The Struggle between Nation and Class Hidden beneath the Surface of Religion

In the 1840s, nationalism had already become an important emotional bond for the German people. During this period, anti-Semitic ideas, originating in the Middle Ages and planted by Martin Luther in the Reformation movement, flourished and became a typical feature of Germany at that time. Against this background, in November 1842, Bruno Bauer wrote the articles "The Jewish Question" and "The Capacity of Modern Jews and Christians to Become Free," pointing out that Jews should achieve their own emancipation in the Christian state by abandoning their religious faith. In response, Marx pointed out in a letter to Arnold Ruge in March 1843: "However much I dislike the Jewish faith, Bauer's view still seems to me too abstract." And in February 1844, he published "On the Jewish Question" as a critique of Bauer's views. Although this differed from Marx's original intention to criticize Hermes, in the article Marx not only achieved the goal of criticizing Bauer's views but also demonstrated his reflections on the issues of German nationalism and anti-Semitism at that time. In the view of foreign scholars, "On the Jewish Question" is not only an important expression of Marx's nationalist thought but also a key basis for their argument that the young Marx was an anti-Semite. However, the dispute between Marx and Bauer lies in the following: Bauer emphasized that the religious question was the essence of "the Jewish question," a national question based on religious belief; Marx, by contrast, emphasized that the Jewish question should be a social question, that one should not simply proceed from a religious perspective and examine only the "Sabbath Jew," but should also examine the "everyday Jew," resolving the Jewish question in secular society by breaking free from the shackles of religion. Therefore, the dispute between Marx and Bauer's views is actually a debate, hidden beneath the religious surface of Judaism and Christianity, over which—nation or class—constitutes "the way out for humanity."

19世纪40年代，民族主义已经成为德意志人重要的情感纽带。在这一时期，源自中世纪、并在宗教改革运动中由马丁·LUDE种下的反犹主义思想得以蓬勃发展起来，成为此时德国的一个典型特征。在这一背景下，1842年11月，布鲁诺·鲍威尔撰写了《犹太人问题》和《现代犹太人和基督徒获得自由的能力》两篇文章，指出犹太人应该通过放弃自己的宗教信仰以获得自身在基督教国家中的解放。对此，马克思在1843年3月致阿尔诺德·卢格的信中指出：“不管我多么讨厌犹太人的信仰，但鲍威尔的观点在我看来还是太抽象。”并于1844年2月发表了《论犹太人问题》作为对鲍威尔观点的批判。这虽然与马克思本来想要批判海尔梅斯的初衷相异，但是在文中马克思不仅实现了对鲍威尔观点批评的目的，还展现了其对当时德国民族主义和反犹主义问题的思考。在国外学者看来，《论犹太人问题》不仅是马克思民族主义思想的重要表达，也是他们论证青年马克思是反犹主义者的重要论据。但是，马克思与鲍威尔之间的争执在于：鲍威尔强调宗教问题是“犹太人问题”的实质，是依据宗教信仰为依据划分的民族问题；马克思却强调犹太人问题应该是社会问题，不应该单纯从宗教角度出发，只考察“安息日的”犹太人，更应考察“日常的”犹太人，脱离宗教的束缚而在世俗社会中解决犹太人问题。因而马克思与鲍威尔观点的争执，实际上是隐藏在犹太教与基督教这一宗教表象下，对民族与阶级哪一个才是“人的出路”之间的争论。

I. Bauer: "Privilege" Is the Key to Solving the Jewish Question

一、鲍威尔：“特权”是犹太人问题解决的关键

In Bauer's view, the opposition between Judaism and Christianity was the root cause of the Jewish question at that time, arising from the exclusivity of both Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, as long as the problem of Judaism—the source of Jewish national character—was resolved, the oppression faced by Jews at that time could be easily solved. Within the Christian state, the contradiction between Judaism and Christianity was directly manifested in the respective "privileges" held by Jews and Christians. Consequently, as the direct presentation of Judaism in civil society, "privilege" became the key to solving the Jewish question.

在鲍威尔看来，犹太教与基督教之间的对立是当时犹太人问题产生的根源，这是由于犹太教与基督教都具有排他性而导致的。所以只要解决作为犹太人民族性产生根源的犹太教的问题，犹太人在当时面临的受压迫问题就可以迎刃而解。在基督教国家内部，犹太教与基督教之间的矛盾，直接呈现为犹太人和基督徒各自拥有的“特权”。因此，作为犹太教在市民社会中的直接呈现，“特权”成为解决犹太人问题的关键。

First, Jewish "privilege" arises from the laws of Judaism. Religious laws, in Bauer's view, are the "expression" that each nation makes of its true essence based on reality; therefore, laws are the unity of the nation's essence and the inherent principles within its actual environment, and each nation develops and manifests itself through its laws. The core of Jewish national character lies in the Judaism they profess; it is the "privilege" granted to Jews by Mosaism. Under the constraints of Jewish law—the Mosaic law and the Talmud—Jews set regulations everywhere in arbitrary and contingent life, causing the law to detach from the actual environment and rise to become the sole content of the Jews. The law is the core of Judaism, the national spirit of the Jews, and the very definition of the Jews themselves. The law emphasizes that Jews, "as the chosen nation, are the only true nation; this nation of theirs is everything and should occupy the entire world." According to the law's stipulations, other nations are illegitimate; therefore, Jews deny other nations in faith, yet in reality they have to acknowledge their existence. This is precisely the manifestation of Judaism's exclusivity and also the contradiction within Judaism itself. Christianity, as a result of Judaism, is the completion of Judaism: "Its morality is the result of Judaism being carried through; its view of the world and human history is the result of Judaism; but since it is the completion of Judaism... it must also simultaneously be the negation of the specific essence of Judaism." Christianity, with its love, transcends the single nation, thereby encompassing the entire world; within its own doctrinal stipulations, it resolves the contradictions of Judaism, forming a sublation and transcendence of Judaism. In Christianity, all nations are equal, and the differences between them are negated. It transcends the narrow "chosen people" character of Judaism, eliminates the boundaries of traditional nations, and promotes the emergence of a "universal community" centered on religious faith. Therefore, the exclusivity of Christianity is manifested in its exclusion of those who do not believe in Christianity, rather than of nations. Judaism and Christianity, as faiths with an inherited relationship, oppose each other; faith is "the most universal and therefore the most exclusive privilege." Consequently, within the Christian state, on the one hand, Christians take the privilege they possess as the norm of life, and Christians, as privileged persons, become the foundation of the Christian state; on the other hand, Jews also adhere to the essence stipulated by the law, regarding "essence as a privilege." Thus, the opposition between Judaism and Christianity in civil society is the mutual opposition and mutual exclusion between the "privilege" of Judaism and the "privilege" of Christianity.

首先，犹太人的“特权”产生于犹太教的律法。宗教律法，在鲍威尔看来是各个民族从现实出发对自己的真实本质作出的“表达”，因此律法是民族的本质与现实环境中所蕴含的内在法则的统一，各民族在律法之中展现和发展自身。犹太人民族性的核心在于其信奉的犹太教，是摩西主义授予犹太人的“特权”。在犹太教律法——摩西律法和塔木德的约束下，犹太人在任意且偶然的生活中处处设置了规定，使得律法脱离了现实环境而上升成为犹太人的唯一内容，律法就是犹太教的核心、就是犹太人的民族精神、就是犹太人自身的规定性。律法强调，犹太人“作为被选中的民族是唯一真实的民族，他们这个民族就是一切，应该占据整个世界”。在律法的规定中，其他民族是不合法的，因此犹太人在信仰上否定了其他民族，但是却又在现实中不得不承认他们的存在，这正是犹太教排他性的体现，也是犹太教自身矛盾之处。基督教作为犹太教的结果，是犹太教的完成，“它的道德是犹太教得到贯彻的结果，它对世界和人类历史的观点是犹太教的结果，但是既然它是犹太教的完成……它也必然同时是特定犹太教本质的否定。”基督教用自己的爱超越了单一民族，进而包含了整个世界，在自身的教义规定中消解了犹太教的矛盾，形成对犹太教的扬弃和超越。在基督教中，所有的民族都是平等的，他们之间的差别被否定了。它超越了犹太教狭隘的“选民”特质，消灭了传统民族的界限，促成了以宗教信仰为核心的“普遍的共同体”产生。因此，基督教的排他性体现在它排斥的是不信仰基督教的信徒，而非民族。犹太教与基督教作为有继承关系的信仰而彼此对立，信仰是“最普遍亦即最排他的特权”。因此，在基督教国家内部，一方面，基督徒将自己拥有的特权作为生活的准则，基督徒作为特权人士成为基督教国家的基础；另一方面，犹太人也坚守律法规定的本质，将“本质视为一种特权”。因此，在市民社会中犹太教与基督教的对立，就是犹太教“特权”与基督教“特权”之间的相互对立与相互排斥。

Second, the form of "privilege" is determined by Jewish law. Jewish "privilege" manifests itself in two different forms: "religious privilege" and "civil privilege." Among these, "religious privilege" is the transcendent proof of "civil privilege," while "civil privilege" is the concrete presentation of "religious privilege" in civil society; its exclusivity is determined by "religious privilege." On the one hand, "religious privilege" is determined by the exclusivity of Jewish law. During the Reformation, the state itself freed itself from the church, the influence of religion descended from the state level into civil society, and faith became a private matter. Thus, for Jews, adhering to the Jewish faith in civil society gained legitimacy; this was their right. But according to the stipulations of Jewish law, only one's own Jewish compatriots are the closest people, their brothers and family; other nations are not protected by the law. Therefore, the exclusivity stipulated by the law is manifested in real life as Jews rejecting the existence, continuation, and development of any other nation. Adherence to the law not only caused the persistent contradiction between the numerically inferior Jews and the numerically superior Christians within the Christian state, but also created a contradiction between obeying religious law and fulfilling state obligations. On the other hand, "civil privilege" is the law's stipulation of individual practical needs. Bauer pointed out that Jewish law did not advance with history; therefore, Jews, defined by the law, only wanted to maintain their own status quo, were thereby abandoned by history, and ultimately ended up caring about nothing but their own interests, not universal human interests. The sole business of the Jews was concern for and attention to private interests. In civil society, where need acts as the driving force of development, egoism is the most important component of civil society. The Jews' concern for private interests combined with the egoism of civil society and, through the tool of profit-making—usury—turned money into the exclusive profession of Jews in civil society, becoming the "civil privilege" of the Jews. Thus, in the Christian state, Jews not only distinguished themselves from other citizens by virtue of their "religious privilege" and existed as an independent nation, but also obtained a "privileged" position in civil society through the form of a "special guild."

其次，“特权”的形式由犹太教律法所决定。犹太人的“特权”体现为“宗教特权”和“市民特权”两种不同的形态，其中“宗教特权”是“市民特权”超越世俗的证明，“市民特权”则是“宗教特权”在市民社会的具体呈现，它的排他性是由“宗教特权”所决定。一方面，“宗教特权”是由犹太教律法的排他性所决定的。宗教改革过程中，国家自身从教会中解脱出来，宗教的影响从国家层面降到了市民社会之中，信仰成为个人事务。于是对犹太人而言，在市民社会中坚持犹太教的信仰获得了合法性，这是他们的权利。但按照犹太教律法的规定，只有犹太人自己的同胞才是最亲密的人，才是他们的兄弟和家人，其他民族不受律法的保护。因此，律法规定下的排他性在现实生活中体现为犹太人排斥任何其他民族的存在、延续和发展。对律法的坚守不仅造成了在基督教国家内部，人数占劣势的犹太人与人数占优势的基督徒之间矛盾持续存在，同时也造成遵守宗教律法和履行国家义务之间的矛盾。另一方面，“市民特权”是律法对个人现实需要的规定。鲍威尔指出犹太教的律法并没有同历史一同前进，因而以律法为规定性的犹太人只想要维持自身的现状，进而为历史所抛弃，并最终导致犹太人除了自身的利益以外并不关心普遍的人类利益，犹太人唯一的事务就是对私人利益的关心与关注。在以需要作为发展推动力量的市民社会中，利己主义是市民社会最重要的组成要素，犹太人对私人利益的关注与市民社会的利己主义结合在一起，并通过高利贷这一获利的工具，把金钱变成了犹太人在市民社会中排他的专职，成为犹太人的“市民特权”。于是，犹太人在基督教国家中不仅凭借自己的“宗教特权”与其他公民相区分、以独立的民族形式存在，更通过“特殊的同业公会”形式在市民社会中获取了一个“特权”的地位。

Third, the “betrayal” of Jewish law leads to the oppressed state of the Jewish people. Jews regard Mosaism as the purest doctrine and the most powerful guarantee of their words, deeds, morality and ethics, but Mosaism is the inner law of the old world and the unity of the essence of the Jew, “the anchor that binds the Jewish nation to time and eternity.” [7]7 Bruno Bauer, *Die Judenfrage* (Braunschweig: Friedrich Otto, 1843), p. 23. Consequently, under modern conditions, both Mosaism and the Talmud are already old things; it is precisely because Jews cling to these Jewish laws that they neglect the development of history and even oppose historical progress. Although Jewish law has undergone some adjustments along with historical development, its core remains tightly bound to the era that once generated it; therefore, Jewish law is not a “new creation,” and its final destination can only be idealism. The unified Jewish community maintained under the guidance and constraint of Jewish law, on the one hand, has, like its law, failed to keep pace with the times and has become detached from the development of human history; on the other hand, this has also caused its essence to remain perpetually under oppression and bondage, ultimately confined to tableware, furniture, clothing and the oil vessel. The highest essence of the Jew is imprisoned in “an exclusive, particular and contingent existence,” [8]8 Ibid., p. 24. ultimately causing real Jews to live in illusion. Even if Jews have achieved development in real social history, this development has not been recognized, because Jewish law is determined to escape development. The Jew becomes a “martyr of the past”; although they have a history, “they are opposed to the intention of their own history … in short, the Jew is opposed to history.” [9]9 Ibid., p. 25. Jewish law, which should have been born in the inner life and national life of the Jew and unified with the essence of the Jew, has become the Jew’s own self-alienation, a sacred will imposed upon them. Jewish law is both the oppression of the Jew and the chief cause of the Jew’s oppression.

第三，犹太教律法的“背叛”导致犹太人被压迫的状态。犹太人将摩西主义奉为言行、道德和伦理最纯粹的学说和最有力的保障，但摩西主义是旧世界的内在法则与犹太人本质的统一，“是把犹太民族与时间和永恒性捆绑在一起的锚”。因而在现代的环境下，无论是摩西主义还是塔木德都已经是旧事物，犹太人正因坚守这些犹太教律法而让他们忽视历史的发展，甚至反对历史的进步。虽然犹太教律法也曾伴随历史的发展而进行一部分的调整，但是其核心内核依然与曾经生成它的时代紧密结合，因而犹太教的律法并不是“新的创造”，它的最终归途只能是理想主义。在犹太教律法的指引和约束下维持统一的犹太人团体，一方面同他们的律法一样没有跟上时代的脚步、与人类历史的发展相脱节，另一方面也导致他们的本质持续处于压迫和束缚之中，最终只能被封闭在餐具、家具、服饰和圣油钵里，犹太人的最高本质被束缚在“排他的、特殊的和偶然的存在之中”，最终导致现实中的犹太人生活在幻觉之中。纵使犹太人在真实的社会历史中实现了发展，但是这些发展却并没有得到承认，因为犹太教律法一心想要摆脱发展。犹太人成为“过去的殉道者”，他们尽管有历史，“却与自身历史的意图是对立……简单地说，犹太人与历史是对立的”。本应该在犹太人的内心和民族生活中诞生出来、并与犹太人的本质相统一的犹太教律法，已经成为犹太人自身的异化，成为强加在他们身上的神圣意志。犹太教律法既是对犹太人的压迫，又成为犹太人受压迫的魁首。

Therefore, in Bauer’s view, the opposition between Judaism and Christianity is precisely the manifestation of the “privileges” possessed by the Jews in the form of “religious privileges” and “civil privileges” within civil society. Jewish law, which stands opposed to development, is precisely the source of the Jews’ “privileges”; the contradiction between the law and the Jew ultimately leads to the oppression of the Jew in the Christian state that embodies the demands of historical development.

因此，在鲍威尔看来，犹太教与基督教的对立，正是犹太人所拥有的“特权”以“宗教特权”和“市民特权”的形式在市民社会中得以展现。与发展相对立的犹太教律法，正是犹太人“特权”来源，律法与犹太人之间的相互矛盾，最终导致犹太人在体现历史发展要求的基督教国家中受到压迫。

II. Marx: “Jewishness” Is the Key to Solving the Jewish Question

二、马克思：“犹太精神”是犹太人问题解决的关键

In *On the Jewish Question*, Marx clearly states that the emancipation of the Jew is to be emancipated from “Jewishness.” In Marx’s view, “Jewishness” contains both a religious and a secular meaning, and the key role is played by the secular meaning of Jewishness.

马克思在《论犹太人问题》中明确指出，犹太人的解放就是要从“犹太精神”中解放出来。在马克思看来，“犹太精神”包含着宗教和世俗两重意义，在其中起着关键作用的是犹太精神的世俗意义。

First, freedom of religious belief is a right that people should have in the Christian state. Unlike Bauer, who analyzes from the perspective of “privilege,” Marx points out that Jews do not need to renounce their religious faith to achieve political emancipation; this is determined by the nature of the Christian state after political emancipation. In *The Jewish Question*, Bauer uses the term “Christian state” to describe two different forms of state, taking political emancipation as the dividing line: both the state before and after emancipation are called Christian states. Marx, in *On the Jewish Question*, adopts this expression and points out that the two different forms of Christian state correspond in reality to Germany and France. Through political emancipation, the state is emancipated from religion; religion is no longer the faith of a state and no longer exists within the state as a state religion. Religion descends from the spirit of the state into civil society, becoming the spirit of civil society, existing as individual faith; religion is driven into the state of the private sphere. Therefore, in the second form of Christian state, people no longer unite through a common faith as a medium and with the identity of Christian as a marker, as before; instead, they unite through the state as an intermediary and with the identity of citizen of the state. People break free from the constraints of the original religious community and live in a new political community; hence this form of Christian state can also be called the political state. In the Christian state after political emancipation, because the political state and civil society are separated from each other, the opposition between the state and civil society becomes the principal opposition, and people are consequently split into the dual identities of citizen (*citoyen*) and private individual (*bourgeois*), leading a double life: the real individual life as a private person and the life as a species-being existing in the community.

第一，宗教信仰自由是基督教国家中人应有的权利。与鲍威尔从“特权”入手进行分析不同，马克思指出犹太人并不需要放弃自己的宗教信仰就可以在政治上得到解放，这是由政治解放后的基督教国家的性质所决定的。鲍威尔在《犹太人问题》中以基督教国家这一名词来描述了两种不同的国家形态，即以政治解放为划分，解放前和解放后的国家都称做基督教国家。马克思则在《论犹太人问题》中沿用了这一表述，并指出两种不同形态的基督教国家在现实中就是德国和法国。通过政治解放，国家从宗教中解放出来，宗教不再是一个国家的信仰，不以国教的形式存在于国家之中。宗教由国家的精神下落到市民社会之内，成为市民社会的精神，以个人信仰的方式存在，宗教被驱赶到个人领域的国家中。因此，在第二形态的基督教国家中，人们不再像原来那样以共同的信仰作为媒介、以基督教徒的身份作为标志结合在一起，而是通过国家作为中介、彼此以国家公民的身份结合在一起，人们摆脱了原来宗教共同体的限制而在新的政治共同体中生活，所以这一形态的基督教国家也可称做政治国家。在经过政治解放后的基督教国家中，由于政治国家和市民社会彼此之间割裂开来，国家与市民社会的对立成为最主要的对立，人也因此分裂成了公民（citoyen）和个人（bourgeois）的两重身份、过着双重的生活，即作为私人存在的现实个人的生活和作为共同体存在的类存在物的生活。

Bauer asserts that in the emancipated Christian state, Jews and Christians are opposed to each other, emphasizing that the identity of a religious believer affects the exercise of civil rights. For the Jew, his religious faith is opposed to his civic identity: “the Jew will himself step back behind the citizen and will also become a citizen … he is and remains a Jew, even though he is a citizen and lives in universal human relations: his Jewish and narrow essence will ultimately always triumph over his human and political obligations.” [10]10 Ibid., p. 19. Therefore, when civic duties conflict with Jewish law, the Jew will inevitably abandon civic duties and obey Jewish law. For the Christian, “religious freedom does not consist in all religions having equal rights, nor in different religions having equal status, but in a religion that is professed by almost everyone enjoying a monopoly position.” [11]11 Ibid., p. 57. Thus Christians can influence state policy by virtue of their numerical superiority in the state; the state after political emancipation is still a Christian state, in which Jews are oppressed by Christian citizens.

鲍威尔认定在解放后的基督教国家中犹太人与基督徒之间是相互对立的，强调宗教信徒的身份会影响公民权利的行使。对犹太人而言，他的宗教信仰与他的公民身份是对立的，“犹太人自己将退居公民之后，而且也将成为公民……他是而且始终是犹太人，尽管他是公民，并生活在普遍的人的关系中：他那犹太人的和狭隘的本质最终总要战胜他的人的义务和政治的义务”。因此当公民义务与犹太教律法发生冲突时，犹太人必然会放弃公民义务而去遵守犹太教律法。对基督徒而言，“宗教自由并不在于所有的宗教有同样权利，也不在于不同的宗教有平等的地位，而在于一个几乎所有人都信奉的宗教享有垄断的地位”。于是基督徒可以凭借在国家中具有人数的优势而影响国家的政策，政治解放后的国家还是基督教国家，在其中犹太人被信奉基督教的公民所压迫。

In Marx’s view, the contradiction between Jew and Christian that Bauer identifies is merely a simple conflict of faith and does not prevent them from uniting with each other as citizens. Marx believes that the reason this problem arises in Bauer’s theory is, on the surface, that he treats the contradiction between the political state and civil society as a contradiction between religion and the state; on the one hand, emancipation from religion is a prerequisite; on the other hand, abolishing religion politically is seen as the complete abolition of religion, so that as long as the Jew renounces his religious faith, he can become a true citizen, and the Christian state after political emancipation thereby becomes the real state. But for Marx, the key issue is not political emancipation, but “the criticism of political emancipation itself … can this question really become the ‘universal question of the time.’” [12]12 Karl Marx, “Zur Judenfrage,” in *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* (Paris, 1844), p. 183. When political emancipation is completed, religion is transferred to survival within civil society; it appears that real people have not been fully emancipated from religion, but for Marx this is merely the individual’s political rights within the state. Therefore, although religious emancipation has not been completed in the private sphere, this does not affect the Jew’s participation in the activities of the political community; within the state, the Jew can exercise rights and bear civic duties like everyone else. Religious belief, along with freedom, private property, equality and security, are all important components of human rights in civil society, manifestations of the needs of real people and individual interests. In this form of state, individuals profess religion because religion is the spirit of civil society, their ideal consciousness, a means for individuals to satisfy their own needs; neither Jew nor Christian obtains “privilege” or suffers oppression because of their religious faith; freedom of religious belief is a right that people should have.

在马克思看来，鲍威尔认定的犹太人与基督徒之间的矛盾，只不过是单纯的信仰冲突，并不影响他们以公民的身份彼此结合在一起。马克思认为在鲍威尔的理论中之所以会出现这一问题，表面上看是因为他把政治国家和市民社会间的矛盾当作宗教与国家的矛盾，一方面从教中解放出来是先决条件；另一方面只要在政治上废除宗教就是对宗教的完全废除，只要犹太人放弃自己的宗教信仰就可以成为真正的公民，而政治解放后的基督教国家也因此成为现实的国家。但在马克思那里，问题的关键不是政治解放，而是“对政治解放本身的批判……才能使这个问题真正变成‘当代的普遍问题’”。当政治解放完成之时，宗教转移到市民社会中生存，看似现实的人并没有完全从宗教中解放出来，但在马克思这里这只是在国家中个人的政治权利。因此，尽管宗教解放并没能在个人领域中完成，但并不会影响犹太人参与政治共同体的活动，在国家中犹太人同其他人一样可以行使权利、承担公民义务。宗教信仰与自由、私有财产、平等和安全都是市民社会中人权的重要组成部分，是现实的人的需要与个人利益的体现。在这一国家形态中个人信奉宗教是由于宗教是市民社会的精神、是他们的理想的意识、是个人满足自身需要的手段，无论犹太人还是基督徒都不因自身的宗教信仰而获得“特权”或受到压迫，宗教信仰自由是人应有的权利。

Second, the Jewish question can be resolved only through liberation from the actual “Jewish spirit.” In the Christian state after political emancipation, religious belief is no longer the fetter that oppresses the Jews; one must therefore go not to the abstract Jew but to the actual Jew to find the cause of their oppression. Marx points out that, because political emancipation liberates the state from religion at the same time as it liberates civil society from feudalism, the Jews have, in the course of this process, also liberated themselves in their own way. In the feudal state, only the ruler could truly unify political power and private interest; hence the relationship between the state and the estates and guilds was the relationship between the ruler and the people. Estates, guilds and territorial rights were elements constitutive of the feudal state itself, and human relations were bound up within them; the political character of human beings was likewise determined by these elements. But as the mode of labour improved and private property increased, the status of property gradually rose within the feudal state. Although it did not become a social element, civil society, which takes property as its constitutive element, thereby gradually grew stronger and impelled the separation of estates and guilds from the feudal state. Hence, when political emancipation overthrew the power of the feudal ruler, it also destroyed all the estates, guilds, corporations and privileges that had been elements of the feudal state. The political spirit that had been dispersed among these elements was gathered together to form the political community of human beings in the state. Civil society was also liberated from the fetters of the former feudal politics and became the domain of human beings’ activity as private individuals. The purpose of human existence is to satisfy one’s own needs; its essence is egoistic, and in actual civil society this manifests as a craving for private property. The freedom they long for can be obtained only by overthrowing the feudal ruler. In the process of satisfying their own needs, human beings also continuously impel the civil society they compose to accumulate strength, with the ultimate aim of carrying out a political revolution. Because civil society is both the purpose and the precondition of political emancipation, the political revolution is in essence the revolution of civil society. The reason the Jews can become special members of civil society is that “actual need, egoism” – the principle of civil society – is also the secular basis of the Jews, the secular Jewish spirit. Hence the Jewish spirit is able to preserve itself in history through civil society.

第二，只有从现实的“犹太精神”中解放出来，犹太人问题才能得到解决。在政治解放后的基督教国家中宗教信仰已经不再成为犹太人受压迫的桎梏，那就不能再去到抽象的犹太人那里、而得到现实的犹太人那里去寻找他们受到压迫的原因。马克思指出，因为政治解放将国家从宗教中解放出来的同时，市民社会也从封建主义中解放出来，伴随着这一过程，犹太人也采用自己的方式解放了自己。在封建国家中，只有统治者才能真正实现政治权力和私人利益的统一，于是国家与阶级、同业公会的关系，就是统治者与人民之间的关系，等级、同业公会和领土权等就成为封建国家自身存在的要素，人与人的关系被束缚其中，人的政治性质也被这些要素所规定。但随着劳动方式的改进、私有财产的增加，财产的地位在封建国家中逐渐得到提高，尽管没有上升为社会要素，但是以财产为自身组成要素的市民社会却因此逐步壮大起来，并促使等级、同业公会同封建国家的分离。因此当政治解放在推翻封建统治者权力的同时，也摧毁了一切作为封建国家要素的等级、同业工会、行帮和特权，在这些要素中分散的人的政治精神被汇集起来，组成了人在国家中的政治共同体。市民社会也从原来封建政治的桎梏中解放出来，成为人的私人属性活动的域场。人存在的目的是为了满足自身的需要，其本质是利己的，在现实的市民社会中表现为对私有财产的渴求，他们向往的自由只有通过推翻封建统治者才能够获得。在满足自身需要的过程中，人也在不断推动由他们组成的市民社会持续地积蓄力量，最终目的是为了开展政治革命，因为市民社会既是政治解放的目的，又是政治解放的前提，所以政治革命本质上就是市民社会的革命。而犹太人之所以能够成为市民社会的特殊成员这是因为作为市民社会原则的“实际需要、利己主义”也是犹太人的世俗基础、是世俗的犹太精神，因此，犹太精神得以通过市民社会在历史中保持下来。

But why, if the Jews have already liberated themselves through the secular Jewish spirit, are they still oppressed in the Christian state? Marx points out that in civil society every individual exists as an “atomistic” being; all their purposes are directed toward satisfying personal needs. Money, by virtue of its property of determining the value of all things, enables human beings to use it for exchange and thereby satisfy their needs. Thus money, originally created in human beings’ labour and relations of exchange, becomes an existence alienated from human beings and rules them through this “alien essence.” Money is not only the god of the Jews but the god of civil society; in it, human beings can act only under the domination of money. Therefore it is not that the Jews are oppressed in the Christian state, but rather that “the true essence of the Jew has been universally realized in civil society.” The oppression the Jews endure lies not in the Christian state but in their secular Jewish spirit. Hence “the social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from the Jewish spirit.”

但是，为什么犹太人已经用世俗的犹太精神解放了自己，却在基督教国家中依然受压迫呢？马克思指出，在市民社会中每个人都是“原子式”的存在，他们的一切目的都是为了满足个人的需要。而金钱凭其能够规定一切事物的价值这一特性使得人能够运用金钱来进行交换，实现对自身需要的满足。于是，原本在人们的劳动和交往关系中创造出来的金钱成为与人相异化的存在，并用这一“异己的本质”统治了人。金钱不仅是犹太人的神，更是市民社会的神，在其中人只有在金钱的支配下才能进行活动。因此并不是犹太人在基督教国家中受到压迫，而是“犹太人的真正本质在市民社会得到了普遍实现”。犹太人承受的压迫并不在基督教国家中，而是在他们世俗的犹太精神之中，因此“犹太人的社会解放就是社会从犹太精神中解放出来。”

III. Nation and Class: Two Different Modes of Resolution

三、民族与阶级：两种不同解决方式

When Bauer and Marx respectively argue for the path to resolving the Jewish question, both centre their arguments on Jewish religious belief. Bauer emphasises that the reason the Jews are oppressed is that they persist in their “privilege” within the Christian state; the opposition between religious beliefs is in fact the result of the Jews insisting on their own national character and distinguishing themselves from others. Marx, on the basis of arguing for freedom of religious belief, stresses that the Jews have already become alienated in the Jewish spirit of civil society; the root of the Jewish question lies in the opposition between civil society and the political state, and it can be resolved only through class struggle. Hence Marx’s critique of Bauer is, in essence, the replacement of nationalism with the concept of class.

鲍威尔和马克思在分别论证犹太人问题解决的路径时，都围绕着犹太人的宗教信仰展开。鲍威尔强调犹太人之所以受到压迫，是因为他们在基督教国家中依然坚持自己的“特权”，宗教信仰之间的对立实际上是犹太人坚持自己的民族性、将自己与其他人区分开来的结果。马克思则在论证宗教信仰自由的基础上，强调犹太人已经在市民社会的犹太精神中异化了，犹太人问题的根源在于市民社会与政治国家间的对立，他们唯有通过阶级斗争才能够得以解决。因此，马克思对鲍威尔的批判，实质上是用阶级观念取代民族主义。

The Jewish question in Germany is not only a question of religious belief but also a contradiction between the Jews as a nation and the Jews as citizens of the state, a contradiction between the original ethnic group and the newly emerging nation-state. The concept of the modern nation originated in sixteenth-century England and gradually developed the notions of “sovereign people” and “unique people”; the absolute monarchy of the seventeenth century prepared the ground for the emergence of the modern nation. With England becoming the first nation to appear in the world, the era of nationalism began. In the course of its spread, nationalism exhibited the characteristic of combining an external national identity with indigenous traditional elements; national identity gradually became the ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie – including the aristocratic and intellectual strata – that developed within each country. The nation was legitimated as a form of compromise between the old system and the new system that people chose in the process of reforming the monarchy. The French Revolution, as “the first great revolution in modern history,” initiated the gradual establishment of modern nation-states in Europe. The European wars of religion ended only after “each state chose its own official religion”; it was on this basis that the Christian state further liberated the state from the “state religion” as a new type of state formation. Hence the Christian state after political emancipation is, in essence, a modern nation-state newly emerging beyond the original ethnic concept. When analysing “the tenacity of the Jewish national spirit,” Bauer also points out: “There are some ethnic groups that, in the process of integration, formed the French nation; they abandoned and lost their independence… They devoted themselves to and merged into the whole; this only proves… that they are capable of contributing to the cultivation of the national spirit of a particular historical period.” It was only thus that France was reborn in the form of a nation-state.

在德国的犹太人问题，不仅是宗教信仰问题，而且是作为民族的犹太人和作为国家的公民之间的矛盾，是原有的族群与新生的民族国家之间的矛盾。现代民族（nation）的概念起源于16世纪的英格兰，并逐渐发展出“主权人民”和“独一无二的人民”概念，17世纪君主专制制度为近代民族的出现做了准备。伴随着英格兰成为世界上第一个出现的民族，民族主义的时代就此开启。民族主义在传播的过程中，呈现出将一个外来的民族认同观念与本土传统元素相结合的特点，民族认同逐渐成为各国国内逐渐发展起来的资产阶级——包含贵族阶层和知识分子阶层——的思想武器，民族作为人们在对君主制进行改革的过程中选择的旧制度与新制度之间的妥协形式而被合法化了。法国大革命作为“现代历史上的第一场大革命”，开启了现代民族国家在欧洲的逐步建立。欧洲宗教战争最终以“每个国家选择了自己的官方宗教之后才告停止”，基督教国家正是在此基础之上，将国家进一步从“国教”中解放出来的新型国家形态，因此政治解放后的基督教国家本质上就是在超越原有族群概念之上新兴的现代民族国家。鲍威尔在分析“犹太民族精神的韧性”时也指出：“有一些族群在融合的过程中形成了法兰西民族，它们放弃、丧失了自己的独立性……它们献身、融入整体之中，这只是……证明了它们有能力为了教化特定历史时期的民族精神而做出贡献”，这才使法兰西以民族国家的形态得以重生。

In contrast to these ethnic groups that voluntarily merged into the new national spirit and devoted themselves to the new nation-state, the Jews persist in their own national character. The Jews, oppressed because they insist on “their commandments, their language, and their whole essence,” satisfy the three elements of nation-formation emphasised by Benedict Anderson in *Imagined Communities* – language, real connections, and self-imagination. In actual civil society, the Jews, through usury, complete their real connections by means of a special guild; they take Jewish religious law as the source of national exclusivity, thereby obtaining their independent national “privilege” within the Christian state. The essence of the Jewish question is the contradiction between the citizenship of the state and the national character of the Jews, the contradiction between the nation-state that has emerged from feudalism through political emancipation and the nation that has developed from the ethnic group and demands to preserve its exclusivity. The Jews have maintained their national character in the course of historical evolution and, because of that national character, have encountered opposition and exclusion. Hence Bauer’s path of resolution is: only by abandoning the Jewish faith, by the Jews no longer insisting on their national character, and by the Jews merging as an ethnic group into the new nation-state, can the Jewish question be resolved.

与这些自愿融入新的民族精神、为新的民族国家献身的族群相反，犹太人还在坚持自己的民族性。因坚持“戒律、语言和整个本质”而受到压迫的犹太人满足了本尼迪克特·安德森在《想象的共同体》中所强调的民族组成的三要素——语言、现实的联结和自我想象。犹太人在现实的市民社会中凭借高利贷，以特殊的同业公会完成了现实的联结；以犹太教律法作为民族排他性的根源，获取自己在基督教国家中独立的民族“特权”。犹太人问题的实质就是国家的公民性和犹太人的民族性之间的矛盾，是通过政治解放从封建主义中独立出来的民族国家与从族群中发展起来、并要求保持自己排他性的民族之间的矛盾。犹太人在历史的演进中维持了自身的民族性，也因自己的民族性而受到反对和排斥。因此鲍威尔的解决路径是：只有通过抛弃犹太教的信仰、犹太人不再坚持自身的民族性，犹太人以族群的身份融入到新的民族国家之中，犹太人的问题才能得到解决。

However, in Marx’s view, Bauer committed a significant error. Although Bauer saw the alienation of man in civil society—that in a civil society driven by “need” as its own motive force, man, while treating others as tools, is himself reduced to a tool—Bauer’s solution was to rely solely on the power of the political state, restraining the egoistic nature of civil society through estates and honor. Within the estate system, on the one hand, the individual’s egoistic power is manifested, because the estate combines all the various ways of satisfying needs; on the other hand, the individual must also attend to the universal interest of the estate to which he belongs, which is the duty incumbent upon members of the estate. The political state uses the sense of honor to liberate man from his own needs; man is no longer an atomistic existence, and his sense of honor causes him to combine his individual needs with the needs of the estate, that is, with the needs of civil society. But Bauer did not realize that estates and guilds, as communities of men, were elements of the life of the feudal state; while political liberation liberated man from the estate system, Bauer still wanted to retain the illusory bonds of man in the feudal state. This is because Bauer did not realize that it was precisely the egoistic nature of civil society that led it to revolutionize feudalism, achieving the fundamental goal of “the dissolution of the old society, which was the power of the ruler, a state system alienated from the people.” [14]14 This quotation is from Marx’s “On the Jewish Question” (1843), where he critiques Bruno Bauer’s views on Jewish emancipation. Therefore, the Jews, as essentially homogeneous with civil society, were not, as Bauer saw them, a nation opposed to the nation-state, but rather an important driving force behind the establishment of the nation-state.

但是，在马克思看来鲍威尔犯了一个重要的错误。虽然鲍威尔看到了人在市民社会中的异化，即在以“需要”作为自身推动力量的市民社会中，人在将他人视为工具的同时自己也降为了工具本身，但鲍威尔的解决方案是单纯依靠政治国家的力量，通过等级和荣誉制约市民社会的利己本质。在等级中，一方面，个人的利己力量得到体现，因为等级将满足需要的各种方式都结合在了一起；另一方面，个人又必须重视所在等级的普遍利益，这是等级成员应尽的义务。政治国家运用荣誉感将人从自身的需要中解放出来，人不再是原子式的存在，他的荣誉感使他将自己个人的需要同等级的需要、也就是市民社会的需要结合在了一起。但是鲍威尔没有意识到作为人的共同体存在的等级与同业公会是封建主义国家生活的要素，在政治解放把人从等级中解放出来的同时，鲍威尔却依然想要保留封建主义国家中人的虚幻的联结。这是因为鲍威尔没有意识到，正是因为市民社会利己主义的本质，使其革了封建主义的命，达成了“同人民相异化的国家制度即统治者的权力所依据的旧的社会的解体”这一根本目的。因此，作为本质上与市民社会同质的犹太人，并不像鲍威尔所看到的那样是与民族国家相对立的民族，而是民族国家之所以能够建立的重要推动力量。

As an important component of civil society in the old society, the middle class, through “repeated historical splits,” gave birth to the bourgeoisie. [15]15 The phrase “repeated historical splits” (重复历史性分裂) is a reference to Marx’s analysis in *The German Ideology* and *The Communist Manifesto* of how the bourgeoisie repeatedly emerges from the dissolution of earlier social forms. In the process of worshipping money, the bourgeoisie accumulated a rich material foundation; guided by egoistic needs, they initiated the prelude to political revolution, overthrew the feudal estate system, and established the nation-state. They liberated the productive forces from feudal ownership and promoted the further development of civil society. In this process, the Jews, who worshipped money alone, guided by the thought and habits of pursuing money to satisfy egoistic needs, and by virtue of the money power they held, leaped into the position of the capitalist class within the political state. Guided by the principle of “actual need, egoism,” individuals in civil society are enslaved by money, treating others as tools for their own benefit, causing the alienation of man from man, and ultimately leading to the separation of man from his species-being and the alienation of man from the species-being of man. The realization of political liberation is based on the development of the bourgeoisie, that is, on the basis of “selfish” egoism, and this is also the root of the oppressed position of the Jews in actual civil society; therefore, political liberation cannot truly achieve the liberation of the Jews. Simply abandoning the Jewish faith to integrate into the citizenry of the modern nation-state cannot truly achieve the liberation of the Jews. This is because, although the Jews have become members of the bourgeoisie, they are also tools used by other members of the bourgeoisie to accumulate wealth. Their position in the political state is no different from that of the “court Jews” of the feudal period, who raised funds, supplied materials, and collected jewelry for monarchs and princes. Therefore, the solution to the Jewish question requires the negation of private property, the liberation of man from private ownership. This is no longer an opposition between a nation and the nation-state, but rather a fundamental contradiction inherent in the nation-state itself, which can only be resolved through class struggle.

作为旧社会中市民社会的重要组成部分，中间阶级在“重复历史性分裂”中诞生出了资产阶级。在对金钱崇拜的过程中，资产阶级积累下了丰厚的物质基础，在利己需要的指引下掀起了政治革命的序章，推翻了封建等级制度，建立起民族国家；他们在封建所有制中解放了生产力，促进了市民社会的进一步发展。在这一过程中，将金钱作为唯一崇拜的犹太人，在为满足利己主义需要而对金钱进行追逐的思想与习气的指引下，凭借其所掌握的金钱势力，在政治国家中一跃成为资本家阶级。在“实际需要、利己主义”原则的指引下，市民社会中的个人被金钱所奴役，将他人视为谋取自身利益的工具，使得人与人之间相异化，并最终导致人与自己的类本质相分离、人与人的类本质相异化。政治解放的实现是建立在资产阶级发展的基础上，即建立在“自私自利”的利己主义的基础上，而这也是犹太人在现实市民社会中处于被压迫地位的根源，因此政治解放并不能真正实现犹太人的解放。通过简单放弃犹太教信仰以融入现代民族国家的公民之中的方式，并不能真正实现犹太人的解放。这是因为，虽然犹太人已经成为了资产阶级中的一员，但他们同时也是其他资产阶级成员用以敛财的工具。他们在政治国家中的地位，与封建社会时期作为替君主和侯爵筹款、供应物资和搜集珠宝的“宫廷犹太人”没有任何区别。因此，犹太人问题的解决，要求必须否定私有财产，将人从私有制中解放出来，这已经不再是民族与民族国家之间的对立，而是民族国家自身存在的基本矛盾，唯有通过阶级斗争才能解决。

Just as the bourgeoisie overthrew the feudal system and established the Christian state after political liberation, within the state, the secular contradiction between the political state and civil society can only be overthrown through revolution. Marx pointed out that political liberation is essentially a utopian dream, because although the bourgeoisie can stir up the fervor of itself and the masses in civil society, at the same time, it turns its own needs and rights into the rights and needs of society itself; the bourgeoisie becomes the head and heart of society. Through this illusion of the universal rights of society, the bourgeoisie creates a universal obstacle within the nation-state established after political liberation, that is, the universal rule of the bourgeoisie in the nation-state. The egoistic nature of the bourgeoisie makes it impossible for it to abandon the special rights it already enjoys; therefore, the Jewish question in this arena is essentially nothing but a microcosm of the opposition between civil society and the nation-state. Only by starting from the premise of the state system, rather than its result, can this problem be solved. While the bourgeoisie struggles against the feudal landlord class, bureaucrats, and aristocracy, it also becomes embroiled in a struggle with the class below it—the proletariat; the proletarians have already begun their struggle against the bourgeois. Therefore, only the proletariat, whose goal is the complete restoration of man, can resolve the injustices that the bourgeoisie cannot resolve. The proletariat takes private property as its object of struggle and demands the complete negation of private property. “The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon; material force must be overthrown by material force.” [16]16 This is a direct quotation from Marx’s “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction” (1843-1844). Just as religious revolution began in the minds of priests, Marx pointed out that political revolution must begin in the minds of philosophers. Only when philosophers take the proletariat as their object of study, so that philosophy takes the proletariat as its material weapon, achieving the union of philosophy and the proletariat, can the proletariat truly exert its material force. Only by turning the weapons left behind by the bourgeois political revolution against the bourgeoisie itself can man be liberated from alien forces. Therefore, only when the proletariat, as the gravedigger of the bourgeoisie, uses these weapons to abolish private property, the foundation of civil society, can the plight of the Jews be truly resolved, ultimately achieving the liberation of man.

同资产阶级推翻了封建制度、建立了政治解放后的基督教国家一样，在国家的内部，政治国家和市民社会之间的世俗矛盾也只能通过革命来推翻。马克思指出，政治解放本质上是乌托邦式的梦想，这是因为虽然资产阶级在市民社会中能够煽动起自身和群众的狂热，但是与此同时，它也将自己的需求和权利变成社会本身的权利和需求，资产阶级成为了社会的头脑和心脏。资产阶级通过社会普遍权利的这一假象，在政治解放后建立起的民族国家内部形成普遍障碍，即资产阶级在民族国家中的普遍统治。资产阶级的利己本性使其不可能放弃已经享有的特殊权利，因此在这一场域中的犹太人问题，本质上不过是市民社会与民族国家之间对立的缩影。只有通过国家制度的前提而不是它的结果入手，才能实现这一问题的解决。当资产阶级在与封建地主阶级、官僚与贵族进行斗争的同时，它也卷入了与低于他自己的阶级——无产阶级之间的斗争，无产者已经开始了同资产者的斗争。所以只有以人的完全恢复为奋斗目标的无产阶级才能解决资产阶级解决不了的不公正，无产阶级将私有制作为自己的斗争对象，要求全面否定私有财产。“批判的武器当然不能代替武器的批判，物质的力量只能用物质力量来摧毁”，与宗教革命是从僧侣的头脑中开始的一样，马克思指出政治革命必须从哲学家的头脑中开始。只有哲学家以无产阶级作为研究的对象，使得哲学将无产阶级作为自身的物质武器，实现哲学与无产阶级之间的结合，无产阶级才能发挥出真正的物质力量。只有用资产阶级政治革命留下的武器来对准资产阶级自身，才能将人从异己的力量中解放出来。因此，只有作为资产阶级掘墓人的无产阶级运用这种武器、消灭作为市民社会基础的私有财产，才能真正解决犹太人面临的困境，最终实现人的解放。

As Marx pointed out, the plight faced by the Jews in the 19th century could only be eliminated through the class struggle of the proletariat. Under the basic national condition that our country will remain in the primary stage of socialism for a long time to come, and in promoting the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics today, externally we must face the treacherous and volatile international situation, and internally we must confront complex and changing problems and difficulties. This requires our Party to adhere to the principal position of the people, to be people-centered, to seek happiness for the people, and requires our Party to attach great importance to religious issues. On the one hand, we must be vigilant against external forces using the banner of freedom of religious belief and narrow nationalism to interfere in our internal affairs, always adhere to the principle of our country’s religions being independent and self-governing, and correctly handle the relationships between various ethnic groups and between each ethnic group and the Chinese national community. On the other hand, on the basis of strengthening the Four Confidences, we must enhance the construction of the Four Consciousnesses; by further promoting the theoretical construction of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, and cultivating and practicing the core socialist values, we must combine the “historical mission of the proletariat” with the “Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” take the Chinese path well, and tell the Chinese story well.

正如马克思所指出19世纪犹太人所面临的困境唯有通过无产阶级的阶级斗争才能够得以消除。在我国仍将长期处于社会主义初级阶段的基本国情下、在推动中国特色社会主义建设的今天，对外要直面波澜诡谲的国际形势、对内要正视复杂多变的问题困难，这要求我们党要坚持人民的主体性地位，以人民为本，为人民谋幸福，要求我们党必须高度重视宗教问题。一方面要警惕境外势力打着宗教信仰自由、狭隘民族主义的旗号干涉我国的内政，始终坚持我国宗教独立自主自办的原则，正确处理各民族之间、各个民族和中华民族共同体之间的关系。另一方面，在坚定“四个自信”的基础上增强“四个意识”的建设，通过进一步推动马克思主义中国化的理论建设、培育和践行社会主义核心价值观，将“无产阶级的历史使命”与“中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦”结合起来，走好中国道路，讲好中国故事。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心