In his essay, On the Jewish Question, Marx critically responded to Bauer and claimed that there is a need for human emancipation in order for mankind to experience true freedom. Rights are, according to Marx, a concern of the entire human species. Marx made a distinction between political and human emancipation in this essay. And while he gives plenty of definitions and explanations as to what political emancipation is, his distinction of human emancipation is rather vague. Through analyzing what political emancipation is in the areas of the right of men, the egoism of man, and the perfected state, a picture of human emancipation shall begin to emerge as “political emancipation itself is not human emancipation." A few points of uncertainty …show more content…
The rights of men address men as a species-being in the eyes of the law, security threats, and emancipation from religion. Marx is sure to note that this form of emancipation is not all encompassing. Man as a species-being according to law occurs when concepts like birth, religion, ethnicity, and property are not important in determining individual sovereignty. Still, Marx points out that, “All the presuppositions of this egoistic life continue to exist in civil society.” It can be concluded that, human emancipation is the abolition of these power differentials in a formal manner so that they no longer continue to hold influence in the civil society. Also, the rights of man, or political emancipation, liberate man from security threats. As Marx states, “Security is the supreme concept of civil society.” Yet this right of man does not cause civil society to surpass egoism as it guarantees it. As he states on page 43 that, “None of the supposed rights of man, therefore, go beyond the egoistic man,” as well as that the right of man, or political emancipation, is far from generating species beings, it can be assumed that human emancipation would just because political emancipation is not human emancipation. Next, Marx makes the claim that political emancipation does not abolish religion. As he explained, “man was not liberated from religion; he received religious liberty.” For Marx, the state was …show more content…
Marx considers a society in a system of political emancipation as system of liberty, or right to private property, with many material incentives. One thing he points out about the liberty of egoistic men is that it includes, “material elements which form the content of his life.” Marx considers the egoistic man as the foundation of a post-feudal society. He also claims that during the transition from a feudal society into a materialistic society, “The bonds which had restrained the egoistic spirit of civil society were removed.” As stated above, Marx believes that security assures egoism and that man “is seen only in the form of egoistic man.” This type of emancipation, and the egoistic man “[are] far from being considered, in the rights of man, as a species-being.” Thus, political emancipation seems to fall short of true emancipation. This is not only because the “perfect political state” is that of the species-life and not the material life, but also because it goes far beyond the rights of the egoistic man and into the rights of the species. Yet it is not a far stretch to question that if the first extension of emancipation opened society up to egoism, why would a second, and further, extension of emancipation not open society up to even more egoism? A remedy for this natural proclivity for egoism would need to be established. One might say the revolution would be the remedy, but as it would, according to Marx, be