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: 04/09/2011 07:39
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 [email protected].

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

MARX AND JEWISH EMANCIPATION

is today considered a comantisemite That Karl Marx was an inveterate monplace which is hardly ever questioned. Marxists feel rather uneasy about it and try to evade the issue by pushing his essay Zur Judenfrage wishfully hopingthat it will be ultimatelyforgotten. into the background, The essay is seldomtranslatedor even separatelypublishedin the original Marxistsabove the absoluteminimum. German,nor is it quoted by orthodox of They, as well as non-Marxists,are usually perplexedby the enormity 1 others see in it one more evidence of an Marx's anti-Jewish outbursts; in European socialism.2That Marx's essay was antisemiticundercurrent remarks about Lassalle as later accompanied by such uncomplimentary as first editorsof the to this contention. The fact that Bebel and Bernstein, remark carefullydeleted every anti-Jewish Marx-Engels correspondence, 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 it is Marx's earliest attemptto formhis mainly two aspects: first, in confrontation with the Young Hegelian tradition own social philosophy 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 beis mistakenin failingto distinguish the Jews political and civic rights, tween the political and the human emancipation.Political emancipation, whichmeans accordingto Marx political formalequality, can be achieved whichsignifies tranwithinbourgeoissociety,whereashumanemancipation, scending 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 it. treatedaccordingto the generalformalprinciplesof equality underlying

8 seemsto giveweight Braun,'or 'Ephraim Gescheit,' 'BaronItzig,''Jiudel

-S. Hook,FromHegelto Marx (NewYork,1936),100-3; A. Cornu, Karl Marx and Myth Philosophy Engels(Paris,1958),II, 254-71; R. C. Tucker, et Friedrich in hisRasse und Judentum 1961), 110-13.K. Kautsky, in Karl Marx (Cambridge, Marx'sessayat all. No. 20 to Die Neue Zeit,1914) doesnotmention (Supplement XI (1949), Judaica, Historia "Was Marx an anti-Semite?," 2E.g., E. Silberner, 1962), 119-27. (Berlin, zur Judenfrage Sozialisten 3-52; thesameauthor, 3 Marx-Engels III, 213; II, 324,334,369. 1929),3e. Abt., (Berlin, Gesamtausgabe 4 B. Bauer,Die Judenfrage der 1843); B. Bauer,"Die Fahigkeit (Braunschweig, Bogenaus derSchweiz, freizu sein,"Einundzwanzig und Christen Juden heutigen The Re1843),56-71.Cf.N. Rotenstreich, and Winterthur, ed. G. Herweg(Zurich of Bauer'sas wellas Marx's study 1963),fora detailed curring Pattern(London, views. 445

is mistaken. Bauermisses this,and hencehis attitude is in thesecond of Marx'sargument abouttheJews part But thebrunt of sellingand he identifies withthe practice Judaism of his essay,where as themanifestation oftheJewish and seesbourgeois spirit, society buying, is theemancipation oftheJew endsby saying that"thesocialemancipation

446

SHLOMO

AVINERI

, This imageof Judaism of society is generally from Judaism." conceived to be Marx'sLast Judgment an American on the Jews, and recently went to the length of crediting Marx witha racialistantisemitism, postulating a quasi-Naziviewof advocating a physical of theJews.6 annihilation Marx'srather unflattering imageof Judaism somehow overshadows the question abouthisactualattitude to thepractical which causedthe question essayto be written, i.e. theposition of theJewsin Prussia.It is certainly right to suppose thatthisquestion was a secondary one from Marx's own Bauertookprecedence. pointofview: thephilosophical with argument Still, it has beenverymuchoverlooked thatMarx comesback in a latercontext to thisquestion of Jewish and in thiscase engages in a very emancipation, detailed argument abouttheproblem itself. This is doneby Marx a yearor so laterin The Holy Family.In thegeneral argument against Bauer,three sub-sections to Bauer's attitude to theJewish Marx are devoted question.7 heretakesissuewitha seriesof articles by Bauer which werewritten by to someJewish reactions to his initialessays of 1843.8 way of response Again,Marx's argument is on two levels,a philosophical and a historical one.On thefirst levelMarx reiterates his contention thatBauer mixesup human with political and on thiscount Marxdoesnotreally emancipation, add anything to whathad alreadybeensaid by himin his first significant in theDeutsch-Franzosische article Jahrbiucher. It is, however, on the secondplane that Marx plunges deeplyintothe withthe polemicalliterature variousissues connected whichsprung up of Jewish at that time.Here he takes aroundthe question emancipation sidesin theargument between Bauerand a hostofJewish polemicists (Philippson, SamuelHirsch, Salomon, GabrielRiesser,et al.). The significant factis thatMarxcompletely endorses theviewsheldby theJewish writers, though wrilyaddingthatin spiteof the factthattheyare farinferior to Baueras polemicists, thelatter doesnotgetthebetter ofthem in argument. At the outsetMarx supports one of Gustav Philippson's arguments Bauer.According against to Philippson, Bauer'spoint ofdeparture is irreleinstead of the of in Jewish vant; posing question emancipation the context of existing within whichthe question has arisen, society "Bauer imagines a peculiar kindof state-a philosophical ideal of a state,a stateas it has neverexisted and couldneverexist, a state in whichthe Sovereign gives on logicand metaphysics, and in which all thecitizens, publiclectures from the ChiefMinister downto the lamp cleanerof the Royal Theatertake of every like Chinese notes, mandarins, worduttered by the crowned Pro5K. Marx,Early Writings, trans. T. B. Bottomore (London, 1963),40 (MarxWerke[Berlin, Engels, 1961],I, 377). 6 D. D. Runes, Karl Marx,A World Without 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); thatthose sections were written by Marx,cf.Werke, II, 724. 8 B. Bauer,"NeuesteSchriften iuber die Judenfrage," in Allgemeine LiteraturHeftI (December Zeitung, 1843) and HeftIV (March1844).

MARX AND JEWISH

EMANCIPATION

447

fessor,so as to make sure that every executiveact will be in accordance that downin theirschool notebook."9 Marx remarks withwhat was written the rights the state withhumanity, as Bauer "confuses thisis valid criticism, 10 with human emancipation." of man withman, and political emancipation which combinehis Christianvaluation of Bauer's theologicalpremises, emancipation,are the Judaism with his attitude to Jewishcontemporary focal point of Marx's attack on the second,historicallevel. Bauer and his school,Marx asserts,pose the questionin a wrongway: "It thus distorted politithe Jewishquestionin such a way that it did not need to investigate of Jewishrelical emancipation. . . but could be satisfiedwith a criticism state." 11 of the Christian-German gion and a description Marx points out that XVIIIth-centuryEnlightenment, by creatingthe the religiousdissentfrom modernbourgeoisworld,succeededin neutralizing in the realm of the state. Bauer political sphere,makingreligionirrelevant and and his colleagues,on the otherhand, would like to go back in history the element the neutralization of in with this religious do away political Jewish as one; no one a religious Bauer sees the question modernworld. but it is not only a religiousquestion.The would denythat,Marx remarks, rootsof the religiousproblemare deeply imbeddedin the actual livingconditions of the Jews,and these-like Jewishreligionitself-are being constantlyrecreatedand preservedby bourgeoissociety.Marx reiterateshere attitudeto religion,and thoughhe does his Feuerbachian,anthropological Judaismwith not budge an inch fromhis earlier approach whichidentified the bourgeoisworld,his basic attitudeand its practical consequencesdo not differ fromthose generallyheld by people who supported fundamentally 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 manifestation of human withinexisting society (as it is just one phenomenal the political and civil rightsof the Jews alienation in general); therefore, cannot be decided upon in a religiouscontext: "If a Jew demands freedom will not renouncehis religion,he . . . sets no condition and nevertheless Marx points out.13 This is in directopposito political freedom," contrary tion to Bauer who made it a condition for emancipationthat the Jews should renouncetheirreligion.Marx says that Bauer's attitudeis characteristicand typical of the Christian-Prussian attitude,and he goes to some lengthto show that Bauer hypostasizeshis idea of a Christianstate 14 on that forBauer the Prussian absolutistLandeskirche.Marx jokinglyremarks "'his faith in Jehovahis changedinto faithin the Prussian State." 15 Marx Gabriel Riesser (who eventhen goes on to supportanotherJewishwriter, tually became a memberof the 1848 FrankfortConstituentAssembly), expressesthe meaningof the Jews' against Bauer: "Herr Riesser correctly 9 G. Philippson, von Bruno Bauer (Dessau, 1843),5. Die Judenfrage 10The HolyFamily, II, 95). II, 92). 118 (Werke, 11Ibid.,121 (Werke, of the Jews"(1831), Critical and Histor"CivilDisabilities 12T. B. Macaulay, 1951),II, 228f. ical Essays (London, 13 TheHolyFamily, II, 118). 15 Ibid. II, 118). 14 Ibid.,151(Werke, 150(Werke,

448

SHLOMO

AVINERI

free when he denmands, oftheir desire for other recognition humanity among of movement, one'sliving, things, the freedom etc. sojourn, travel, earning of 'free are explicitly as suchin Thesemanifestations humanity' recognized the French Declaration of the Rightsof Man. The Jewhas all the more as the 'freecivil society' right to the recognition of his 'freehumanity' is thoroughly commercial and Jewish linkin it."16 and theJewis a necessary of bourgeois Marx's criticism and of the role the Jewsplay in it, society according to his view,doesnotprevent himfrom fullciviland demanding fortheJews;notbecauseJewish political rights emancipation signifies the journey's end,butbecausethoserights are in accordance withthepremises of bourgeois society itself.'7 That thoseprinciples are but a milestone on theroad to ultimate is besidethe pointwhenconsidered in this salvation context; this ultimate nay more, theybecomea necessary stage towards Marxsupports emancipation. Riesser also on another occasion bymaintainingthattheonlylegitimate attitude to theJewish claimsis to gaugethem of the objective by the criteria juridicalnormsof bourgeois society;an approach like thatof Bauer,based as it is on subjective feeling and consciousness und Gewissen') ('Gemiit throws thedoorwideopento a hostof considerations which in deciding are by definition inadequate and irrelevant questions ofrights.18 Bauer'stheological approach also causeshimto viewJudaism as outside thepale of historical the realmof process and theJewsas existing outside history, havingno historical justification for theircontinuing existence. Bauer deniesRabbi SamuelHirsch'scontention thatthe Jewsplayedany part in history.'9 Of course, the Jewscontributed to history, 'something' Bauer asserts, butthen"an eyesore is something too-does it meanit conMarx seemsto have put some of the tributes to developmy eyesight?" ancestral vehemence into his rejoinder in defending rabbinical the rabbi againstthe critical theologian: "Something whichhas been an eyesore to me sincemy birth, as the Jewshave been to the Christian world, which
16lbid.,153 (Werke, II, 120). 17This cleardistinction between his attitude toward Judaism and the political ofJewish question is manifested emancipation to Arnold by Marx in a letter Ruge. Here Marx relates howas editor of the Rheinische he was approached Zeitung by theleaderoftheJewish in Cologne community in connection a Jewish with petition on emancipation to be presented to the Rhenish Diet. Marx informs Ruge that though the'Israelite to him, religion' is 'destestable' (widerlich) he willsupport the so as to bring petition morerationality intothe existing 'Christian state' (Letter to Ruge,13 March1843,MEGA, I, 1/2, 308). 18 TheHolyFamily, 130 (Werke, II, 102). It is noteworthy thatthiswasalsothe anglefrom which Hegelviewed thecriteria by which Jewish be emancipation should judged.Marx is in fullagreement withHegelin thatbothdetest Judaism, though fordifferent yetbothgo out oftheir wayto pointout thatJewish emancireasons, is a necessary of theuniversal ofmodern pation norms corollary Cf. G. W. society. F. Hegel,Grundlinien der Philosophie ed. J. Hoffmeister des Rechts, (Hamburg, 1955),? 209,270,as wellas my"A Noteon Hegel's Viewson Jewish Emancipation," Jewish SocialStudies, XXV (April1963),145-51. 19S. Hirsch, Das Judentum, derchristliche Staat unddiemoderne Kritik:Briefe zur Beleuchtung derJudenfrage vonBrunoBauer (Leipzig, 1943),24.

MARX AND JEWISH

EMANCIPATION

449

one, growsand develops withme, is not an ordinarysore, but a wonderful to a highly one that really belongs to my eye and must even contribute original developmentof my eyesight. ... However, the criticismquoted of Jewryin 'the above revealed to Herr Bruno [Bauer] the significance 20 makingof moderntimes.'22 Marx comes back to this aspect of the place of Judaismin the historical and thoughthe tone is less incisiveit is not less processin anothercontext, Marx points out again that the Christiantheologian element determined. makes him suppose that Judaismactually lost its place in Bauer's thought 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 and "the emancipationof the Jewsto make human beings only historically is therefore not to be conof them,or the human emancipationof Jewry, in manner Herr as of the Jews,but as ceived the of Bauer, the special task which is Jewishto the the generalpractical task of the whole worldtoday, core. . . . Herr Bauer, a genuinethough critical theologianor theological 22 criticcould not get beyondthe religiouscontradiction." theirreligionafter One of Bauer's arguments against the Jewspreserving 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 on individualityin this universalism.Marx's answer to this is significant threecounts: (a) in regardto any notionshe may have had about the future withthe develexistenceof the Jews as an ethnicgroup; (b) in connection opmentof his thoughton the general problemof nationalism; and (c) reMarx says gardinghis attitudeto the question of historicalpredictability. to the contention that the different in fact that thereis no proofwhatsoever any attemptat histornationalitiesare doomed to disappearance; further, theologyback into the picical prophecyis dangerously near to bringing In his firstessay on the Jews in the Deutsch-FranzosischeJahrbiucher the modernstate as being characterized Marx defined by the separationof religionfromthe state.24Now in The Holy Family Marx goes one step in tryingto find a formalcriterion further by means of which it will be any particularstate has achieved. possibleto gauge the degreeof modernity to closely will not be surprised Anyonewho has followedMarx's argument find that Marx takes the degree to which Jews enjoy political and civil of any particularstate. The Rights for themodernity rightsas the criterion of Man (i.e. "political" emancipation),have firstof all to be achieved in To quote Marx: "The Jews (like the Christians) orderto be transcended. are fullypolitically emancipatedin various states. Both Jews and Christians are far frombeing humanly emancipated. Hence there must be a The essenceof politibetweenpolitical and humanemancipation. difference be cal emancipation,i.e. of the developed, modern state, must therefore 20 TheHolyFamily, 21 Ibid., 11516) 119 (Werke, II, 93). 147 (Werke, II, 22Ibid.,148 (Werke, II, 116). 23Ibid.,132 (Werke, II, 104). 24 Werke, I, 350-56, 360.
ture.23

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." of here not only withthe innercontradictions explicit,that he is concerned 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 betweenthe merelypolitical and of the generaldichotomy as an illustration the final human emancipation.The case in question concernsthe attitude Sunday as of the French Jews duringthe July Monarchy to introducing comment an interesting the public holiday in state schools. It may provide of on the limitations merely as his view in far general on Marx's insight so political emancipationenabled him to perceivea dilemmawhichmany opmindedliberals,Jewishand Christianalike, have not foreseen, timistically did not in 1845. certainly 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 the religionof the majorityof Frenchmen in the opinionof French Jewry, the Jews will not object to demust be taken into account, and therefore claring Sunday a public holiday in state schools. Marx remarks: "Now accordingto free theoryJews and Christians are equal, but accordingto how could this practiceChristianshave a privilegeover Jews; forotherwise the Sunday of the Christianshave a place in a law made for all Frenchetc.?" 26 men? Should not the JewishSabbath have the same right, in the modern, This, accordingto Marx, is the intrinsiccontradiction constitutional state; political liberalismcan solve only the purelypolitical problem.The question how Jewishindividualitycan be maintainedwithin non-Jewish a predominantly societywill always remain problematicalaci.e. Revolution,will cordingto Marx, so long as the human emancipation, not sweep it away. Marx sees quite clearlythe limitsof political emancipaas well as acceptingthe histion; but being consciousof these limitations, toricityand relativityof bourgeoissociety and its liberal ethos, does not preventhim fromvoicing the same demands that were expressedby the those demands liberals themselves;thoughforMarx the values underlying to Marx's divorce acrimoniousattack on the are never ultimate.One has his attitudeto the quesfrom role Jewsplayed, accordingto him,in history tion of Jewishemancipation; it was on this second plane that he argued forcefully against those who tried to proceed fromtheir feelingsabout the historicalrole of Judaismto argue against the civil rightsof the Jews. Jerusalem. The Hebrew University, application The Holy Family, 149 (Werke, II, 117). One can see a practical in Marx'sattitude in 1848, when he viewed caseswhere restrictions ofthiscriterion on theJewish in someGerman as a clearindicatowns werere-imposed population trends. Cf. Neue Rheinische 17 Nov. 1848, Zeitung, tionof resurgent reactionary 29 Nov. 1848,(Werke, VI, 25,75). 26 The HolyFamily, 155 (Werke, II, 122).
25