450

SHLOMO

AVINERI

studied.On the otherhand, states which cannot yet politically emancipate

the Jews must be rated by comparisonwith accomplishedstates and must
25 It seems that Marx makes it quite
be consideredas under-developed."
explicit,that he is concernedhere not only withthe innercontradictionsof
an attitude which would like to deny the Jews equal rightsin a modern
society,but is out to claim those very rightsforthe Jews himself.
That Marx was consciousof the limitationsof this political emancipation in the specificcase of the Jewsis evidentfroman episode cited by him
as an illustrationof the generaldichotomybetweenthe merelypolitical and
the final human emancipation.The case in question concernsthe attitude
of the French Jews duringthe July Monarchy to introducingSunday as
the public holiday in state schools. It may provide an interestingcomment
on Marx's insightin so far as his generalview on the limitationsof merely
political emancipationenabled him to perceivea dilemmawhichmany optimisticallymindedliberals,Jewishand Christianalike, have not foreseen,
certainlydid not in 1845.
When it was proposedin the French Chamber,in December 1840, that
Sunday be the public holiday in state schools, some radical deputies objected on the ground that this meant admittingclericalism throughthe
back door. The Jewishdeputy Adolphe Cremieux declared, however,that
in the opinionof French Jewry,the religionof the majorityof Frenchmen
must be taken into account, and thereforethe Jews will not object to declaring Sunday a public holiday in state schools. Marx remarks: "Now
accordingto free theoryJews and Christians are equal, but accordingto
this practiceChristianshave a privilegeover Jews; forotherwisehow could
the Sunday of the Christianshave a place in a law made for all Frenchmen? Should not the JewishSabbath have the same right,etc.?" 26
This, accordingto Marx, is the intrinsiccontradictionin the modern,
constitutionalstate; political liberalismcan solve only the purelypolitical
problem.The question how Jewishindividualitycan be maintainedwithin
a predominantlynon-Jewishsocietywill always remain problematicalaccordingto Marx, so long as the human emancipation,i.e. Revolution,will
not sweep it away. Marx sees quite clearlythe limitsof political emancipation; but being consciousof these limitations,as well as acceptingthe historicityand relativityof bourgeoissociety and its liberal ethos, does not
preventhim fromvoicing the same demands that were expressedby the
liberals themselves;thoughforMarx the values underlyingthose demands
are never ultimate.One has to divorce Marx's acrimoniousattack on the
role Jewsplayed, accordingto him,in historyfromhis attitudeto the question of Jewishemancipation; it was on this second plane that he argued
forcefullyagainst those who tried to proceed fromtheir feelingsabout the
historicalrole of Judaismto argue against the civil rightsof the Jews.
The Hebrew University,Jerusalem.
The Holy Family,149 (Werke,II, 117). One can see a practicalapplication
in Marx'sattitudein 1848,whenhe viewedcaseswhererestrictions
ofthiscriterion
on theJewishpopulationin someGermantownsas a clearindicawerere-imposed
trends.Cf. Neue Rheinische
Zeitung,17 Nov. 1848,
tionof resurgent
reactionary
29 Nov. 1848,(Werke,VI, 25,75).
26 The HolyFamily,155 (Werke,
II, 122).
25

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 07:43:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions