Marx and Anti-Semitism: Simply a tool or a fundamental belief?

By

In On the Jewish Question, Marx claims that the secular democratic state is some sort of contemporary version of the religious illusion, maintaining that it holds the same relation of authority to civil society which exists between the religious sphere and the profane world. (Dupre, Marx’s social critique of culture, 25) However, I challenge the narrow understanding of Marx’s essay simply as a critique of liberalism, and question whether his essay On the Jewish Question can be interpreted as a more fundamental claim against Judaism. Essentially, I am curious as to whether Marx’s characterization of Jews and Judaism is simply a tool/peg on which to hang his criticism of the liberal state, or a reflection of a more fundamentally grounded anti-Semitic belief. This is important not only because Marx’s anti-Semitic views need challenging, but also because Marx’s analysis of the Jewish question leads to an understanding of his notion of emancipation.

After a quick google search, it seems as though this is in serious contention, with numerous scholars involved. Many suggest that it is only a nominal issue and does not signify anything deeper, while others argue that Marx is “shockingly anti-Semitic.” Some argue that Marx's writing on Jews contains anti-Semitic language and stereotypes, such as his characterization of the Jewish religion as "huckstering" and his description of Jews as being driven by self-interest and money. Others, however, argue that Marx was critical of religion in general, not just Judaism, and his writings on Jews need to be understood in the context of his broader critique of capitalism and the social and economic structures that perpetuated oppression and inequality. They also claim that Marx emphasizes repeatedly that he was a staunch critic of all forms of oppression and exploitation, including those faced by Jewish people. 

While I agree that there are aspects of Marx's writing that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic, it is important to approach his work in a nuanced and contextualized way, and to recognize the complexity and ambiguity of his views on Jewish people and Judaism.

Comments

  1. HurleyFebruary 23, 2023 at 9:33 AM

    Trying to understand the basis for your challenge to "the narrow understanding of Marx's essay as simply a critique of liberalism," and the relevance of the challenge as you understand it. If "OJQ" does offer a critique of liberalism, but not simply that, don't we want to understand the critique? What is the basis of your challenge, beyond a google search, and who would possibly deny that there are ambiguities here and nuances regarding Marx's own attitude towards Judaism, and his own Jewish ancestry? In other words, who are you challenging? There are subtle questions here about whether Marx is antiisemitic, and about he extent to which his antisemitism might influence or skew his argument, if he is indeed plausibly understood as being antisemitic. But such questions require substantive engagement with the text and the argument.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more