On the Jewish Question

1I.TheJewishQuestion

OnTheJewishQuestion(1844)

Written:Autumn1843;
FirstPublished:February,1844inDeutsch-FranzösischeJahrbücher;
ProofedandCorrected:byAndyBlunden,MatthewGrantandMatthewCarmody,2008/9,MarkHarris2010.

IBrunoBauer,TheJewishQuestion,Braunschweig,1843

TheGermanJewsdesireemancipation.Whatkindofemancipationdotheydesire?Civic,politicalemancipation.

BrunoBauerrepliestothem:NooneinGermanyispoliticallyemancipated.Weourselvesarenotfree.Howarewetofreeyou?YouJewsareegoistsifyoudemandaspecialemancipationforyourselvesasJews.AsGermans,yououghttoworkforthepoliticalemancipationofGermany,andashumanbeings,fortheemancipationofmankind,andyoushouldfeeltheparticularkindofyouroppressionandyourshamenotasanexceptiontotherule,butonthecontraryasaconfirmationoftherule.

OrdotheJewsdemandthesamestatusasChristiansubjectsofthestate?Inthatcase,theyrecognizethattheChristianstateisjustifiedandtheyrecognize,too,theregimeofgeneraloppression.Whyshouldtheydisapproveoftheirspecialyokeiftheyapproveofthegeneralyoke?WhyshouldtheGermanbeinterestedintheliberationoftheJew,iftheJewisnotinterestedintheliberationoftheGerman?

TheChristianstateknowsonlyprivileges.Inthisstate,theJewhastheprivilegeofbeingaJew.AsaJew,hehasrightswhichtheChristiansdonothave.Whyshouldhewantrightswhichhedoesnothave,butwhichtheChristiansenjoy?

InwantingtobeemancipatedfromtheChristianstate,theJewisdemandingthattheChristianstateshouldgiveupitsreligiousprejudice.Doeshe,theJew,giveuphisreligiousprejudice?Hashe,then,therighttodemandthatsomeoneelseshouldrenouncehisreligion?

Byitsverynature,theChristianstateisincapableofemancipatingtheJew;but,addsBauer,byhisverynaturetheJewcannotbeemancipated.SolongasthestateisChristianandtheJewisJewish,theoneisasincapableofgrantingemancipationastheotherisofreceivingit.

TheChristianstatecanbehavetowardstheJewonlyinthewaycharacteristicoftheChristianstate–thatis,bygrantingprivileges,bypermittingtheseparationoftheJewfromtheothersubjects,butmakinghimfeelthepressureofalltheotherseparatespheresofsociety,andfeelitallthemoreintenselybecauseheisinreligiousoppositiontothedominantreligion.ButtheJew,too,canbehavetowardsthestateonlyinaJewishway–thatis,bytreatingitassomethingalientohim,bycounterposinghisimaginarynationalitytotherealnationality,bycounterposinghisillusorylawtothereallaw,bydeeminghimselfjustifiedinseparatinghimselffrommankind,byabstainingonprinciplefromtakingpartinthehistoricalmovement,byputtinghistrustinafuturewhichhasnothingincommonwiththefutureofmankindingeneral,andbyseeinghimselfasamemberoftheJewishpeople,andtheJewishpeopleasthechosenpeople.

Onwhatgrounds,then,doyouJewswantemancipation?Onaccountofyourreligion?Itisthemortalenemyofthestatereligion.Ascitizens?InGermany,therearenocitizens.Ashumanbeings?Butyouarenomorehumanbeingsthanthosetowhomyouappeal.

BauerhasposedthequestionofJewishemancipationinanewform,aftergivingacriticalanalysisofthepreviousformulationsandsolutionsofthequestion.What,heasks,isthenatureoftheJewwhoistobeemancipatedandoftheChristianstatethatistoemancipatehim?HerepliesbyacritiqueoftheJewishreligion,heanalyzesthereligiousoppositionbetweenJudaismandChristianity,heelucidatestheessenceoftheChristianstate–andhedoesallthisaudaciously,trenchantly,wittily,andwithprofundity,inastyleofwritingthatisaspreciseasitispithyandvigorous.

How,then,doesBauersolvetheJewishquestion?Whatistheresult?Theformulationofaquestionisitssolution.ThecritiqueoftheJewishquestionistheanswertotheJewishquestion.Thesummary,therefore,isasfollows:

Wemustemancipateourselvesbeforewecanemancipateothers.

ThemostrigidformoftheoppositionbetweentheJewandtheChristianisthereligiousopposition.Howisanoppositionresolved?Bymakingitimpossible.Howisreligiousoppositionmadeimpossible?Byabolishingreligion.AssoonasJewandChristianrecognizethattheirrespectivereligionsarenomorethandifferentstagesinthedevelopmentofthehumanmind,differentsnakeskinscastoffbyhistory,andthatmanisthesnakewhosloughedthem,therelationofJewandChristianisnolongerreligiousbutisonlyacritical,scientific,andhumanrelation.Science,then,constitutestheirunity.But,contradictionsinscienceareresolvedbyscienceitself.

TheGermanJew,inparticular,isconfrontedbythegeneralabsenceofpoliticalemancipationandthestronglymarkedChristiancharacterofthestate.InBauer’sconception,however,theJewishquestionhasauniversalsignificance,independentofspecificallyGermanconditions.Itisthequestionoftherelationofreligiontothestate,ofthecontradictionbetweenreligiousconstraintandpoliticalemancipation.Emancipationfromreligionislaiddownasacondition,bothtotheJewwhowantstobeemancipatedpolitically,andtothestatewhichistoeffectemancipationandisitselftobeemancipated.

“Verywell,”itissaid,andtheJewhimselfsaysit,“theJewistobecomeemancipatednotasaJew,notbecauseheisaJew,notbecausehepossessessuchanexcellent,universallyhumanprincipleofmorality;onthecontrary,theJewwillretreatbehindthecitizenandbeacitizen,althoughheisaJewandistoremainaJew.Thatistosay,heisandremainsaJew,althoughheisacitizenandlivesinuniversallyhumanconditions:hisJewishandrestrictednaturetriumphsalwaysintheendoverhishumanandpoliticalobligations.Theprejudiceremainsinspiteofbeingoutstrippedbygeneralprinciples.Butifitremains,then,onthecontrary,itoutstripseverythingelse.”

“Onlysophistically,onlyapparently,wouldtheJewbeabletoremainaJewinthelifeofthestate.Hence,ifhewantedtoremainaJew,themereappearancewouldbecometheessentialandwouldtriumph;thatistosay,hislifeinthestatewouldbeonlyasemblanceoronlyatemporaryexceptiontotheessentialandtherule.”(“TheCapacityofPresent-DayJewsandChristianstoBecomeFree,”EinundzwanzigBogen,pp.57)

Letushear,ontheotherhand,howBauerpresentsthetaskofthestate.

“France,”hesays,“hasrecentlyshownus”(ProceedingsoftheChamberofDeputies,December26,1840)“intheconnectionwiththeJewishquestion–justasithascontinuallydoneinallotherpoliticalquestions–thespectacleofalifewhichisfree,butwhichrevokesitsfreedombylaw,hencedeclaringittobeanappearance,andontheotherhandcontradictingitsfreelawsbyitsaction.”(TheJewishQuestion,p.64)

“InFrance,universalfreedomisnotyetthelaw,theJewishquestiontoohasnotyetbeensolved,becauselegalfreedom–thefactthatallcitizensareequal–isrestrictedinactuallife,whichisstilldominatedanddividedbyreligiousprivileges,andthislackoffreedominactuallifereactsonlawandcompelsthelattertosanctionthedivisionofthecitizens,whoassucharefree,intooppressedandoppressors.”(p.65)

When,therefore,wouldtheJewishquestionbesolvedforFrance?

“TheJew,forexample,wouldhaveceasedtobeaJewifhedidnotallowhimselftobepreventedbyhislawsfromfulfillinghisdutytothestateandhisfellowcitizens,thatis,forexample,ifontheSabbathheattendedtheChamberofDeputiesandtookpartintheofficialproceedings.Everyreligiousprivilege,andthereforealsothemonopolyofaprivilegedchurch,wouldhavebeenabolishedaltogether,andifsomeormanypersons,oreventheoverwhelmingmajority,stillbelievedthemselvesboundtofulfilreligiousduties,thisfulfilmentoughttobelefttothemasapurelyprivatematter.”(p.65)

“Thereisnolongeranyreligionwhenthereisnolongeranyprivilegedreligion.Takefromreligionitsexclusivepoweranditwillnolongerexist.”(p.66)

“JustasM.MartinduNordsawtheproposaltoomitmentionofSundayinthelawasamotiontodeclarethatChristianityhasceasedtoexist,withequalreason(andthisreasonisverywellfounded)thedeclarationthatthelawoftheSabbathisnolongerbindingontheJewwouldbeaproclamationabolishingJudaism.”(p.71)

Bauer,therefore,demands,ontheonehand,thattheJewshouldrenounceJudaism,andthatmankindingeneralshouldrenouncereligion,inordertoachievecivicemancipation.Ontheotherhand,hequiteconsistentlyregardsthepoliticalabolitionofreligionastheabolitionofreligionassuch.Thestatewhichpresupposesreligionisnotyetatrue,realstate.

“Ofcourse,thereligiousnotionaffordssecuritytothestate.Buttowhatstate?Towhatkindofstate?”(p.97)

Atthispoint,theone-sidedformulationoftheJewishquestionbecomesevident.

Itwasbynomeanssufficienttoinvestigate:Whoistoemancipate?Whoistobeemancipated?Criticismhadtoinvestigateathirdpoint.Ithadtoinquire:Whatkindofemancipationisinquestion?Whatconditionsfollowfromtheverynatureoftheemancipationthatisdemanded?OnlythecriticismofpoliticalemancipationitselfwouldhavebeentheconclusivecriticismoftheJewishquestionanditsrealmerginginthe“generalquestionoftime.”

BecauseBauerdoesnotraisethequestiontothislevel,hebecomesentangledincontradictions.Heputsforwardconditionswhicharenotbasedonthenatureofpoliticalemancipationitself.Heraisesquestionswhicharenotpartofhisproblem,andhesolvesproblemswhichleavethisquestionunanswered.WhenBauersaysoftheopponentsofJewishemancipation:“TheirerrorwasonlythattheyassumedtheChristianstatetobetheonlytrueoneanddidnotsubjectittothesamecriticismthattheyappliedtoJudaism”(op.cit.,p.3),wefindthathiserrorliesinthefactthathesubjectstocriticismonlythe“Christianstate,”notthe“stateassuch,”thathedoesnotinvestigatetherelationofpoliticalemancipationtohumanemancipationand,therefore,putsforwardconditionswhichcanbeexplainedonlybyuncriticalconfusionofpoliticalemancipationwithgeneralhumanemancipation.IfBaueraskstheJews:Haveyou,fromyourstandpoint,therighttowantpoliticalemancipation?Weasktheconversequestion:DoesthestandpointofpoliticalemancipationgivetherighttodemandfromtheJewtheabolitionofJudaismandfrommantheabolitionofreligion?

TheJewishquestionacquiresadifferentformdependingonthestateinwhichtheJewlives.InGermany,wherethereisnopoliticalstate,nostateassuch,theJewishquestionisapurelytheologicalone.TheJewfindshimselfinreligiousoppositiontothestate,whichrecognizesChristianityasitsbasis.Thisstateisatheologianexprofesso.Criticismhereiscriticismoftheology,adouble-edgedcriticism–criticismofChristiantheologyandofJewishtheology.Hence,wecontinuetooperateinthesphereoftheology,howevermuchwemayoperatecriticallywithinit.

InFrance,aconstitutionalstate,theJewishquestionisaquestionofconstitutionalism,thequestionoftheincompletenessofpoliticalemancipation.Sincethesemblanceofastatereligionisretainedhere,althoughinameaninglessandself-contradictoryformula,thatofareligionofthemajority,therelationoftheJewtothestateretainsthesemblanceofareligious,theologicalopposition.

OnlyintheNorthAmericanstates–atleast,insomeofthem–doestheJewishquestionloseitstheologicalsignificanceandbecomeareallysecularquestion.OnlywherethepoliticalstateexistsinitscompletelydevelopedformcantherelationoftheJew,andofthereligiousmaningeneral,tothepoliticalstate,andthereforetherelationofreligiontothestate,showitselfinitsspecificcharacter,initspurity.Thecriticismofthisrelationceasestobetheologicalcriticismassoonasthestateceasestoadoptatheologicalattitudetowardreligion,assoonasitbehavestowardsreligionasastate–i.e.,politically.Criticism,then,becomescriticismofthepoliticalstate.Atthispoint,wherethequestionceasestobetheological,Bauer’scriticismceasestobecritical.

“IntheUnitedStatesthereisneitherastatereligionnorareligiondeclaredtobethatofthemajority,northepredominanceofonecultoveranother.Thestatestandsalooffromallcults.”(Marieoul’esclavageauxEtats-Unis,etc.,byG.deBeaumont,Paris,1835,p.214)

Indeed,therearesomeNorthAmericanstateswhere“theconstitutiondoesnotimposeanyreligiousbelieforreligiouspracticeasaconditionofpoliticalrights.”(op.cit.,p.225)

Nevertheless,“intheUnitedStatespeopledonotbelievethatamanwithoutreligioncouldbeanhonestman.”(op.cit.,p.224)

Nevertheless,NorthAmericaispre-eminentlythecountryofreligiosity,asBeaumont,Tocqueville,andtheEnglishmanHamiltonunanimouslyassureus.TheNorthAmericanstates,however,serveusonlyasanexample.Thequestionis:Whatistherelationofcompletepoliticalemancipationtoreligion?Ifwefindthateveninthecountryofcompletepoliticalemancipation,religionnotonlyexists,butdisplaysafreshandvigorousvitality,thatisproofthattheexistenceofreligionisnotincontradictiontotheperfectionofthestate.Since,however,theexistenceofreligionistheexistenceofdefect,thesourceofthisdefectcanonlybesoughtinthenatureofthestateitself.Wenolongerregardreligionasthecause,butonlyasthemanifestationofsecularnarrowness.Therefore,weexplainthereligiouslimitationsofthefreecitizenbytheirsecularlimitations.Wedonotassertthattheymustovercometheirreligiousnarrownessinordertogetridoftheirsecularrestrictions,weassertthattheywillovercometheirreligiousnarrownessoncetheygetridoftheirsecularrestrictions.Wedonotturnsecularquestionsintotheologicalones.Historyhaslongenoughbeenmergedinsuperstition,wenowmergesuperstitioninhistory.Thequestionoftherelationofpoliticalemancipationtoreligionbecomesforusthequestionoftherelationofpoliticalemancipationtohumanemancipation.Wecriticizethereligiousweaknessofthepoliticalstatebycriticizingthepoliticalstateinitssecularform,apartfromitsweaknessesasregardsreligion.Thecontradictionbetweenthestateandaparticularreligion,forinstanceJudaism,isgivenbyusahumanformasthecontradictionbetweenthestateandparticularsecularelements;thecontradictionbetweenthestateandreligioningeneralasthecontradictionbetweenthestateanditspresuppositionsingeneral.

ThepoliticalemancipationoftheJew,theChristian,and,ingeneral,ofreligiousman,istheemancipationofthestatefromJudaism,fromChristianity,fromreligioningeneral.Initsownform,inthemannercharacteristicofitsnature,thestateasastateemancipatesitselffromreligionbyemancipatingitselffromthestatereligion–thatistosay,bythestateasastatenotprofessinganyreligion,but,onthecontrary,assertingitselfasastate.Thepoliticalemancipationfromreligionisnotareligiousemancipationthathasbeencarriedthroughtocompletionandisfreefromcontradiction,becausepoliticalemancipationisnotaformofhumanemancipationwhichhasbeencarriedthroughtocompletionandisfreefromcontradiction.

Thelimitsofpoliticalemancipationareevidentatoncefromthefactthatthestatecanfreeitselffromarestrictionwithoutmanbeingreallyfreefromthisrestriction,thatthestatecanbeafreestate[punonwordFreistaat,whichalsomeansrepublic]withoutmanbeingafreeman.Bauerhimselftacitlyadmitsthiswhenhelaysdownthefollowingconditionforpoliticalemancipation:

“Everyreligiousprivilege,andthereforealsothemonopolyofaprivilegedchurch,wouldhavebeenabolishedaltogether,andifsomeormanypersons,oreventheoverwhelmingmajority,stillbelievedthemselvesboundtofulfilreligiousduties,thisfulfilmentoughttobelefttothemasapurelyprivatematter.”[TheJewishQuestion,p.65]

Itispossible,therefore,forthestatetohaveemancipateditselffromreligioneveniftheoverwhelmingmajorityisstillreligious.Andtheoverwhelmingmajoritydoesnotceasetobereligiousthroughbeingreligiousinprivate.

But,theattitudeofthestate,andoftherepublic[freestate]inparticular,toreligionis,afterall,onlytheattitudetoreligionofthemenwhocomposethestate.Itfollowsfromthisthatmanfreeshimselfthroughthemediumofthestate,thathefreeshimselfpoliticallyfromalimitationwhen,incontradictionwithhimself,heraiseshimselfabovethislimitationinanabstract,limited,andpartialway.Itfollowsfurtherthat,byfreeinghimselfpolitically,manfreeshimselfinaroundaboutway,throughanintermediary,althoughanessentialintermediary.Itfollows,finally,thatman,evenifheproclaimshimselfanatheistthroughthemediumofthestate–thatis,ifheproclaimsthestatetobeatheist–stillremainsinthegripofreligion,preciselybecauseheacknowledgeshimselfonlybyaroundaboutroute,onlythroughanintermediary.Religionispreciselytherecognitionofmaninaroundaboutway,throughanintermediary.Thestateistheintermediarybetweenmanandman’sfreedom.JustasChrististheintermediarytowhommantransferstheburdenofallhisdivinity,allhisreligiousconstraint,sothestateistheintermediarytowhommantransfersallhisnon-divinityandallhishumanunconstraint.

Thepoliticalelevationofmanabovereligionsharesallthedefectsandalltheadvantagesofpoliticalelevationingeneral.Thestateasastateannuls,forinstance,privateproperty,mandeclaresbypoliticalmeansthatprivatepropertyisabolishedassoonasthepropertyqualificationfortherighttoelectorbeelectedisabolished,ashasoccurredinmanystatesofNorthAmerica.Hamiltonquitecorrectlyinterpretsthisfactfromapoliticalpointofviewasmeaning:

“themasseshavewonavictoryoverthepropertyownersandfinancialwealth.”[ThomasHamilton,MenandMannersinAmerica,2vols,Edinburgh,1833,p.146]

Isnotprivatepropertyabolishedinideaifthenon-propertyownerhasbecomethelegislatorforthepropertyowner?Thepropertyqualificationforthesuffrageisthelastpoliticalformofgivingrecognitiontoprivateproperty.

Nevertheless,thepoliticalannulmentofprivatepropertynotonlyfailstoabolishprivatepropertybutevenpresupposesit.Thestateabolishes,initsownway,distinctionsofbirth,socialrank,education,occupation,whenitdeclaresthatbirth,socialrank,education,occupation,arenon-politicaldistinctions,whenitproclaims,withoutregardtothesedistinction,thateverymemberofthenationisanequalparticipantinnationalsovereignty,whenittreatsallelementsofthereallifeofthenationfromthestandpointofthestate.Nevertheless,thestateallowsprivateproperty,education,occupation,toactintheirway–i.e.,asprivateproperty,aseducation,asoccupation,andtoexerttheinfluenceoftheirspecialnature.Farfromabolishingtheserealdistinctions,thestateonlyexistsonthepresuppositionoftheirexistence;itfeelsitselftobeapoliticalstateandassertsitsuniversalityonlyinoppositiontotheseelementsofitsbeing.Hegel,therefore,definestherelationofthepoliticalstatetoreligionquitecorrectlywhenhesays:

“Inorder[...]thatthestateshouldcomeintoexistenceastheself-knowing,moralrealityofthemind,itsdistractionfromtheformofauthorityandfaithisessential.Butthisdistinctionemergesonlyinsofarastheecclesiasticalaspectarrivesataseparationwithinitself.Itisonlyinthiswaythatthestate,abovetheparticularchurches,hasachievedandbroughtintoexistenceuniversalityofthought,whichistheprincipleofitsform”(Hegel’sPhilosophyofRight,1stedition,p.346).

Ofcourse!Onlyinthisway,abovetheparticularelements,doesthestateconstituteitselfasuniversality.

Theperfectpoliticalstateis,byitsnature,man’sspecies-life,asopposedtohismateriallife.Allthepreconditionsofthisegoisticlifecontinuetoexistincivilsociety[1]outsidethesphereofthestate,butasqualitiesofcivilsociety.Wherethepoliticalstatehasattaineditstruedevelopment,man–notonlyinthought,inconsciousness,butinreality,inlife–leadsatwofoldlife,aheavenlyandanearthlylife:lifeinthepoliticalcommunity,inwhichheconsidershimselfacommunalbeing,andlifeincivilsociety,inwhichheactsasaprivateindividual,regardsothermenasameans,degradeshimselfintoameans,andbecomestheplaythingofalienpowers.Therelationofthepoliticalstatetocivilsocietyisjustasspiritualastherelationsofheaventoearth.Thepoliticalstatestandsinthesameoppositiontocivilsociety,anditprevailsoverthelatterinthesamewayasreligionprevailsoverthenarrownessofthesecularworld–i.e.,bylikewisehavingalwaystoacknowledgeit,torestoreit,andallowitselftobedominatedbyit.Inhismostimmediatereality,incivilsociety,manisasecularbeing.Here,whereheregardshimselfasarealindividual,andissoregardedbyothers,heisafictitiousphenomenon.Inthestate,ontheotherhand,wheremanisregardedasaspecies-being,heistheimaginarymemberofanillusorysovereignty,isdeprivedofhisrealindividuallifeandendowedwithanunrealuniversality.

Man,astheadherentofaparticularreligion,findshimselfinconflictwithhiscitizenshipandwithothermenasmembersofthecommunity.Thisconflictreducesitselftotheseculardivisionbetweenthepoliticalstateandcivilsociety.Formanasabourgeois[i.e.,asamemberofcivilsociety,“bourgeoissociety”inGerman],“lifeinthestate”is“onlyasemblanceoratemporaryexceptiontotheessentialandtherule.”Ofcourse,thebourgeois,liketheJew,remainsonlysophisticallyinthesphereofpoliticallife,justasthecitoyen[‘citizen’inFrench,i.e.,theparticipantinpoliticallife]onlysophisticallyremainsaJeworabourgeois.But,thissophistryisnotpersonal.Itisthesophistryofthepoliticalstateitself.Thedifferencebetweenthemerchantandthecitizen[Staatsbürger],betweentheday-laborerandthecitizen,betweenthelandownerandthecitizen,betweenthemerchantandthecitizen,betweenthelivingindividualandthecitizen.Thecontradictioninwhichthereligiousmanfindshimselfwiththepoliticalmanisthesamecontradictioninwhichthebourgeoisfindshimselfwiththecitoyen,andthememberofcivilsocietywithhispoliticallion’sskin.

Thissecularconflict,towhichtheJewishquestionultimatelyreducesitself,therelationbetweenthepoliticalstateanditspreconditions,whetherthesearematerialelements,suchasprivateproperty,etc.,orspiritualelements,suchascultureorreligion,theconflictbetweenthegeneralinterestandprivateinterest,theschismbetweenthepoliticalstateandcivilsociety–thesesecularantithesesBauerallowstopersist,whereasheconductsapolemicagainsttheirreligiousexpression.

“Itispreciselythebasisofcivilsociety,theneedthatensuresthecontinuanceofthissocietyandguaranteesitsnecessity,whichexposesitsexistencetocontinualdangers,maintainsinitanelementofuncertainty,andproducesthatcontinuallychangingmixtureofpovertyandriches,ofdistressandprosperity,andbringsaboutchangeingeneral.”(p.8)

Comparethewholesection:“CivilSociety”(pp.8-9),whichhasbeendrawnupalongthebasiclinesofHegel’sphilosophyoflaw.Civilsociety,initsoppositiontothepoliticalstate,isrecognizedasnecessary,becausethepoliticalstateisrecognizedasnecessary.

Politicalemancipationis,ofcourse,abigstepforward.True,itisnotthefinalformofhumanemancipationingeneral,butitisthefinalformofhumanemancipationwithinthehithertoexistingworldorder.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatwearespeakinghereofreal,practicalemancipation.

Manemancipateshimselfpoliticallyfromreligionbybanishingitfromthesphereofpubliclawtothatofprivatelaw.Religionisnolongerthespiritofthestate,inwhichmanbehaves–althoughinalimitedway,inaparticularform,andinaparticularsphere–asaspecies-being,incommunitywithothermen.Religionhasbecomethespiritofcivilsociety,ofthesphereofegoism,ofbellumomniumcontraomnes[2].Itisnolongertheessenceofcommunity,buttheessenceofdifference.Ithasbecometheexpressionofman’sseparationfromhiscommunity,fromhimselfandfromothermen–asitwasoriginally.Itisonlytheabstractavowalofspecificperversity,privatewhimsy,andarbitrariness.TheendlessfragmentationofreligioninNorthAmerica,forexample,givesitevenexternallytheformofapurelyindividualaffair.Ithasbeenthrustamongthemultitudeofprivateinterestsandejectedfromthecommunityassuch.Butoneshouldbeundernoillusionaboutthelimitsofpoliticalemancipation.Thedivisionofthehumanbeingintoapublicmanandaprivateman,thedisplacementofreligionfromthestateintocivilsociety,thisisnotastageofpoliticalemancipationbutitscompletion;thisemancipation,therefore,neitherabolishedtherealreligiousnessofman,norstrivestodoso.

ThedecompositionofmanintoJewandcitizen,Protestantandcitizen,religiousmanandcitizen,isneitheradeceptiondirectedagainstcitizenhood,norisitacircumventionofpoliticalemancipation,itispoliticalemancipationitself,thepoliticalmethodofemancipatingoneselffromreligion.Ofcourse,inperiodswhenthepoliticalstateassuchisbornviolentlyoutofcivilsociety,whenpoliticalliberationistheforminwhichmenstrivetoachievetheirliberation,thestatecanandmustgoasfarastheabolitionofreligion,thedestructionofreligion.Butitcandosoonlyinthesamewaythatitproceedstotheabolitionofprivateproperty,tothemaximum,toconfiscation,toprogressivetaxation,justasitgoesasfarastheabolitionoflife,theguillotine.Attimesofspecialself-confidence,politicallifeseekstosuppressitsprerequisite,civilsocietyandtheelementscomposingthissociety,andtoconstituteitselfastherealspecies-lifeofman,devoidofcontradictions.But,itcanachievethisonlybycomingintoviolentcontradictionwithitsownconditionsoflife,onlybydeclaringtherevolutiontobepermanent,and,therefore,thepoliticaldramanecessarilyendswiththere-establishmentofreligion,privateproperty,andallelementsofcivilsociety,justaswarendswithpeace.

Indeed,theperfectChristianstateisnottheso-calledChristianstate–whichacknowledgesChristianityasitsbasis,asthestatereligion,and,therefore,adoptsanexclusiveattitudetowardsotherreligions.Onthecontrary,theperfectChristianstateistheatheisticstate,thedemocraticstate,thestatewhichrelegatesreligiontoaplaceamongtheotherelementsofcivilsociety.Thestatewhichisstilltheological,whichstillofficiallyprofessesChristianityasitscreed,whichstilldoesnotdaretoproclaimitselfasastate,has,initsrealityasastate,notyetsucceededinexpressingthehumanbasis–ofwhichChristianityisthehigh-flownexpression–inasecular,humanform.Theso-calledChristianstateissimplynothingmorethananon-state,sinceitisnotChristianityasareligion,butonlythehumanbackgroundoftheChristianreligion,whichcanfinditsexpressioninactualhumancreations.

Theso-calledChristianstateistheChristiannegationofthestate,butbynomeansthepoliticalrealizationofChristianity.ThestatewhichstillprofessesChristianityintheformofreligion,doesnotyetprofessitintheformappropriatetothestate,foritstillhasareligiousattitudetowardsreligion–thatistosay,itisnotthetrueimplementationofthehumanbasisofreligion,becauseitstillreliesontheunreal,imaginaryformofthishumancore.Theso-calledChristianstateistheimperfectstate,andtheChristianreligionisregardedbyitasthe supplementation andsanctificationofitsimperfection.FortheChristianstate,therefore,religionnecessarilybecomesameans;hence,itisahypocriticalstate.Itmakesagreatdifferencewhetherthecompletestate,becauseofthedefectinherentinthegeneralnatureofthestate,countsreligionamongitspresuppositions,orwhethertheincompletestate,becauseofthedefectinherentinitsparticularexistenceasadefectivestate,declaresthatreligionisitsbasis.Inthelattercase,religionbecomesimperfectpolitics.Intheformercase,theimperfectionevenofconsummatepoliticsbecomesevidentinreligion.Theso-calledChristianstateneedstheChristianreligioninordertocompleteitselfasastate.Thedemocraticstate,therealstate,doesnotneedreligionforitspoliticalcompletion.Onthecontrary,itcandisregardreligionbecauseinitthehumanbasisofreligionisrealizedinasecularmanner.Theso-calledChristianstate,ontheotherhand,hasapoliticalattitudetoreligionandareligiousattitudetopolitics.Bydegradingtheformsofthestatetomeresemblance,itequallydegradesreligiontomeresemblance.

Inordertomakethiscontradictionclearer,letusconsiderBauer’sprojectionoftheChristianstate,aprojectionbasedonhisobservationoftheChristian-Germanstate.

“Recently,”saysBauer,“inordertoprovetheimpossibilityornon-existenceofaChristianstate,referencehasfrequentlybeenmadetothosesayingsintheGospelwithwhichthe[present-day]statenotonlydoesnotcomply,butcannotpossiblycomply,ifitdoesnotwanttodissolveitselfcompletely[asastate].”“Butthemattercannotbedisposedofsoeasily.WhatdotheseGospelsayingsdemand?Supernaturalrenunciationofself,submissiontotheauthorityofrevelation,aturning-awayfromthestate,theabolitionofsecularconditions.Well,theChristianstatedemandsandaccomplishesallthat.IthasassimilatedthespiritoftheGospel,andifitdoesnotreproducethisspiritinthesametermsastheGospel,thatoccursonlybecauseitexpressesthisspiritinpoliticalforms,i.e.,informswhich,itistrue,aretakenfromthepoliticalsysteminthisworld,butwhichinthereligiousrebirththattheyhavetoundergobecomedegradedtoameresemblance.Thisisaturning-awayfromthestatewhilemakinguseofpoliticalformsforitsrealization.”(p.55)

BauerthenexplainsthatthepeopleofaChristianstateisonlyanon-people,nolongerhavingawillofitsown,butwhosetrueexistenceliesintheleadertowhomitissubjected,althoughthisleaderbyhisoriginandnatureisalientoit–i.e.,givenbyGodandimposedonthepeoplewithoutanyco-operationonitspart.Bauerdeclaresthatthelawsofsuchapeoplearenotitsowncreation,butareactualrevelations,thatitssupremechiefneedsprivilegedintermediarieswiththepeopleinthestrictsense,withthemasses,andthatthemassesthemselvesaredividedintoamultitudeofparticulargroupingswhichareformedanddeterminedbychance,whicharedifferentiatedbytheirinterests,theirparticularpassionsandprejudices,andobtainpermissionasaprivilege,toisolatethemselvesfromoneanother,etc.(p.56)

However,Bauerhimselfsays:

“Politics,ifitistobenothingbutreligion,oughtnottobepolitics,justasthecleaningofsaucepans,ifitistobeacceptedasareligiousmatter,oughtnottoberegardedasamatterofdomesticeconomy.”(p.108)

IntheChristian-Germanstate,however,religionisan“economicmatter”justas“economicmatters”belongtothesphereofreligion.ThedominationofreligionintheChristian-Germanstateisthereligionofdomination.

Theseparationofthe“spiritoftheGospel”fromthe“letteroftheGospel”isanirreligiousact.AstatewhichmakestheGospelspeakinthelanguageofpolitics–thatis,inanotherlanguagethanthatoftheHolyGhost–commitssacrilege,ifnotinhumaneyes,thenintheeyesofitsownreligion.ThestatewhichacknowledgesChristianityasitssupremecriterion,andtheBibleasitsCharter,mustbeconfrontedwiththewordsofHolyScripture,foreverywordofScriptureisholy.Thisstate,aswellasthehumanrubbishonwhichitisbased,iscaughtinapainfulcontradictionthatisinsolublefromthestandpointofreligiousconsciousnesswhenitisreferredtothosesayingsoftheGospelwithwhichit“notonlydoesnotcomply,butcannotpossiblycomply,ifitdoesnotwanttodissolveitselfcompletelyasastate.”Andwhydoesitnotwanttodissolveitselfcompletely?Thestateitselfcannotgiveananswereithertoitselfortoothers.Initsownconsciousness,theofficialChristianstateisanimperative,therealizationofwhichisunattainable,thestatecanasserttherealityofitsexistenceonlybylyingtoitself,andthereforealwaysremainsinitsowneyesanobjectofdoubt,anunreliable,problematicobject.Criticismis,therefore,fullyjustifiedinforcingthestatethatreliesontheBibleintoamentalderangementinwhichitnolongerknowswhetheritisanillusionorareality,andinwhichtheinfamyofitssecularaims,forwhichreligionservesasacloak,comesintoinsolubleconflictwiththesincerityofitsreligiousconsciousness,forwhichreligionappearsastheaimoftheworld.ThisstatecanonlysaveitselffromitsinnertormentifitbecomesthepoliceagentoftheCatholicChurch.Inrelationtothechurch,whichdeclaresthesecularpowertobeitsservant,thestateispowerless,thesecularpowerwhichclaimstobetheruleofthereligiousspiritispowerless.

Itis,indeed,estrangementwhichmattersintheso-calledChristianstate,butnotman.Theonlymanwhocounts,theking,isabeingspecificallydifferentfromothermen,andis,moreover,areligiousbeing,directlylinkedwithheaven,withGod.Therelationshipswhichprevailherearestillrelationshipsdependentoffaith.Thereligiousspirit,therefore,isstillnotreallysecularized.

But,furthermore,thereligiousspiritcannotbereallysecularized,forwhatisitinitselfbutthenon-secularformofastageinthedevelopmentofthehumanmind?Thereligiousspiritcanonlybesecularizedinsofarasthestageofdevelopmentofthehumanmindofwhichitisthereligiousexpressionmakesitsappearanceandbecomesconstitutedinitssecularform.Thistakesplaceinthedemocraticstate.NotChristianity,butthehumanbasisofChristianityisthebasisofthisstate.Religionremainstheideal,non-secularconsciousnessofitsmembers,becausereligionistheidealformofthestageofhumandevelopmentachievedinthisstate.

Themembersofthepoliticalstatearereligiousowingtothedualismbetweenindividuallifeandspecies-life,betweenthelifeofcivilsocietyandpoliticallife.Theyarereligiousbecausementreatthepoliticallifeofthestate,anareabeyondtheirrealindividuality,asifitweretheirtruelife.Theyarereligiousinsofarasreligionhereisthespiritofcivilsociety,expressingtheseparationandremotenessofmanfromman.PoliticaldemocracyisChristiansinceinitman,notmerelyonemanbuteveryman,ranksassovereign,asthehighestbeing,butitismaninhisuncivilized,unsocialform,maninhisfortuitousexistence,manjustasheis,manashehasbeencorruptedbythewholeorganizationofoursociety,whohaslosthimself,beenalienated,andhandedovertotheruleofinhumanconditionsandelements–inshort,manwhoisnotyetarealspecies-being.Thatwhichisacreationoffantasy,adream,apostulateofChristianity,i.e.,thesovereigntyofman–butmanasanalienbeingdifferentfromtherealman–becomes,indemocracy,tangiblereality,presentexistence,andsecularprinciple.

Intheperfectdemocracy,thereligiousandtheologicalconsciousnessitselfisinitsowneyesthemorereligiousandthemoretheologicalbecauseitisapparentlywithoutpoliticalsignificance,withoutworldlyaims,theconcernofadispositionthatshunstheworld,theexpressionofintellectualnarrow-mindedness,theproductofarbitrarinessandfantasy,andbecauseitisalifethatisreallyoftheotherworld.Christianityattains,here,thepracticalexpressionofitsuniversal-religioussignificanceinthatthemostdiverseworldoutlooksaregroupedalongsideoneanotherintheformofChristianityandstillmorebecauseitdoesnotrequireotherpeopletoprofessChristianity,butonlyreligioningeneral,anykindofreligion(cf.Beaumont’sworkquotedabove).Thereligiousconsciousnessrevelsinthewealthofreligiouscontradictionsandreligiousdiversity.

Wehave,thus,shownthatpoliticalemancipationfromreligionleavesreligioninexistence,althoughnotaprivilegedreligion.Thecontradictioninwhichtheadherentofaparticularreligionfindshimselfinvolvedinrelationtohiscitizenshipisonlyoneaspectoftheuniversalsecularcontradictionbetweenthepoliticalstateandcivilsociety.TheconsummationoftheChristianstateisthestatewhichacknowledgesitselfasastateanddisregardsthereligionofitsmembers.Theemancipationofthestatefromreligionisnottheemancipationoftherealmanfromreligion.

Therefore,wedonotsaytotheJews,asBauerdoes:YoucannotbeemancipatedpoliticallywithoutemancipatingyourselvesradicallyfromJudaism.Onthecontrary,wetellthem:BecauseyoucanbeemancipatedpoliticallywithoutrenouncingJudaismcompletelyandincontrovertibly,politicalemancipationitselfisnothumanemancipation.IfyouJewswanttobeemancipatedpolitically,withoutemancipatingyourselveshumanly,thehalf-heartedapproachandcontradictionisnotinyoualone,itisinherentinthenatureandcategoryofpoliticalemancipation.Ifyoufindyourselfwithintheconfinesofthiscategory,youshareinageneralconfinement.Justasthestateevangelizeswhen,althoughitisastate,itadoptsaChristianattitudetowardstheJews,sotheJewactspoliticallywhen,althoughaJew,hedemandscivicrights.

But,ifaman,althoughaJew,canbeemancipatedpoliticallyandreceivecivicrights,canhelayclaimtotheso-calledrightsofmanandreceivethem?Bauerdeniesit.

“ThequestioniswhethertheJewassuch,thatis,theJewwhohimselfadmitsthatheiscompelledbyhistruenaturetolivepermanentlyinseparationfromothermen,iscapableofreceivingtheuniversalrightsofmanandofconcedingthemtoothers.”

“FortheChristianworld,theideaoftherightsofmanwasonlydiscoveredinthelastcentury.Itisnotinnateinmen;onthecontrary,itisgainedonlyinastruggleagainstthehistoricaltraditionsinwhichhithertomanwasbroughtup.Thustherightsofmanarenotagiftofnature,notalegacyfrompasthistory,buttherewardofthestruggleagainsttheaccidentofbirthandagainsttheprivilegeswhichuptonowhavebeenhandeddownbyhistoryfromgenerationtogeneration.Theserightsaretheresultofculture,andonlyonewhohasearnedanddeservedthemcanpossessthem.”

“CantheJewreallytakepossessionofthem?AslongasheisaJew,therestrictednaturewhichmakeshimaJewisboundtotriumphoverthehumannaturewhichshouldlinkhimasamanwithothermen,andwillseparatehimfromnon-Jews.HedeclaresbythisseparationthattheparticularnaturewhichmakeshimaJewishistrue,highestnature,beforewhichhumannaturehastogiveway.”

“Similarly,theChristianasaChristiancannotgranttherightsofman.”(p.19-20)

AccordingtoBauer,manhastosacrificethe“privilegeoffaith”tobeabletoreceivetheuniversalrightsofman.Letusexamine,foramoment,theso-calledrightsofman–tobeprecise,therightsofmanintheirauthenticform,intheformwhichtheyhaveamongthosewhodiscoveredthem,theNorthAmericansandtheFrench.Theserightsofmanare,inpart,politicalrights,rightswhichcanonlybeexercisedincommunitywithothers.Theircontentisparticipationinthecommunity,andspecificallyinthepoliticalcommunity,inthelifeofthestate.Theycomewithinthecategoryofpoliticalfreedom,thecategoryofcivicrights,which,aswehaveseen,innowaypresupposetheincontrovertibleandpositiveabolitionofreligion–nor,therefore,ofJudaism.Thereremainstobeexaminedtheotherpartoftherightsofman–thedroitsd’homme,insofarasthesedifferfromthedroitsd’citoyen.

Includedamongthemisfreedomofconscience,therighttopracticeanyreligiononechooses.Theprivilegeoffaithisexpresslyrecognizedeitherasarightofmanorastheconsequenceofarightofman,thatofliberty.

Déclarationdesdroitsdel’droitsetducitoyen,1791,Article10:“Nooneistobesubjectedtoannoyancebecauseofhisopinions,evenreligiousopinions.”“Thefreedomofeverymantopracticethereligionofwhichheisanadherent.”

DeclarationoftheRightsofMan,etc.,1793,includesamongtherightsofman,Article7:“Thefreeexerciseofreligion.”Indeed,inregardtoman’srighttoexpresshisthoughtsandopinions,toholdmeetings,andtoexercisehisreligion,itisevenstated:“Thenecessityofproclaimingtheserightspresupposeseithertheexistenceortherecentmemoryofdespotism.”ComparetheConstitutionof1795,SectionXIV,Article354.

ConstitutionofPennsylvania,Article9,§3:“AllmenhavereceivedfromnaturetheimprescriptiblerighttoworshiptheAlmightyaccordingtothedictatesoftheirconscience,andnoonecanbelegallycompelledtofollow,establish,orsupportagainsthiswillanyreligionorreligiousministry.Nohumanauthoritycan,inanycircumstances,interveneinamatterofconscienceorcontroltheforcesofthesoul.”

ConstitutionofNewHampshire,Article5and6:“Amongthesenaturalrightssomearebynatureinalienablesincenothingcanreplacethem.Therightsofconscienceareamongthem.”(Beaumont,op.cit.,pp.213,214)

Incompatibilitybetweenreligionandtherightsofmanistosuchadegreeabsentfromtheconceptoftherightsofmanthat,onthecontrary,aman’srighttobereligious,inanywayhechooses,topractisehisownparticularreligion,isexpresslyincludedamongtherightsofman.Theprivilegeoffaithisauniversalrightofman.

Thedroitsdel’homme,therightsofman,are,assuch,distinctfromthedroitsducitoyen,therightsofthecitizen.Whoishommeasdistinctfromcitoyen?Noneotherthanthememberofcivilsociety.Whyisthememberofcivilsocietycalled“man,”simplyman;whyarehisrightscalledtherightsofman?Howisthisfacttobeexplained?Fromtherelationshipbetweenthepoliticalstateandcivilsociety,fromthenatureofpoliticalemancipation.

Aboveall,wenotethefactthattheso-calledrightsofman,thedroitsdel’hommeasdistinctfromthedroitsducitoyen,arenothingbuttherightsofamemberofcivilsociety–i.e.,therightsofegoisticman,ofmanseparatedfromothermenandfromthecommunity.LetushearwhatthemostradicalConstitution,theConstitutionof1793,hastosay:

DeclarationoftheRightsofManandoftheCitizen.
Article2.“Theserights,etc.,(thenaturalandimprescriptiblerights)are:equality,liberty,security,property.”

Whatconstitutesliberty?

Article6.“Libertyisthepowerwhichmanhastodoeverythingthatdoesnotharmtherightsofothers,”or,accordingtotheDeclarationoftheRightsofManof1791:“Libertyconsistsinbeingabletodoeverythingwhichdoesnotharmothers.”

Liberty,therefore,istherighttodoeverythingthatharmsnooneelse.Thelimitswithinwhichanyonecanactwithoutharmingsomeoneelsearedefinedbylaw,justastheboundarybetweentwofieldsisdeterminedbyaboundarypost.Itisaquestionofthelibertyofmanasanisolatedmonad,withdrawnintohimself.WhyistheJew,accordingtoBauer,incapableofacquiringtherightsofman?

“AslongasheisaJew,therestrictednaturewhichmakeshimaJewisboundtotriumphoverthehumannaturewhichshouldlinkhimasamanwithothermen,andwillseparatehimfromnon-Jews.”

But,therightofmantolibertyisbasednotontheassociationofmanwithman,butontheseparationofmanfromman.Itistherightofthisseparation,therightoftherestrictedindividual,withdrawnintohimself.

Thepracticalapplicationofman’srighttolibertyisman’srighttoprivateproperty.

Whatconstitutesman’srighttoprivateproperty?

Article16.(Constitutionof1793):“Therightofpropertyisthatwhicheverycitizenhasofenjoyingandofdisposingathisdiscretionofhisgoodsandincome,ofthefruitsofhislaborandindustry.”

Therightofmantoprivatepropertyis,therefore,therighttoenjoyone’spropertyandtodisposeofitatone’sdiscretion(àsongré),withoutregardtoothermen,independentlyofsociety,therightofself-interest.Thisindividuallibertyanditsapplicationformthebasisofcivilsociety.Itmakeseverymanseeinothermennottherealizationofhisownfreedom,butthebarriertoit.But,aboveall,itproclaimstherightofman

“ofenjoyingandofdisposingathisdiscretionofhisgoodsandincome,ofthefruitsofhislaborandindustry.”

Thereremaintheotherrightsofman:égalitéandsûreté.

Equality,usedhereinitsnon-politicalsense,isnothingbuttheequalityofthelibertédescribedabove–namely:eachmanistothesameextentregardedassuchaself-sufficientmonad.TheConstitutionof1795definestheconceptofthisequality,inaccordancewiththissignificance,asfollows:

Article3(Constitutionof1795):“Equalityconsistsinthelawbeingthesameforall,whetheritprotectsorpunishes.”

Andsecurity?

Article8(Constitutionof1793):“Securityconsistsintheprotectionaffordedbysocietytoeachofitsmembersforthepreservationofhisperson,hisrights,andhisproperty.”

Securityisthehighestsocialconceptofcivilsociety,theconceptofpolice,expressingthefactthatthewholeofsocietyexistsonlyinordertoguaranteetoeachofitsmembersthepreservationofhisperson,hisrights,andhisproperty.ItisinthissensethatHegelcallscivilsociety“thestateofneedandreason.”

Theconceptofsecuritydoesnotraisecivilsocietyaboveitsegoism.Onthecontrary,securityistheinsuranceofegoism.

Noneoftheso-calledrightsofman,therefore,gobeyondegoisticman,beyondmanasamemberofcivilsociety–thatis,anindividualwithdrawnintohimself,intotheconfinesofhisprivateinterestsandprivatecaprice,andseparatedfromthecommunity.Intherightsofman,heisfarfrombeingconceivedasaspecies-being;onthecontrary,species-likeitself,society,appearsasaframeworkexternaltotheindividuals,asarestrictionoftheiroriginalindependence.Thesolebondholdingthemtogetherisnaturalnecessity,needandprivateinterest,thepreservationoftheirpropertyandtheiregoisticselves.

Itispuzzlingenoughthatapeoplewhichisjustbeginningtoliberateitself,toteardownallthebarriersbetweenitsvarioussections,andtoestablishapoliticalcommunity,thatsuchapeoplesolemnlyproclaims(Declarationof1791)therightsofegoisticmanseparatedfromhisfellowmenandfromthecommunity,andthatindeeditrepeatsthisproclamationatamomentwhenonlythemostheroicdevotioncansavethenation,andisthereforeimperativelycalledfor,atamomentwhenthesacrificeofalltheinterestofcivilsocietymustbetheorderoftheday,andegoismmustbepunishedasacrime.(DeclarationoftheRightsofMan,etc.,of1793)Thisfactbecomesstillmorepuzzlingwhenweseethatthepoliticalemancipatorsgosofarastoreducecitizenship,andthepoliticalcommunity,toameremeansformaintainingtheseso-calledrightsofman,that,therefore,thecitoyenisdeclaredtobetheservantofegotistichomme,thatthesphereinwhichmanactsasacommunalbeingisdegradedtoalevelbelowthesphereinwhichheactsasapartialbeing,andthat,finally,itisnotmanascitoyen,butmanasprivateindividual[bourgeois]whoisconsideredtobetheessentialandtrueman.

“Theaimofallpoliticalassociationisthepreservationofthenaturalandimprescriptiblerightsofman.”(DeclarationoftheRights,etc.,of1791,Article2)

“Governmentisinstitutedinordertoguaranteemantheenjoymentofhisnaturalandimprescriptiblerights.”(Declaration,etc.,of1793,Article1)

Hence,eveninmomentswhenitsenthusiasmstillhasthefreshnessofyouthandisintensifiedtoanextremedegreebytheforceofcircumstances,politicallifedeclaresitselftobeameremeans,whosepurposeisthelifeofcivilsociety.Itistruethatitsrevolutionarypracticeisinflagrantcontradictionwithitstheory.Whereas,forexample,securityisdeclaredoneoftherightsofman,violationoftheprivacyofcorrespondenceisopenlydeclaredtobetheorderoftheday.Whereas“unlimitedfreedomofthepress”(Constitutionof1793,Article122)isguaranteedasaconsequenceoftherightofmantoindividualliberty,freedomofthepressistotallydestroyed,because“freedomofthepressshouldnotbepermittedwhenitendangerspublicliberty.”(“Robespierrejeune,”HistorieparlementairedelaRévolutionfrançaisebyBuchezandRoux,vol.28,p.159)Thatistosay,therefore:Therightofmantolibertyceasestobearightassoonasitcomesintoconflictwithpoliticallife,whereasintheorypoliticallifeisonlytheguaranteeofhumanrights,therightsoftheindividual,andthereforemustbeabandonedassoonasitcomesintocontradictionwithitsaim,withtheserightsofman.But,practiceismerelytheexception,theoryistherule.Butevenifoneweretoregardrevolutionarypracticeasthecorrectpresentationoftherelationship,therewouldstillremainthepuzzleofwhytherelationshipisturnedupside-downinthemindsofthepoliticalemancipatorsandtheaimappearsasthemeans,whilethemeansappearsastheaim.Thisopticalillusionoftheirconsciousnesswouldstillremainapuzzle,althoughnowapsychological,atheoreticalpuzzle.

Thepuzzleiseasilysolved.

Politicalemancipationis,atthesametime,thedissolutionoftheoldsocietyonwhichthestatealienatedfromthepeople,thesovereignpower,isbased.Whatwasthecharacteroftheoldsociety?Itcanbedescribedinoneword–feudalism.Thecharacteroftheoldcivilsocietywasdirectlypolitical–thatistosay,theelementsofcivillife,forexample,property,orthefamily,orthemodeoflabor,wereraisedtothelevelofelementsofpoliticallifeintheformofseigniory,estates,andcorporations.Inthisform,theydeterminedtherelationoftheindividualtothestateasawhole–i.e.,hispoliticalrelation,thatis,hisrelationofseparationandexclusionfromtheothercomponentsofsociety.Forthatorganizationofnationallifedidnotraisepropertyorlabortothelevelofsocialelements;onthecontrary,itcompletedtheirseparationfromthestateasawholeandconstitutedthemasdiscretesocietieswithinsociety.Thus,thevitalfunctionsandconditionsoflifeofcivilsocietyremained,nevertheless,political,althoughpoliticalinthefeudalsense–thatistosay,theysecludedtheindividualfromthestateasawholeandtheyconvertedtheparticularrelationofhiscorporationtothestateasawholeintohisgeneralrelationtothelifeofthenation,justastheyconvertedhisparticularcivilactivityandsituationintohisgeneralactivityandsituation.Asaresultofthisorganization,theunityofthestate,andalsotheconsciousness,will,andactivityofthisunity,thegeneralpowerofthestate,arelikewiseboundtoappearastheparticularaffairofarulerandofhisservants,isolatedfromthepeople.

Thepoliticalrevolutionwhichoverthrewthissovereignpowerandraisedstateaffairstobecomeaffairsofthepeople,whichconstitutedthepoliticalstateasamatterofgeneralconcern,thatis,asarealstate,necessarilysmashedallestates,corporations,guilds,andprivileges,sincetheywereallmanifestationsoftheseparationofthepeoplefromthecommunity.Thepoliticalrevolutiontherebyabolishedthepoliticalcharacterofcivilsociety.Itbrokeupcivilsocietyintoitssimplecomponentparts;ontheonehand,theindividuals;ontheotherhand,thematerialandspiritualelementsconstitutingthecontentofthelifeandsocialpositionoftheseindividuals.Itsetfreethepoliticalspirit,whichhadbeen,asitwere,splitup,partitioned,anddispersedinthevariousblindalleysoffeudalsociety.Itgatheredthedispersedpartsofthepoliticalspirit,freeditfromitsintermixturewithcivillife,andestablisheditasthesphereofthecommunity,thegeneralconcernofthenation,ideallyindependentofthoseparticularelementsofcivillife.Aperson’sdistinctactivityanddistinctsituationinlifewerereducedtoamerelyindividualsignificance.Theynolongerconstitutedthegeneralrelationoftheindividualtothestateasawhole.Publicaffairsassuch,ontheotherhand,becamethegeneralaffairofeachindividual,andthepoliticalfunctionbecametheindividual’sgeneralfunction.

But,thecompletionoftheidealismofthestatewasatthesametimethecompletionofthematerialismofcivilsociety.Throwingoffthepoliticalyokemeantatthesametimethrowingoffthebondswhichrestrainedtheegoisticspiritofcivilsociety.Politicalemancipationwas,atthesametime,theemancipationofcivilsocietyfrompolitics,fromhavingeventhesemblanceofauniversalcontent.

Feudalsocietywasresolvedintoitsbasicelement–man,butmanashereallyformeditsbasis–egoisticman.

Thisman,thememberofcivilsociety,isthusthebasis,theprecondition,ofthepoliticalstate.Heisrecognizedassuchbythisstateintherightsofman.

Thelibertyofegoisticmanandtherecognitionofthisliberty,however,israthertherecognitionoftheunrestrainedmovementofthespiritualandmaterialelementswhichformthecontentofhislife.

Hence,manwasnotfreedfromreligion,hereceivedreligiousfreedom.Hewasnotfreedfromproperty,hereceivedfreedomtoownproperty.Hewasnotfreedfromtheegoismofbusiness,hereceivedfreedomtoengageinbusiness.

Theestablishmentofthepoliticalstateandthedissolutionofcivilsocietyintoindependentindividuals–whoserelationwithoneanotheronlaw,justastherelationsofmeninthesystemofestatesandguildsdependedonprivilege–isaccomplishedbyoneandthesameact.Manasamemberofcivilsociety,unpoliticalman,inevitablyappears,however,asthenaturalman.The“rightsofman”appearsas“naturalrights,”becauseconsciousactivityisconcentratedonthepoliticalact.Egoisticmanisthepassiveresultofthedissolvedsociety,aresultthatissimplyfoundinexistence,anobjectofimmediatecertainty,thereforeanaturalobject.Thepoliticalrevolutionresolvescivillifeintoitscomponentparts,withoutrevolutionizingthesecomponentsthemselvesorsubjectingthemtocriticism.Itregardscivilsociety,theworldofneeds,labor,privateinterests,civillaw,asthebasisofitsexistence,asapreconditionnotrequiringfurthersubstantiationandthereforeasitsnaturalbasis.Finally,manasamemberofcivilsocietyisheldtobemaninhissensuous,individual,immediateexistence,whereaspoliticalmanisonlyabstract,artificialman,manasanallegorical,juridicalperson.Therealmanisrecognizedonlyintheshapeoftheegoisticindividual,thetruemanisrecognizedonlyintheshapeoftheabstractcitizen.

Therefore,Rousseaucorrectlydescribedtheabstractideaofpoliticalmanasfollows:

“Whoeverdaresundertaketoestablishapeople’sinstitutionsmustfeelhimselfcapableofchanging,asitwere,humannature,oftransformingeachindividual,whobyhimselfisacompleteandsolitarywhole,intoapartofalargerwhole,fromwhich,inasense,theindividualreceiveshislifeandhisbeing,ofsubstitutingalimitedandmentalexistenceforthephysicalandindependentexistence.Hehastotakefrommanhisownpowers,andgivehiminexchangealienpowerswhichhecannotemploywithoutthehelpofothermen.”

Allemancipationisareductionofthehumanworldandrelationshipstomanhimself.

Politicalemancipationisthereductionofman,ontheonehand,toamemberofcivilsociety,toanegoistic,independentindividual,and,ontheotherhand,toacitizen,ajuridicalperson.

Onlywhenthereal,individualmanre-absorbsinhimselftheabstractcitizen,andasanindividualhumanbeinghasbecomeaspecies-beinginhiseverydaylife,inhisparticularwork,andinhisparticularsituation,onlywhenmanhasrecognizedandorganizedhis“ownpowers”associalpowers,and,consequently,nolongerseparatessocialpowerfromhimselfintheshapeofpoliticalpower,onlythenwillhumanemancipationhavebeenaccomplished.

1II.CapacityofPresent-dayJewsandChristianstoBecomeFree

IIBrunoBauer,“TheCapacityofPresent-dayJewsandChristianstoBecomeFree,”EinundzwanzigBogenausderSchweiz,pp.56-71

ItisinthisformthatBauerdealswiththerelationbetweentheJewishandtheChristianreligions,andalsowiththeirrelationtocriticism.Theirrelationtocriticismistheirrelation“tothecapacitytobecomefree.”

Theresultarrivedatis:

“TheChristianhastosurmountonlyonestage,namely,thatofhisreligion,inordertogiveupreligionaltogether,”

andthereforebecomefree.

“TheJew,ontheotherhand,hastobreaknotonlywithhisJewishnature,butalsowiththedevelopmenttowardsperfectinghisreligion,adevelopmentwhichhasremainedalientohim.”(p.71)

Thus,BauerheretransformsthequestionofJewishemancipationintoapurelyreligiousquestion.ThetheologicalproblemastowhethertheJewortheChristianhasthebetterprospectofsalvationisrepeatedhereintheenlightenedform:whichofthemismorecapableofemancipation.Nolongeristhequestionasked:IsitJudaismorChristianitythatmakesamanfree?Onthecontrary,thequestionisnow:Whichmakesmanfreer,thenegationofJudaismorthenegationofChristianity?

“IftheJewswanttobecomefree,theyshouldprofessbeliefnotinChristianity,butinthedissolutionofChristianity,inthedissolutionofreligioningeneral,thatistosay,inenlightenment,criticism,anditsconsequences,freehumanity.”(p.70)

FortheJew,itisstillamatterofaprofessionoffaith,butnolongeraprofessionofbeliefinChristianity,butofbeliefinChristianityindissolution.

BauerdemandsoftheJewsthattheyshouldbreakwiththeessenceoftheChristianreligion,ademandwhich,ashesayshimself,doesnotariseoutofthedevelopmentofJudaism.

SinceBauer,attheendofhisworkontheJewishquestion,hadconceivedJudaismonlyascrudereligiouscriticismofChristianity,andthereforesawinit“merely”areligioussignificance,itcouldbeforeseenthattheemancipationoftheJews,too,wouldbetransformedintoaphilosophical-theologicalact.

Bauerconsidersthattheideal,abstractnatureoftheJew,hisreligion,ishisentirenature.Hence,herightlyconcludes:

“TheJewcontributesnothingtomankindifhehimselfdisregardshisnarrowlaw,”ifheinvalidateshisentireJudaism.(p.65)

Accordingly,therelationbetweenJewsandChristiansbecomesthefollowing:thesoleinterestoftheChristianintheemancipationoftheJewisageneralhumaninterest,atheoreticalinterest.JudaismisafactthatoffendsthereligiouseyeoftheChristian.Assoonashiseyeceasestobereligious,thisfactceasestobeoffensive.TheemancipationoftheJewis,initself,notataskfortheChristian.

TheJew,ontheotherhand,inordertoemancipatehimself,hastocarryoutnotonlyhisownwork,butalsothatoftheChristian–i.e.,theCritiqueoftheEvangelicalHistoryoftheSynopticsandtheLifeofJesus,etc.

“Itisuptothemtodealwithit:theythemselveswilldecidetheirfate;buthistoryisnottobetrifledwith.”(p.71)

Wearetryingtobreakwiththetheologicalformulationofthequestion.Forus,thequestionoftheJew’scapacityforemancipationbecomesthequestion:WhatparticularsocialelementhastobeovercomeinordertoabolishJudaism?Forthepresent-dayJew’scapacityforemancipationistherelationofJudaismtotheemancipationofthemodernworld.ThisrelationnecessarilyresultsfromthespecialpositionofJudaisminthecontemporaryenslavedworld.

Letusconsidertheactual,worldlyJew–nottheSabbathJew,asBauerdoes,buttheeverydayJew.

LetusnotlookforthesecretoftheJewinhisreligion,butletuslookforthesecretofhisreligionintherealJew.

WhatisthesecularbasisofJudaism?Practicalneed,self-interest.WhatistheworldlyreligionoftheJew?Huckstering.WhatishisworldlyGod?Money.

Verywellthen!Emancipationfromhucksteringandmoney,consequentlyfrompractical,realJudaism,wouldbetheself-emancipationofourtime.

Anorganizationofsocietywhichwouldabolishthepreconditionsforhuckstering,andthereforethepossibilityofhuckstering,wouldmaketheJewimpossible.Hisreligiousconsciousnesswouldbedissipatedlikeathinhazeinthereal,vitalairofsociety.Ontheotherhand,iftheJewrecognizesthatthispracticalnatureofhisisfutileandworkstoabolishit,heextricateshimselffromhispreviousdevelopmentandworksforhumanemancipationassuchandturnsagainstthesupremepracticalexpressionofhumanself-estrangement.

WerecognizeinJudaism,therefore,ageneralanti-socialelementofthepresenttime,anelementwhichthroughhistoricaldevelopment–towhichinthisharmfulrespecttheJewshavezealouslycontributed–hasbeenbroughttoitspresenthighlevel,atwhichitmustnecessarilybegintodisintegrate.

Inthefinalanalysis,theemancipationoftheJewsistheemancipationofmankindfromJudaism.

TheJewhasalreadyemancipatedhimselfinaJewishway.

“TheJew,whoinVienna,forexample,isonlytolerated,determinesthefateofthewholeEmpirebyhisfinancialpower.TheJew,whomayhavenorightsinthesmallestGermanstate,decidesthefateofEurope.WhilecorporationsandguildsrefusetoadmitJews,orhavenotyetadoptedafavorableattitudetowardsthem,theaudacityofindustrymocksattheobstinacyofthematerialinstitutions.”(BrunoBauer,TheJewishQuestion,p.114)

Thisisnoisolatedfact.TheJewhasemancipatedhimselfinaJewishmanner,notonlybecausehehasacquiredfinancialpower,butalsobecause,throughhimandalsoapartfromhim,moneyhasbecomeaworldpowerandthepracticalJewishspirithasbecomethepracticalspiritoftheChristiannations.TheJewshaveemancipatedthemselvesinsofarastheChristianshavebecomeJews.

CaptainHamilton,forexample,reports:

“ThedevoutandpoliticallyfreeinhabitantofNewEnglandisakindofLaocoönwhomakesnottheleastefforttoescapefromtheserpentswhicharecrushinghim.Mammonishisidolwhichheadoresnotonlywithhislipsbutwiththewholeforceofhisbodyandmind.InhisviewtheworldisnomorethanaStockExchange,andheisconvincedthathehasnootherdestinyherebelowthantobecomericherthanhisneighbor.Tradehasseizeduponallhisthoughts,andhehasnootherrecreationthantoexchangeobjects.Whenhetravelshecarries,sotospeak,hisgoodsandhiscounteronhisbackandtalksonlyofinterestandprofit.Ifhelosessightofhisownbusinessforaninstantitisonlyinordertopryintothebusinessofhiscompetitors.”

Indeed,inNorthAmerica,thepracticaldominationofJudaismovertheChristianworldhasachievedasitsunambiguousandnormalexpressionthatthepreachingoftheGospelitselfandtheChristianministryhavebecomearticlesoftrade,andthebankrupttraderdealsintheGospeljustastheGospelpreacherwhohasbecomerichgoesinforbusinessdeals.

“Themanwhoyouseeattheheadofarespectablecongregationbeganasatrader;hisbusinesshavingfailed,hebecameaminister.Theotherbeganasapriestbutassoonashehadsomemoneyathisdisposalheleftthepulpittobecomeatrader.Intheeyesofverymanypeople,thereligiousministryisaveritablebusinesscareer.”(Beaumont,op.cit.,pp.185,186)

AccordingtoBauer,itis

“afictitiousstateofaffairswhenintheorytheJewisdeprivedofpoliticalrights,whereasinpracticehehasimmensepowerandexertshispoliticalinfluenceengros,althoughitiscurtailedendétail.”(DieJudenfrage,p.114)

ThecontradictionthatexistsbetweenthepracticalpoliticalpoweroftheJewandhispoliticalrightsisthecontradictionbetweenpoliticsandthepowerofmoneyingeneral.Althoughtheoreticallytheformerissuperiortothelatter,inactualfactpoliticshasbecometheserfoffinancialpower.

JudaismhashelditsownalongsideChristianity,notonlyasreligiouscriticismofChristianity,notonlyastheembodimentofdoubtinthereligiousderivationofChristianity,butequallybecausethepracticalJewishspirit,Judaism,hasmaintaineditselfandevenattaineditshighestdevelopmentinChristiansociety.TheJew,whoexistsasadistinctmemberofcivilsociety,isonlyaparticularmanifestationoftheJudaismofcivilsociety.

Judaismcontinuestoexistnotinspiteofhistory,butowingtohistory.

TheJewisperpetuallycreatedbycivilsocietyfromitsownentrails.

What,initself,wasthebasisoftheJewishreligion?Practicalneed,egoism.

ThemonotheismoftheJew,therefore,isinrealitythepolytheismofthemanyneeds,apolytheismwhichmakeseventhelavatoryanobjectofdivinelaw.Practicalneed,egoism,istheprincipleofcivilsociety,andassuchappearsinpureformassoonascivilsocietyhasfullygivenbirthtothepoliticalstate.Thegodofpracticalneedandself-interestismoney.

MoneyisthejealousgodofIsrael,infaceofwhichnoothergodmayexist.Moneydegradesallthegodsofman–andturnsthemintocommodities.Moneyistheuniversalself-establishedvalueofallthings.Ithas,therefore,robbedthewholeworld–boththeworldofmenandnature–ofitsspecificvalue.Moneyistheestrangedessenceofman’sworkandman’sexistence,andthisalienessencedominateshim,andheworshipsit.

ThegodoftheJewshasbecomesecularizedandhasbecomethegodoftheworld.ThebillofexchangeistherealgodoftheJew.Hisgodisonlyanillusorybillofexchange.

Theviewofnatureattainedunderthedominationofprivatepropertyandmoneyisarealcontemptfor,andpracticaldebasementof,nature;intheJewishreligion,natureexists,itistrue,butitexistsonlyinimagination.

Itisinthissensethat[ina1524pamphlet]ThomasMünzerdeclaresitintolerable

“thatallcreatureshavebeenturnedintoproperty,thefishesinthewater,thebirdsintheair,theplantsontheearth;thecreatures,too,mustbecomefree.”

Contemptfortheory,art,history,andformanasanendinhimself,whichiscontainedinanabstractformintheJewishreligion,isthereal,consciousstandpoint,thevirtueofthemanofmoney.Thespecies-relationitself,therelationbetweenmanandwoman,etc.,becomesanobjectoftrade!Thewomanisboughtandsold.

ThechimericalnationalityoftheJewisthenationalityofthemerchant,ofthemanofmoneyingeneral.

ThegroundlesslawoftheJewisonlyareligiouscaricatureofgroundlessmoralityandrightingeneral,ofthepurelyformalriteswithwhichtheworldofself-interestsurroundsitself.

Here,too,man’ssupremerelationisthelegalone,hisrelationtolawsthatarevalidforhimnotbecausetheyarelawsofhisownwillandnature,butbecausetheyarethedominantlawsandbecausedeparturefromthemisavenged.

JewishJesuitism,thesamepracticalJesuitismwhichBauerdiscoversintheTalmud,istherelationoftheworldofself-interesttothelawsgoverningthatworld,thechiefartofwhichconsistsinthecunningcircumventionoftheselaws.

Indeed,themovementofthisworldwithinitsframeworkoflawsisboundtobeacontinualsuspensionoflaw.

Judaismcouldnotdevelopfurtherasareligion,couldnotdevelopfurthertheoretically,becausetheworldoutlookofpracticalneedisessentiallylimitedandiscompletedinafewstrokes.

Byitsverynature,thereligionofpracticalneedcouldfinditsconsummationnotintheory,butonlyinpractice,preciselybecauseitstruthispractice.

Judaismcouldnotcreateanewworld;itcouldonlydrawthenewcreationsandconditionsoftheworldintothesphereofitsactivity,becausepracticalneed,therationaleofwhichisself-interest,ispassiveanddoesnotexpandatwill,butfindsitselfenlargedasaresultofthecontinuousdevelopmentofsocialconditions.

Judaismreachesitshighestpointwiththeperfectionofcivilsociety,butitisonlyintheChristianworldthatcivilsocietyattainsperfection.OnlyunderthedominanceofChristianity,whichmakesallnational,natural,moral,andtheoreticalconditionsextrinsictoman,couldcivilsocietyseparateitselfcompletelyfromthelifeofthestate,severallthespecies-tiesofman,putegoismandselfishneedintheplaceofthesespecies-ties,anddissolvethehumanworldintoaworldofatomisticindividualswhoareinimicallyopposedtooneanother.

ChristianitysprangfromJudaism.IthasmergedagaininJudaism.

Fromtheoutset,theChristianwasthetheorizingJew,theJewis,therefore,thepracticalChristian,andthepracticalChristianhasbecomeaJewagain.

ChristianityhadonlyinsemblanceovercomerealJudaism.Itwastoonoble-minded,toospiritualistictoeliminatethecrudityofpracticalneedinanyotherwaythanbyelevationtotheskies.

ChristianityisthesublimethoughtofJudaism,JudaismisthecommonpracticalapplicationofChristianity,butthisapplicationcouldonlybecomegeneralafterChristianityasadevelopedreligionhadcompletedtheoreticallytheestrangementofmanfromhimselfandfromnature.

OnlythencouldJudaismachieveuniversaldominanceandmakealienatedmanandalienatednatureintoalienable,vendibleobjectssubjectedtotheslaveryofegoisticneedandtotrading.

Selling[Veräußerung]isthepracticalaspectofalienation[Entäußerung].Justasman,aslongasheisinthegripofreligion,isabletoobjectifyhisessentialnatureonlybyturningitintosomethingalien,somethingfantastic,sounderthedominationofegoisticneedhecanbeactivepractically,andproduceobjectsinpractice,onlybyputtinghisproducts,andhisactivity,underthedominationofanalienbeing,andbestowingthesignificanceofanalienentity–money–onthem.

Initsperfectedpractice,ChristianegoismofheavenlyblissisnecessarilytransformedintothecorporalegoismoftheJew,heavenlyneedisturnedintoworldneed,subjectivismintoself-interest.WeexplainthetenacityoftheJewnotbyhisreligion,but,onthecontrary,bythehumanbasisofhisreligion–practicalneed,egoism.

SinceincivilsocietytherealnatureoftheJewhasbeenuniversallyrealizedandsecularized,civilsocietycouldnotconvincetheJewoftheunrealityofhisreligiousnature,whichisindeedonlytheidealaspectofpracticalneed.Consequently,notonlyinthePentateuchandtheTalmud,butinpresent-daysocietywefindthenatureofthemodernJew,andnotasanabstractnaturebutasonethatisinthehighestdegreeempirical,notmerelyasanarrownessoftheJew,butastheJewishnarrownessofsociety.

OncesocietyhassucceededinabolishingtheempiricalessenceofJudaism–hucksteringanditspreconditions–theJewwillhavebecomeimpossible,becausehisconsciousnessnolongerhasanobject,becausethesubjectivebasisofJudaism,practicalneed,hasbeenhumanized,andbecausetheconflictbetweenman’sindividual-sensuousexistenceandhisspecies-existencehasbeenabolished.

ThesocialemancipationoftheJewistheemancipationofsocietyfromJudaism.

[1]CivilSociety(inGermanbürgerlicheGesellschaftorbourgeoissociety)referstothesystemofsocialrelationsbasedontheassociationofpeopleindependentlyoftheStateandthefamilywhichfirstemergedinEuropeintheseventeenthcentury.Civilsocietyischaracterisedby"free"labourandacommoditymarket,asystemoflawenforcementandvoluntaryassociation.

SeeEngels'discussionofthetranslationofbürgerlicheGesellschaftinhisLettertoMarx,23rdSeptember1852.

EarlybourgeoisthinkerssuchasThomasHobbes(omnibellumomni,thewarofallagainstall)andJean-JacquesRousseau(TheSocialContract)generallysawCivilSocietyasexpressinghumannatureandtriedtoworkouthowitcouldbemanagedtoavoidcatastrophe.

ItwasHegelwhoshowedinhisPhilosophyofRight,thatitwasthegrowthofCivilSocietywhichwasthemostcharacteristicfeatureofmodernsociety,incontrasttomedievalsocietyinwhichthestatewasinseparablefromthekinshipsystemwhichdeterminedthestationofeverypersoninlifeandeventheiroccupation.

HegelsawCivilSocietyasexpressingtheworkoftheIdea"behindthebacks"ofpeoplewhoweregovernedbyforcesofwhichtheywereunconscious(likeAdamSmith's“invisiblehand”),whereashesawtheStateastheself-consciousactualisationofReason.HegelpromotedtheseparationoftheStatefromCivilSociety,arguingasmanyweretoarguelater,thatthestatehadnobusinessinterferingintheeconomy.

AfterhisearlycritiqueofHegel'spoliticaltheory,Marxdidnotusethisconceptbecauseittendedtoobscurethemorefundamentalrelationsbetweensuperstructureandrelationsofproduction.

Nowadays,theterm"CivilSociety"issometimesusedtorefertotheemergenceofapettybourgeoisieindependentfromtheState,sometimestostrengtheningofthe"ruleoflaw",andsometimestorefertothedevelopmentofvoluntaryassociationindependentlyofcommercialrelations.

[2]Latin,WarofAllagainstAll