Hubbry Logo
On the Jewish QuestionOn the Jewish QuestionMain
Open search
On the Jewish Question
Community hub
On the Jewish Question
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
On the Jewish Question
On the Jewish Question
On the Jewish Question
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

"On the Jewish Question" is a response by Karl Marx to then-current debates over the Jewish question. Marx's father had converted to Lutheran Christianity, and his wife and children were baptized in 1825 and 1824, respectively. Marx wrote the piece in 1843, and it was first published in Paris in 1844 under the German title "Zur Judenfrage" in the Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher.

The essay criticizes two studies[1][2] by Marx's fellow Young Hegelian, Bruno Bauer, on the attempt by Jews to achieve political emancipation in Prussia. Bauer argued that Jews could achieve political emancipation only by relinquishing their particular religious consciousness since political emancipation requires a secular state; Bauer assumes that there is not any "space" remaining for social identities such as religion. According to Bauer, such religious demands are incompatible with the idea of the "Rights of Man". True political emancipation, for Bauer, requires the abolition of religion.

Marx uses Bauer's essay as an opportunity for presenting his own analysis of liberal rights, arguing that Bauer is mistaken in his assumption that in a "secular state", religion will no longer play a prominent role in social life. Marx gives the pervasiveness of religion in the United States as an example, which, unlike Prussia, had no state religion. In Marx's analysis, the "secular state" is not opposed to religion, but rather actually presupposes it. The removal of religious or property qualifications for citizens does not mean the abolition of religion or property, but only introduces a way of regarding individuals in abstraction from them.[3]

Marx then moves beyond the question of religious freedom to his real concern with Bauer's analysis of "political emancipation". Marx concludes that while individuals can be "spiritually" and "politically" free in a secular state, they can still be bound to material constraints on freedom by economic inequality, an assumption that would later form the basis of his critiques of capitalism.

The essay and Marx's alleged history of antisemitic behavior has led to criticism of Marx as well as Marxism.[4] However, many Marxists or otherwise scholars interested in Marxism, disagree that the essay or his letters are antisemitic.[5][6][7]

Synopsis of content

[edit]

In Marx's view, Bauer fails to distinguish between political emancipation and human emancipation. As noted above, political emancipation in a modern state does not require Jews (or Christians) to renounce religion; only complete human emancipation would involve the disappearance of religion, but that is not yet possible "within the hitherto existing world order".

In the second part of the essay, Marx disputes Bauer's "theological" analysis of Judaism and its relation to Christianity. Bauer states that the renouncing of religion would be especially difficult for Jews. In Bauer's view, Judaism was a primitive stage in the development of Christianity. Hence, to achieve freedom by renouncing religion, Christians would have to surmount only one stage, whereas Jews would need to surmount two.

In response to this, Marx argues that the Jewish religion does not have the significance Bauer's analysis attributes, because it is merely a spiritual reflection of Jewish economic life. This is the starting point of a complex and somewhat metaphorical argument that draws on the stereotype of "the Jew" as a financially apt "huckster" and posits a special connection between Judaism as a religion and the economy of contemporary bourgeois society. Thus, the Jewish religion does not need to disappear in society, as Bauer argues, because it is actually a natural part of it. Having thus figuratively equated "practical Judaism" with "huckstering and money", Marx concludes, that "the Christians have become Jews"; and, ultimately, it is mankind (both Christians and Jews) that needs to emancipate itself from ("practical") Judaism.[8]

History of publication

[edit]

"Zur Judenfrage" was first published by Marx and Arnold Ruge in February 1844 in the Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher, a journal which ran only one issue.[9] From December 1843 to October 1844, Bruno Bauer published the monthly Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (General Literary Gazette) in Charlottenburg (now part of Berlin). In it, he responded to the critique of his own essays on the Jewish question by Marx and others. Then, in 1845, Friedrich Engels and Marx published a polemic critique of the Young Hegelians titled The Holy Family. In parts of the book, Marx again presented his views dissenting from Bauer's on the Jewish question and on political and human emancipation.[10]

A French translation appeared 1850 in Paris in Hermann Ewerbeck's book Qu'est-ce que la bible d'après la nouvelle philosophie allemande? (What is the Bible according to the new German philosophy?).

In 1879, historian Heinrich von Treitschke published an article "Unsere Aussichten" ("Our Prospects"), in which he demanded that the Jews should assimilate into German culture, and described Jewish immigrants as a danger for Germany. This article stirred up controversy, to which the newspaper Sozialdemokrat, edited by Eduard Bernstein, reacted by republishing almost the entire second part of "Zur Judenfrage" in June and July 1881.

The entire essay was re-published yet again in October 1890 in the Berliner Volksblatt, then edited by Wilhelm Liebknecht.[11]

In 1926, an English translation by H. J. Stenning, with the title "On the Jewish Question", appeared in a collection of essays by Marx.[12]

Another English translation of "Zur Judenfrage" was published (along with other articles written by Marx) in 1959, and titled, A World Without Jews.[13] The editor, Dagobert D. Runes, intended to demonstrate Marx's alleged antisemitism.[14] Runes' text was extensively criticized by Louis Harap for grossly misrepresenting Marx's views.[15]

Interpretations

[edit]

Marx as antisemite

[edit]

In his 1984 article "Marxism vs. the Jews" for Commentary, English journalist Paul Johnson references the second part of Marx's essay as evidence of Marx's antisemitism:[4][16]

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money[...] An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible[...] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews[...] Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities[...] The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange[...] The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

Antisemitism scholar Robert S. Wistrich stated "the net result of Marx's essay is to reinforce a traditional anti-Jewish stereotype – the identification of the Jews with money-making – in the sharpest possible manner".[17] Bernard Lewis described "On the Jewish Question" as "one of the classics of antisemitic propaganda".[18]

Hal Draper (1977)[19] observed that the language of Part II of "On the Jewish Question" followed the view of the Jews' role given in Jewish socialist Moses Hess's essay "On the Money System". According to Edward Flannery, Marx considered Jews to be enthusiastic capitalists.[20]

Hyam Maccoby argued that "On the Jewish Question" is an example of what he considers to be Marx's "early antisemitism". According to Maccoby, Marx argues in the essay that the modern commercialized world is the triumph of Judaism, a pseudo-religion whose god is money. Maccoby suggested that Marx was embarrassed by his Jewish background and used Jews as a "yardstick of evil". Maccoby writes that in later years, Marx limited what he considers to be antipathy towards Jews to private letters and conversations because of strong public identification with antisemitism by his political enemies both on the left (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin) and on the right (aristocracy and the Church).[21]

For sociologist Robert Fine (2006) Bauer's essay "echoed the generally prejudicial representation of the Jew as 'merchant' and 'moneyman'", whereas "Marx's aim was to defend the right of Jews to full civil and political emancipation (that is, to equal civil and political rights) alongside all other German citizens". Fine argues that "[the] line of attack Marx adopts is not to contrast Bauer's crude stereotype of the Jews to the actual situation of Jews in Germany", but "to reveal that Bauer has no inkling of the nature of modern democracy".[22] Sociologist Larry Ray in his reply (2006) to Fine acknowledges Fine's reading of the essay as an ironic defense of Jewish emancipation. He points out the ambiguity of Marx's language. Ray translates a sentence of "Zur Judenfrage" and interprets it as an assimilationist position "in which there is no room within emancipated humanity for Jews as a separate ethnic or cultural identity", and which advocates "a society where both cultural as well as economic difference is eliminated". Here Ray sees Marx in a "strand of left thinking that has been unable to address forms of oppression not directly linked to class".[23]

Other interpretations

[edit]

In Abraham Leon's 1946 book The Jewish Question, Leon examines Jewish history from a materialist perspective. According to Leon, Marx's essay uses the framing that one "must not start with religion in order to explain Jewish history; on the contrary: the preservation of the Jewish religion or nationality can be explained only by the 'real Jew', that is to say, by the Jew in his economic and social role".[24]

Isaac Deutscher (1959)[25] compares Marx with Elisha ben Abuyah, Baruch Spinoza, Heinrich Heine, Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, and Sigmund Freud, all of whom he thinks of as heretics who repudiate Jewry, yet still belong to a Jewish tradition. According to Deutscher, Marx's "idea of socialism and of the classless and stateless society" expressed in the essay is as universal as Spinoza's "Ethics and God".

Shlomo Avineri (1964), while acknowledging Marx's antisemitism as fact, also argues that Marx's philosophical criticism of Judaism overshadows his support for Jewish emancipation as an immediate political goal.[26] Avineri notes that in Bauer's debates with a number of Jewish contemporary polemicists, Marx entirely endorsed the views of the Jewish writers against Bauer.[26] In a letter to Arnold Ruge, written March 1843, Marx writes that he intended to support a petition of the Jews to the Provincial Assembly. He explains that while he dislikes Judaism as a religion, he also remains unconvinced by Bauer's view (that Jews should not be emancipated unless they abandon Judaism). However, he also clarifies in the letter that his support of the petition is merely tactical, to further his efforts at weakening the Christian state.[27]

In his 1965 book For Marx, Louis Althusser say that "in On the Jewish Question, Hegel's Philosophy of the State, etc., and even usually in The Holy Family that "... Marx was merely applying the theory of alienation, that is, Feuerbach's theory of 'human nature', to politics and the concrete activity of man, before extending it (in large part) to political economy in the Manuscripts".[28] He opposes a tendency according to which "Capital is no longer read as 'On the Jewish Question', 'On the Jewish Question' is read as 'Capital'".[29] For Althusser, the essay "is a profoundly "ideological text", "committed to the struggle for Communism", but without being Marxist; "so it cannot, theoretically, be identified with the later texts which were to define historical materialism".[30]

David Nirenberg sees Marx as having used anti-Judaism as a theoretical framework for making sense of the world and critically engaging with it.[31] He argues that by framing his revolutionary economic and political project as a liberation of the world from Judaism, Marx expressed a "messianic desire" that was itself "quite Christian."[32] In 2022, he specified in a K. interview that, in doing so, Marx perpetuated a more radicalized externally conceived Judaism than that of "slavery to the law, to forms, to rites", when "he affirm[ed] that the West, insofar as it utilized money and private property, produces Judaism 'from its own entrails'".[33]

However, David McLellan argued that "On the Jewish Question" must be understood in terms of Marx's debates with Bruno Bauer over the nature of political emancipation in Germany. According to McLellan, Marx used the word "Judentum" in its colloquial sense of "commerce" to argue that Germans suffer, and must be emancipated from, capitalism. The second half of Marx's essay, McLellan concludes, should be read as "an extended pun at Bauer's expense".[5][a]

Stephen Greenblatt (1978)[44] compares the essay with Christopher Marlowe's play The Jew of Malta. According to Greenblatt, "[b]oth writers hope to focus attention upon activity that is seen as at once alien and yet central to the life of the community and to direct against that activity the antisemitic feeling of the audience". Greenblatt attributes to Marx a "sharp, even hysterical, denial of his religious background".

Feminist Wendy Brown argues that "On the Jewish Question" is primarily a critique of liberal rights, rather than a criticism of Judaism, and that apparently antisemitic passages such as "Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist" should be read in that context.[6]

Yoav Peled (1992)[45] sees Marx "shifting the debate over Jewish emancipation from the plane of theology... to the plane of sociology", thereby circumventing one of Bauer's main arguments. In Peled's view, "this was less than a satisfactory response to Bauer, but it enabled Marx to present a powerful case for emancipation while, at the same time, launching his critique of economic alienation". He concludes that "the philosophical advances made by Marx in 'On the Jewish Question' were necessitated by, and integrally related to, his commitment to Jewish emancipation".

Francis Wheen says: "Those critics, who see this as a foretaste of 'Mein Kampf', overlook one, essential point: in spite of the clumsy phraseology and crude stereotyping, the essay was actually written as a defense of the Jews. It was a retort to Bruno Bauer, who had argued that Jews should not be granted full civic rights and freedoms unless they were baptised as Christians". Although he claimed to be an atheist, Bruno Bauer viewed Judaism as an inferior religion.[46]

The political-scientist Professor Iain Hampsher-Monk wrote in his textbook: "This work ["On The Jewish Question"] has been cited as evidence for Marx's supposed antisemitism, but only the most superficial reading of it could sustain such an interpretation."[47]

In part II of the essay, Marx refers to Thomas Müntzer's 1524 pamphlet, Apology, attacking Martin Luther.[16] Müntzer wrote, "Look ye! Our sovereign and rulers are at the bottom of all usury, thievery, and robbery; they take all created things into possession. The fish in the water, birds in the air, the products of the soil – all must be theirs (Isaiah v.)".[48] Marx's appreciation of Müntzer's position has been interpreted as a sympathetic view of Marx towards animals. It is also possible that Müntzer was referring to the temerity of sovereign rulers who would take even that which God had created (for all of mankind and the world) as their own.[49]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

On the Jewish Question

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
(German: Zur Judenfrage) is a philosophical by written in late 1843 and first published in February 1844 in the short-lived periodical Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher. The essay constitutes Marx's critique of Bruno Bauer's two recent pamphlets on in , where Bauer maintained that , bound by religious particularism, could achieve political equality only by renouncing in favor of secular or pure humanity. Marx counters that mere political —granting equal citizenship rights without addressing underlying social structures—fails to resolve the deeper contradictions of modern society, as it perpetuates the separation between the political state and , where individuals pursue egoistic interests. Marx extends this analysis to Judaism itself, portraying it as the religion of practical egoism and commerce: "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money." He posits that in emancipated Christian society, Judaism has already achieved dominance through the universalization of trade and self-interest, rendering the "Jewish question" symptomatic of capitalism's huckstering spirit rather than a mere religious anomaly. True resolution, Marx argues, demands not just Jewish assimilation but the human emancipation of society from all religion, the state, and the alienating pursuit of money, aligning with his emerging materialist critique of bourgeois freedoms as illusory. The essay's significance lies in its early articulation of Marx's distinction between formal political rights and substantive social liberation, influencing later Marxist thought on beyond . Yet it remains contentious for passages equating Jewish essence with financial exploitation, which scholars debate as either rhetorical Hegelian , reflective of 19th-century , or indicative of personal animus rooted in Marx's assimilated Jewish background and secular rejection of faith. These elements have fueled interpretations ranging from defenses of Marx as a universalist critic of to accusations of underlying , with primary reliance on the text itself underscoring the need to distinguish ideological polemic from ethnic prejudice.

Historical Context

Jewish Emancipation Debates in 19th-Century Europe

Following the in 1815, which restored conservative monarchies across Europe, in and other German states encountered persistent legal disabilities despite partial reforms under the 1812 Prussian Edict on the Civil Status of , which had aimed to integrate them as citizens while conditioning full rights on and limiting residence and occupations. Between 1815 and 1847, at least 21 territorial laws in 's older provinces imposed varying restrictions on Jewish residence, marriage, and professional access, including bans on certain trades like and dealing, and requirements for special protective oaths in courts. These measures reflected a backlash against Napoleonic-era emancipations, reinstating elements of ghettoization and special taxes in some regions, while —concentrated in urban trade and —faced resentment over perceived economic dominance amid post-war economic strains. In the 1830s and 1840s, demands for full intensified in Prussian parliamentary debates and petitions, framed by Enlightenment principles of universal rights clashing with the Christian confessional basis of the state, where was often tied to Protestant adherence. Advocates like jurist Gabriel Riesser, a native and vocal proponent, argued in publications from 1830 onward that deserved equal civil rights without conversion, emphasizing their loyalty as Germans practicing faith and their contributions to state welfare through taxes and . Riesser's 1831 asserted that religious conviction should not bar civic equality, positioning as essential for national honor and justice, and he mobilized Jewish committees to lobby assemblies. Conservative opponents, including Prussian Interior Minister von Thile, countered that granting Jews governmental roles would undermine national unity, viewing Judaism as a foreign creed incompatible with Christian state traditions and citing risks of divided allegiances or cultural separatism. These debates, amplified in the German press during the 1840s, highlighted causal tensions: while liberals invoked rational universalism to dismantle confessional barriers, traditionalists prioritized organic national identity rooted in shared Christian heritage, fueling arguments that emancipation would erode social cohesion without reciprocal Jewish assimilation in customs and oaths. By 1847, Prussian King Frederick William IV rejected full emancipation bills, deferring to religious qualms, though partial advances occurred in states like Hamburg under Riesser's influence.

Bruno Bauer's Hegelian Radicalism

Bruno Bauer (1809–1882), a German theologian and philosopher, evolved from an initial Hegelian interpretation of Christian scripture toward a radical that positioned religion as the primary barrier to human . In the early , Bauer abandoned orthodox theology, exemplified by his anonymous publication The Trumpet of the Last Judgement Against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist in 1841, where he masqueraded as a conservative critic of Hegel's alleged to dismantle religious from within. This work rejected supernatural religion, portraying as a historical product of human mingling of Jewish and Greek elements rather than divine truth, and framed faith as alienated that subordinates the individual to external authority. Bauer's Hegelian radicalism radicalized Hegel's by insisting that self-conscious freedom (Selbstbewußtsein) demanded the critique and negation of all positive religion, viewing it as a projection of human essence that perpetuated unfreedom. Central to Bauer's critique was the conception of religion as inherent alienation, where belief systems like inverted human capacities into otherworldly dependencies, undermining rational autonomy and ethical self-determination. He extended this to argue that true required not mere tolerance but the abolition of religious altogether, as it fostered egoistic isolation and prevented the universal central to Hegelian philosophy. Bauer's consistency in this rejection applied universally, opposing any state-sanctioned religious framework that privileged doctrine over critical reason. Bauer's analysis targeted the Prussian state as emblematic of pseudo-modernity, where official tolerance of religion—particularly its entanglement with —served to legitimize hierarchical privileges rather than foster genuine rational . He condemned this state-church as a mask for political interests, arguing that it tolerated religious divisions instead of demanding their transcendence through self-critical reason, thereby stalling progress toward a truly autonomous society. This stance reflected Bauer's broader Hegelian commitment to critiquing the Prussian establishment's ideological foundations, which he saw as perpetuating alienation under the guise of reform. In opposing religious privileges across the board, Bauer maintained that no faith—Christian or otherwise—could coexist with the demands of self-conscious freedom without compromising the state's rational universality.

Bruno Bauer's "Die Judenfrage"

Publication and Structure

Bruno Bauer's Die Judenfrage appeared in as a 115-page monograph published in by Friedrich Otto. The book consolidated two essays originally published as contributions to ongoing Young Hegelian discussions on , state, and , with minor additions incorporated for the volume. It formed part of broader polemical exchanges, including critiques from Jewish reformers like Samuel Hirsch, who responded directly in his 1843 work Das Judenthum, der christliche Staat und die moderne Kritik, contesting Bauer's Hegelian framing of Judaism's incompatibility with modern freedom. The internal organization divides into two primary sections: the first addresses the within the confines of the , critiquing prevailing emancipation proposals; the second examines the capacity of contemporary and to achieve genuine liberation, extending the analysis to religious and political privilege. This bipartite structure reflects Bauer's method of dialectical critique, building from specific policy debates to broader philosophical implications without formal chapter divisions beyond these core treatments. Initial reception circulated primarily in radical journals associated with figures like Arnold Ruge, where it fueled debates among left-Hegelians, though Prussian —intensified after 1842 under stricter press laws—limited wider dissemination and prompted Bauer's own professional repercussions, including prior dismissal from his Berlin academic post in 1839 for heterodox views.

Core Arguments Against Religious Emancipation

Bruno Bauer contended that Judaism, as a "positive" religion grounded in authoritative revelation and ritual law rather than self-critical reason, inherently fostered egoism and separatism among its adherents, rendering them unfit for integration into a secular state predicated on universal self-determination. In Bauer's analysis, positive religions like Judaism imposed dogmatic prescriptions—exemplified by Talmudic regulations on diet, Sabbath observance, and communal isolation—that subordinated individual autonomy to collective religious privilege, contrasting sharply with the critical self-consciousness he associated with emerging modern universality. This ritual-centric structure, Bauer argued, perpetuated a causal chain wherein Jewish identity resisted the dissolution of particularist ties, as evidenced by historical patterns of ghettoization and resistance to intermingling, such as the Talmud's emphasis on distinct legal and social boundaries that preserved communal exclusivity even under foreign rule. Granting religious emancipation to Jews, Bauer reasoned, would paradoxically entrench this egoistic particularism within the political sphere, allowing religious dogma to infiltrate the state's neutral framework and obstruct the transformation of the polity into a community of critically self-determining individuals. Rather than fostering assimilation, political rights for observant Jews would enable them to demand accommodations for rituals incompatible with secular universality, thereby undermining the causal prerequisite for true freedom: the abolition of religion as a coercive authority. Bauer drew on empirical instances from Jewish history, including the persistence of Talmudic separatism in medieval Europe—where communities maintained autonomous jurisdictions under rabbinic law, resisting host-society norms—to illustrate that superficial civic inclusion without religious renunciation merely masked ongoing alienation from the state's rational essence. Ultimately, Bauer's causal realism posited that Judaism's prioritization of ritual over critique not only impeded Jewish self-emancipation but also posed a systemic threat to the broader polity, as religious egoism would infiltrate legislative and social processes, perpetuating divisions that true political maturity demanded transcending through radical self-criticism. He rejected reformist Judaism's claims to compatibility with modernity, viewing figures like those advocating selective assimilation as evading the deeper contradiction: that any retention of positive religious forms inherently contradicted the universalism essential to a free state. This argument framed emancipation not as a right but as a privilege earned only via the internal critique and dissolution of Judaism's particularist core.

Karl Marx's "Zur Judenfrage"

Publication History and Influences

Marx composed Zur Judenfrage during the autumn of 1843, with drafts extending into early 1844, as one of two essays submitted to the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, a short-lived journal co-edited by Arnold Ruge and aimed at bridging with French . The piece appeared anonymously in the journal's sole double issue, released in on February 1844, where Marx had relocated in October 1843 to evade Prussian after his dismissal from the Rheinische Zeitung and growing radicalism. This Parisian publication context underscored Marx's shift from German academic circles to international exile networks, facilitating exposure to diverse socialist currents amid his evolving critique of Hegelianism. The essay served as a direct rebuttal to Bruno Bauer's Die Judenfrage (1843), serialized in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, reflecting Marx's recent estrangement from Bauer and the broader Young Hegelian group in , where he had collaborated closely until divergences over and sharpened around 1842–1843. Intellectually, it drew on Ludwig Feuerbach's (1841), which demystified as human projection, prompting Marx to extend this toward socioeconomic analysis rather than mere theological negation. Moses Hess's contemporaneous writings, such as his 1843 essay "On the Essence of Money," further shaped Marx's linkage of religious forms to economic huckstering, prefiguring materialist turns in his thought. Marx's personal heritage—descended from rabbinical lines on both sides, with his father Heinrich converting from to in 1817 to evade professional barriers under Prussian , followed by the family's formal in 1824—positioned him as an outsider to both Jewish orthodoxy and Christian establishment, infusing his response with a polemical edge unbound by confessional loyalty. This early work, amid Marx's abandonment of pure philosophy for , highlighted his nascent by subordinating Bauer's religious radicalism to critiques of , setting the stage for later developments like The German Ideology (1845–1846).

Synopsis of Marx's Engagement with Bauer

In his 1844 essay Zur Judenfrage, initially endorses Bruno Bauer's radical Hegelian critique of political , agreeing that granting equal civil rights within a merely perpetuates religious divisions and fails to achieve true of the political sphere. praises Bauer for exposing the hypocrisy of demands for without simultaneously critiquing the Christian character of the state, arguing that no group can be politically freed while the state itself remains bound by . This shared rejection of superficial reforms aligns with Bauer's insistence that requires the abolition of religious privileges for all faiths, including , rather than selective tolerance. However, Marx pivots from Bauer's primarily theological framework, contending that Bauer's analysis remains trapped in religious abstractions and neglects the material underpinnings of in . Where Bauer identifies as the core obstacle to —demanding its renunciation for entry into a —Marx reframes not as an eternal religious essence but as a manifestation of practical, economic rooted in the division between political state and bourgeois society. This distinction underscores Marx's view of as a reflecting deeper socio-economic antagonisms, rather than an independent ideological force amenable to mere or abandonment. Marx thus advocates for "human emancipation" as the necessary transcendence of these divisions, which demands not just political but the radical overhaul of relations that sustain egoistic across religious lines. By subordinating Bauer's religious radicalism to a materialist , Marx positions as contingent on dismantling the economic structures enabling the "Jewish spirit" of huckstering as a universal feature of capitalist , rather than a peculiar confessional trait.

Distinction Between Political and Human Emancipation

In his essay, Marx posits that political emancipation represents the secularization of the state, wherein governmental authority detaches from ecclesiastical influence, granting citizens formal equality under law irrespective of private religious convictions. This process, modeled on the French Revolution's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), establishes the state as an abstract embodiment of universal reason, neutral to particular faiths, while consigning religion to the private domain of civil society. However, Marx contends this merely relocates alienation rather than eradicating it, as individuals persist as "egoistic" actors in a civil society driven by isolated self-interests, with the state serving as an illusory mediator of conflicts without resolving underlying divisions. Political emancipation thus achieves a limited universality—the political state abstracts citizens into equal rights-bearers—but fails to emancipate humanity from the structural antagonisms of bourgeois society, where private life remains fragmented by competing individual pursuits. Marx illustrates this with the United States, the paradigmatic secular polity of his era, where constitutional separation of church and state coexists with pervasive religious practice among citizens, underscoring that formal rights do not dissolve religion's grip on human consciousness. The state's proclaimed neutrality masks its role as a superstructure upholding egoism, as real social relations—rooted in the dichotomy between public universality and private particularity—endure unchecked. Human , by contrast, necessitates transcending this dichotomy through the radical transformation of itself, abolishing , , and other alienating institutions that estrange individuals from their communal essence. This higher form demands not mere state reform but the reconstitution of human activity as species-wide, free from the coercive abstractions of , enabling concrete universality in social relations. Marx views political as a progressive yet incomplete stage, preparatory for human , which alone dismantles the causal foundations of division by integrating the individual into unalienated praxis. Scholarly assessments, such as those by Avineri, affirm this distinction as Marx's of liberalism's inherent limits, where formalize but do not overcome egoistic isolation.

Critique of Liberal Rights and the Egoistic Individual

Marx argues that the liberal rights to , , equality, and , as codified in documents like the French Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen of , do not advance human emancipation but instead institutionalize the dominance of the "egoistic individual" in . , defined as the power to do anything that does not infringe on others' similar freedoms, reduces human activity to isolated, self-interested pursuits bounded only by reciprocal barriers, thereby entrenching competitive rather than communal . Equality follows as mere formal equivalence in this , extending the same egoistic framework to all without addressing underlying disparities in material conditions. The exemplifies this , granting individuals unchecked disposal over possessions while treating such ownership as the basis for personal enjoyment and , which Marx views as elevating private accumulation above social interdependence. , in turn, functions as an assurance against threats to this egoistic existence, akin to for private interests rather than a safeguard. These rights, applied in models like the United States Constitution, maintain a structural divide where the political citizen enjoys abstract equality, but the private bourgeois remains mired in self-regarding transactions, perpetuating alienation through the causal reinforcement of civil society's atomized relations. Marx employs the as a pointed to underscore the superficiality of this arrangement: just as the Jewish day of rest momentarily suspends commerce and toil, liberal rights offer a political respite from , yet fail to eradicate the weekday's practical huckstering, leaving the individual's isolation intact beyond the state's formal domain. This critique posits that such rights, far from universal, codify bourgeois as the realm of "man as he is"—preoccupied with personal caprice and withdrawal from —thus sustaining the causal primacy of private interests over species-wide fulfillment.

Content Analysis

Marx's Equating of Judaism with Commerce and Money

In On the Jewish Question (1843), Karl Marx identifies the "secular basis of Judaism" as "practical need, self-interest," declaring its "worldly religion" to be "huckstering" and its "worldly God" money. He asserts that "money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist," emphasizing how this force commodifies human relations and degrades other deities into exchangeable goods. Marx further describes the "bill of exchange" as the "real god of the Jew," reducing religious faith to an "illusory bill of exchange" grounded in economic practice. This portrayal links Judaism's purported essence to egoism and usury, reflecting historical constraints in medieval where the prohibited Christians from charging interest on loans—based on biblical interpretations like Exodus 22:25 and canon laws from the Third (1179)—while permitting to lend to non-Jews under Deuteronomy 23:20. Excluded from guilds, landownership, and many trades by feudal restrictions and Christian doctrine, often filled the niche of moneylending to and merchants, a role that fueled stereotypes but arose from legal necessities rather than inherent traits. Marx contends that Judaism secularizes in capitalism, where its commercial "essence" universalizes: "The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world," as civil society attains perfection through egoistic exchange, rendering Christian nations "Jewish" in their embrace of money. Emancipation from Judaism, in his view, demands liberation from "huckstering and money," equating religious critique with economic transformation to overcome practical egoism's dominance. In Bruno Bauer's analysis, religious dogma functions as a causal barrier to the rational self-consciousness of the modern state, enforcing obedience to particularistic creeds that undermine universal critique and egoistic self-abolition. Bauer contends that Judaism, as a religious form, perpetuates egoism by prioritizing confessional identity over the state's demand for abstract citizenship, thereby preventing the political community from transcending theological divisions; this causal chain is evident in the Prussian context, where granting Jews civil rights in 1812 without religious renunciation led to ongoing confessional conflicts rather than integration. Consequently, religion obstructs the state's evolution toward a self-determining entity, as dogmatic adherence inhibits the critical consciousness required for true political universality. Karl Marx extends this framework by positing a material-economic substrate beneath religious , where commerce and money constitute the practical essence of , causally sustaining its theological forms through egoistic exchange relations. In Marx's view, the bourgeois state mediates these economic behaviors by formalizing rights that abstract from real dependencies, yet it cannot sever the link without addressing the commodity-form's dominance; political thus reproduces religious particularism indirectly, as seen in post-revolutionary , where received in 1791 but economic roles in and reinforced perceptions of separateness. This causal realism implies that state reforms alone fail to eradicate religion's roots, necessitating a revolutionary transformation of the economic base to achieve human beyond confessional and commercial . Both authors converge on the proposition that religious persistence stems from unabolished material preconditions, rendering superficial state interventions—such as selective emancipation edicts in German states during the 1840s—ineffective in practice, as Jewish communities retained economic niches shaped by historical exclusions like guild bans from the Middle Ages onward. Bauer's emphasis on religion's ideological blockade complements Marx's economic determinism, forming a shared causal narrative: dogmatic obedience and huckstering egoism interlock to frustrate the state's universality, with empirical failures of assimilation (e.g., persistent anti-Jewish riots in 1819 despite partial reforms) underscoring the need to dismantle these intertwined foundations rather than accommodate them.

Interpretations and Debates

Accusations of Antisemitism in Bauer's and Marx's Works

Bruno Bauer, in his 1843 treatise Die Judenfrage, depicted Jews as inherently stubborn in clinging to their theological particularism, refusing the universal self-negation required for true emancipation, a stance rooted in Hegelian supersessionism that positioned Christianity as the fulfillment and obsolescence of Judaism. This portrayal framed Jewish religious adherence not merely as a barrier to political rights but as a principled rejection of rational universality, implying an intrinsic incompatibility with modern statehood unless Judaism were wholly abandoned. Karl Marx, responding to Bauer in his 1844 essay Zur Judenfrage, intensified these elements by equating the "secular basis of Judaism" with practical activities like "huckstering" and "usury," declaring money the "jealous god of Israel" before which no other deity could stand. Critics, including historian Paul Johnson, have identified this as deploying classic antisemitic stereotypes of Jews as embodiments of greedy commercialism, reducing an entire religious tradition to economic vice in a manner evocative of ethnic caricature rather than abstract critique. Such characterizations in both works parallel prevalent 19th-century European antisemitic , which frequently accused of dominating moneylending and trade as innate traits fueling social ills, tropes that incited pogroms in regions like the during the 1880s. Scholarly analyses note the absence of equivalent essentializing reductions applied to —such as linking it wholesale to feudal exploitation—or to , highlighting a selective targeting of with socioeconomic stereotypes that mirrored contemporaneous prejudices against Jewish occupational patterns restricted by discriminatory laws. This disparity underscores accusations that the essays perpetuated verifiable antisemitic motifs, independent of authorial intent.

Marxist Defenses and Contextualizations

Marxist interpreters contend that 's essay "On the Jewish Question," published in 1844, constitutes a materialist critique of bourgeois society rather than an ethnic attack on , with references to serving as a metaphor for the egoistic pursuit of commerce inherent in . In this view, Marx's identification of "" with practical and huckstering reflects historical materialism's analysis of as a reinforcing economic relations, where the "real Jew" symbolizes the capitalist's profane basis, distinct from biological or cultural prejudice. Proponents argue that Marx's dialectical method posits the abolition of "" through human emancipation, targeting the commodity form and , not Jewish people per se. Defenders emphasize the essay's advocacy for Jewish political emancipation as a prerequisite to broader human liberation, countering Bruno Bauer's denial of rights to religious believers, including . Marx's own familial Jewish heritage—his paternal grandfather a , though his father converted to in 1824—and his consistent opposition to in works like The Holy Family (1845) are cited to refute claims of personal animus. In the context of 1840s , where faced legal exclusions and were often confined to trade due to restrictions, Marx's analysis links Jewish economic roles to feudal remnants transitioning into capitalist structures, not innate traits. Contemporary Marxist scholarship, such as in , maintains that accusations of overlook Marx's inversion of Hegelian categories to expose liberalism's egoistic individualism, framing "Judaism" as the secular core of critiqued through class struggle lenses. Traverso's The Jewish Question: History of a Marxist (2018 edition) traces this tradition, arguing that early Marxist debates integrated into , rejecting ethnic in favor of socio-economic determinations. These defenses posit that isolating passages from their historical-materialist framework distorts Marx's intent, which prioritizes the transcendence of all religions via over perpetuating divisions.

Non-Leftist Critiques Emphasizing Ethnic Stereotypes

Critiques from Jewish scholars such as Julius Carlebach have emphasized that Marx's portrayal of as inherently linked to and in "On the Jewish Question" perpetuates longstanding ethnic stereotypes rather than offering a purely economic or religious analysis. Carlebach, in his 1978 work Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism, argues that Marx's —describing the "real Jew" as the huckster whose worldly god is money—mirrors medieval and Enlightenment-era calumnies against as moneylenders, extending beyond Bauer's political arguments to imply an essential ethnic trait. This view prioritizes the essay's textual reliance on such tropes, rejecting interpretations that sanitize them as mere metaphors for by noting their persistence in Marx's private correspondence. Conservative commentators, including those in outlets like Commentary magazine, have similarly highlighted Marx's reinforcement of these stereotypes through personal writings, such as letters to Friedrich Engels where he derided fellow socialist Ferdinand Lassalle—a Jew—as having "the pushiness of the chosen people" and compared him to a "Jewish n****r." These epistolary remarks, spanning the 1850s and 1860s, echo the essay's motifs and suggest an ambient prejudice absorbed during Marx's cultural assimilation, where Prussian and German intellectual circles harbored widespread anti-Jewish sentiments that even baptized Jews like Marx internalized to gain acceptance. Such assimilation pressures, rooted in the era's causal dynamics of exclusionary nationalism, are posited by critics like Carlebach as fostering a form of self-directed ethnic bias, evidenced by Marx's rejection of his rabbinical ancestry in favor of Hegelian universalism. Empirical patterns in Engels' correspondence further underscore the endurance of these views within early Marxism; Engels, in letters from the 1860s, referred to Jews collectively with slurs like "the circumcised" and linked them to financial intrigue, mirroring Marx's essay without the latter's partial Jewish heritage complicating the critique. This continuity contributed to broader socialist antisemitism, as seen in the 1870s-1890s writings of figures like Eugen Dühring, whose economic critiques of Jews influenced even Marxist rivals, linking ethnic stereotypes to anti-capitalist rhetoric in German social democracy. Critics from non-leftist perspectives, such as those in the Independent Review, argue this textual and historical persistence debunks claims of isolated rhetoric, revealing instead a foundational ethnic lens in socialist thought that prioritized stereotypes over class analysis alone.

Recent Scholarly Reassessments (Post-2000)

In a 2024 seminar series at Columbia University's Center for Contemporary Critical Thought, political theorist Jean L. Cohen reassessed Marx's "On the Jewish Question" as a brilliant of liberal , , and the political state, emphasizing its enduring relevance to analyses of and when read alongside Claude Lefort's 1980 essay "Politics and Human Rights." Cohen's discussion acknowledged the essay's intellectual acuity in distinguishing political from human emancipation but highlighted persistent interpretive challenges, including unresolved ethnic dimensions in Marx's linkage of to practical egoism and commerce, which some view as carrying overtones beyond purely economic . A May 2025 article in Philosophy of the Social Sciences by Arlene Clemesha defends the essay's second part—often criticized for equating with —as a pivotal development in Marx's , arguing it advances a dialectical of religion's socioeconomic roots rather than mere , though Clemesha concedes the rhetoric's potential to fuel misreadings as ethnically targeted. Similarly, a contemporaneous piece in the same journal by another contributor interrogates accusations of , , and leveled at Marx, contending that while the essay's conflation of with monetary remains uncontested and empirically linked to historical roles in European under restrictions, it does not inherently poison his broader theoretical framework, as the targets capitalist structures universally rather than per se. These analyses underscore a scholarly trend of separating the essay's valid economic insights from its provocative formulations, with empirical evidence from 19th-century economic participation cited to contextualize but not fully exonerate the associations. Contributions in Historical Materialism have critiqued longstanding Marxist defenses that downplay antisemitic elements in the essay, advocating for historicized rereadings that confront Bauer's influence and Marx's responses without evasion. In a 2023 article, Igor Shoikhedbrod argues for addressing specific problems in Marx's Jewish Question treatment, such as the persistence of ethnic stereotypes amid , to refine against contemporary 's resurgence. The journal's 2024 special issue on "Marxism and the Critique of Antisemitism" further reassesses the essay as evidence of early tensions in Marx's thought, noting that traditional leftist interpretations often prioritize class analysis over candid acknowledgment of religiously inflected prejudices, with data from rising global antisemitic incidents post-2010 highlighting the need for non-defensive engagement. These works collectively push for causal realism in interpreting the text's role in socialist traditions, emphasizing verifiable historical contexts like pre-emancipation Jewish commercial prominence while rejecting uncritical apologetics.

Reception and Legacy

Immediate Contemporary Responses

Marx's "On the Jewish Question," published in the sole February 1844 issue of Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher co-edited with Arnold Ruge, elicited support within Young Hegelian radical circles for its sharp rebuttal of Bruno Bauer's insistence on religious self-abnegation as a condition for Jewish political . Ruge's collaboration on the journal underscored this alignment, as the publication aimed to foster critical discourse beyond state controls. Jewish reformers, including figures associated with the Reformverein such as Therese Creizenach's circle, rejected Bauer's framework as promoting intolerance toward Judaism's ongoing modernization, favoring instead emancipation on civic terms without theological concessions. Bauer's ridicule of as incompatible with secular citizenship drew rebukes for exacerbating divisions rather than resolving them. In nascent socialist groupings, Marx's essay gained approbation for exposing the limits of Bauer's liberal critique and linking to broader economic critiques, though it bypassed direct engagement with practical petitions for . Mainstream advocates of , concentrated on Prussian legislative reforms, largely overlooked the piece amid its radical tenor. Prussian , which had shuttered prior radical journals like Ruge's Hallische Jahrbücher, confined dissemination; the Paris-printed issue faced import restrictions, yielding minimal public reviews beyond insular radical correspondence. Periodical coverage remained scant, with no substantive in outlets like the Allgemeine Zeitung, reflecting suppressed debate on religious-political entanglements.

Influence on Later Theories of Nationalism and Secularism

Marx's arguments in "On the Jewish Question" for human beyond particular religious or confessional identities informed later Marxist conceptions of by emphasizing universal class solidarity over ethno-religious particularism. This framework inspired thinkers like , who defended the essay's positions and opposed Jewish nationalist movements such as and the Jewish Bund, contending that they fragmented the international and perpetuated bourgeois divisions rather than advancing socialist unity. Luxemburg's internationalism, rejecting separate Jewish national aspirations in favor of assimilation into broader working-class struggles, echoed Marx's subordination of religious to the abolition of egoistic and the state. The essay's critique of confessional states—political structures granting rights or autonomy based on religious affiliation—shaped secularist theories by advocating the radical separation of religion from politics, not mere tolerance but ultimate transcendence through human emancipation. Bolshevik policies after the 1917 Revolution, including the January 1918 decrees separating church from state, nationalizing religious property, and prohibiting state funding of religious institutions, operationalized this by dismantling confessional privileges and enforcing militant atheism to align with proletarian universality. These measures extended Marx's logic against religious corporatism, viewing it as a barrier to secular civic equality. While advancing principled opposition to states embedding religious hierarchies, such as Prussian confessionalism or analogous systems privileging majority faiths, the essay's influence had drawbacks in later applications. It contributed to Marxist dismissals of minority religious rights as illusory or reactionary, prioritizing class over cultural protections and facilitating Soviet-era suppressions of religious-national identities deemed incompatible with socialist homogenization. Early Zionist responses, amid Herzl's foundational efforts in the 1890s, implicitly countered this by asserting Jewish national self-determination against assimilationist universalism, highlighting tensions between particularist survival and Marxist secular-national critiques.

Role in Broader Discussions of Within

Despite its passages portraying as intrinsically linked to and huckstering, "On the Jewish Question" achieved normalization within the Marxist canon as an early exposition of human emancipation through class struggle, appearing in standard collections of Marx's writings from the late onward. Post-World War II scholars critiqued this inclusion to highlight 's empirical vulnerability to ethnic bias, arguing that the essay's failure to acknowledge Jewish class differentiation—such as the existence of a Jewish —perpetuated unexamined stereotypes under the guise of . The essay's achievements lie in its advocacy for transcending religious and ethnic divisions via universal human emancipation, positing that political rights alone perpetuate alienation and urging a socialist reconfiguration of society to dissolve such particularisms in favor of proletarian ; this framework informed early socialist internationalism, as seen in the First International's emphasis on worker unity irrespective of creed. Critics, however, contend that these same reductionist arguments embedded by essentializing Jewish identity with , providing intellectual scaffolding for later socialist regimes to pathologize Jewish economic roles without addressing . In practical socialist history, the essay's tropes contributed to discussions of left-wing antisemitism by furnishing a theoretical basis for viewing not as national self-determination but as a reactionary capitalist maneuver, a perspective echoed in Soviet anti-Zionist campaigns from 1948 onward, where Jewish cultural autonomy was suppressed as "" amid broader purges of 650,000 publications and institutions by 1952. Postwar analyses, such as those examining Stalinist labeling of Jewish intellectuals as "rootless cosmopolitans" in 1949 trials, invoked Marx's work to argue that socialist paradoxically enabled ethnic targeting when were cast as embodiments of the very market the system sought to eradicate. This duality—critiquing religious prejudice while embedding class-inflected stereotypes—has positioned the as a flashpoint in empirical assessments of socialism's causal tensions between emancipatory ideals and recurrent biases.

References

  1. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
  2. https://philpapers.org/rec/MAROTJ-2
  3. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/hpt/1992/00000013/00000003/242
  4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/marx-early-political-writings/on-the-jewish-question/93471F579F16DAE2891943F33BB4ADFE
  5. https://jewishstudies.ceu.edu/sites/jewishstudies.ceu.edu/files/attachment/basicpage/149/avineri.pdf
  6. https://isj.org.uk/karl-marx-abram-leon-and-the-jewish-question-a-reappraisal/
  7. https://thegreatthinkers.org/marx/other-works/on-the-jewish-question/
  8. https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/7219/marx-and-the-jewish-fingerprint-question/
  9. https://www.quest-cdecjournal.it/prussian-jews-between-nationalism-and-tradition-the-strange-case-of-posen-poznan-1800-1918/
  10. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12405-prussia
  11. https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document_s.cfm?document_id=3650
  12. https://keydocuments.net/article/herzig-riesser
  13. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/gabriel-riesser
  14. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12751-riesser-gabriel
  15. https://sites.ohio.edu/chastain/ip/jewemanc.htm
  16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv327fwf1
  17. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bauer/
  18. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2603527-the-trumpet-of-the-last-judgement-against-hegel-the-atheist-and-antichri
  19. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/hegels-century/bruno-bauers-criticism-of-christianity/15A051ECC6A7E6660EEF685E60ACBF61
  20. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics/article/radicalism-of-a-young-hegelian-bruno-bauer/9F48AC59D565B0D5D7C0FF4E99A2E9BD
  21. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10848770.2023.2275879
  22. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_gLdUAAAAcAAJ
  23. http://www.marxistleninists.org/M&E/cw/volume04/footnote.htm
  24. https://www.kestenbaum.net/073-053-bruno-bauer-die-judenfrage
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191659900000036
  26. https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4890&context=gradschool_theses
  27. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2668-bauer-bruno
  28. http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/bauer_jews_free.html
  29. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Articles_from_the_German_French_Yearbooks.pdf
  30. https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/article/the-french-debate-on-zur-judenfrage/
  31. https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/marx-jewish-question.pdf
  32. https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/media/documents/exkm-text.pdf
  33. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/socialist-response-to-antisemitism-in-imperial-germany/influence-of-zur-judenfrage-on-the-socialist-movement/A7B00027A3FB3BA87C05457F5C03F37E
  34. https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=philosophy_facpubs
  35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25655850
  36. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-moneylending/
  37. https://zvi-eckstein.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Botticini-and-Eckstein-Handbook-Chapter-1.pdf
  38. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/antisemitism-in-history-the-early-modern-era-1300-1800
  39. https://humsci.stanford.edu/feature/stanford-historian-explores-how-expulsions-became-widespread-medieval-europe
  40. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/bauer/
  41. https://www.commentary.org/articles/paul-johnson-3/marxism-vs-the-jews/
  42. https://www.independent.org/article/1997/01/01/the-socialist-roots-of-modern-anti-semitism/
  43. https://philosophersmag.com/karl-marx-s-radical-antisemitism/
  44. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00368237251334283
  45. https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/article/marxism-and-the-critique-of-antisemitism/
  46. https://www.marxists.org/subject/jewish/ruchwarger-jewish-question.pdf
  47. https://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/download/5481/2380/7378
  48. https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/article/revisiting-the-jewish-question-and-its-contemporary-discontents/
  49. https://tempestmag.org/2021/10/revisiting-the-jewish-question/
  50. https://www.commentary.org/articles/reader-letters/karl-marx-jews-conspiracy/
  51. https://the1313.law.columbia.edu/2024/11/09/jean-l-cohen-marx-and-lefort-on-the-jewish-question-and-politics-and-human-rights/
  52. https://the1313.law.columbia.edu/2024/11/08/bernard-e-harcourt-introduction-to-marx-3-13-marxs-1844-articles-on-the-critique-of-hegel-and-the-jewish-question-claude-lefort-on-human-rights-and-politics-with-jean-louise-cohen/
  53. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00368237251334198
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391464324_Karl_Marx_on_the_Jewish_Question
  55. https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/article_tag/bruno-bauer/
  56. https://brill.com/view/journals/hima/32/1/article-p35_2.xml?language=en
  57. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mehring/1918/marx/ch02b.htm
  58. https://archive.org/download/reformmovementin00philrich/reformmovementin00philrich.pdf
  59. https://iris.uniroma1.it/retrieve/e383531b-e487-15e8-e053-a505fe0a3de9/Ponzi_Red-Rosa_2018.pdf
  60. https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/rose-j/2008/xx/marx-leon.html
  61. https://links.org.au/node/3429
  62. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm
  63. https://newpol.org/review/marxs-mixed-legacy-anti-semitism-and-socialism/
  64. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-judaism/antisemitism-and-the-jewish-question/568805977870410721C1A6CCA26B510E
  65. https://resolve.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/1AD9DE441D9015E837F4C2577CF6F469/9780511499081c8_p235-263_CBO.pdf/capitalism-and-the-jews.pdf
  66. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/socialism-without-antisemitism
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.