Marx writes: “As a result of this organization, the unity of the state, and also the con-
sciousness, will and activity of this unity, the general power of the state, are likewise bound to
appear as the particular affair of a ruler isolated from the people, and of his servants” (Marx
and Engels, MECW, 3 : 166 ; and MEW, 1 : 368 ).
Marx and Engels, MECW, 3 : 166 (my interpellations); and MEW, 1 : 368.
Marx, KMEW, 235 ; Marx and Engels, MEW, 1 : 371.
Marx and Engels, MEW, 1 : 371.
Marx, KMSW, 20 ; Marx and Engels, MEW, 1 : 369.
Marx and Engels, MEW, 1 : 369 – 70.
Ibid, 371.
Marx and Engels, MECW, 3 : 169 ; and MEW, 1 : 372.
It us unclear why Marx did not publish Hess’s “Über das Geldwesen” (PSS,
329 – 48 ), though he may have been saving it for a later issue, of which there ultimately were
none. Carle bach (Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism, 110 – 24 ) argues vigor-
ously against the many scholars—including Shlomo Avineri, Moses Hess, 115 and 133 ; Au-
guste Cornu and Wolfgang Mönke, “Einleitung,” xxvi, xxxvii, and xlvi; McLellan, YHKM,
155 ; Zvi Rosen, Moses Hess und Karl Marx, 137 – 58 ; Silberner, Moses Hess, 192 ; and Rob-
ert Tucker, Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx, 111 —who see considerable intellectual and
rhetorical borrowing on Marx’s part, especially from Hess’s “Über das Geldwesen.” The
timeline at the heart of Carlebach’s argument, according to which Marx completed “Zur Ju-
denfrage” before departing for Paris and thus before reading Hess’s essay, is belied by Marx
and Engels, MEGA, section 2 , 1 (part 2 ): 650 – 51 , which dates Marx’s writing of “Zur Juden-
frage” to after his move to Paris (between, at the earliest, mid-October and, at the latest, mid-
December 1843 ). As Julius Kovesi (“Moses Hess, Marx, and Money,” 178 ) suggests, it is plau-
sible that Marx could have written the short ZJ 2 quickly after reading Hess’s essay. Waser
(Autonomie des Selbstbewußtseins, 190 – 94 ) likewise sees no evidence of Hess’s influence in
ZJ 1 but strong evidence thereof in ZJ 2 , and he rightly contrasts the care (typical for Marx)
in the elaboration of the argument and engagement with sources in ZJ 1 with the brevity and
lack of engagement with sources in ZJ 2. Whatever the timing of Marx’s reading of Hess’s
essay in relation to his writing of ZJ 2 , however, Hess had already articulated key aspects of
Marx’s argument in “Zur Judenfrage”—including bringing Feuerbach to bear on social life,
the critique of a dualistic structure common to religion and politics, and the critique of the
rights paradigm of the French Revolution—in “Philosophie der Tat” and “Socialismus und
Communismus,” both of which Marx had read with admiration before he wrote “Zur Juden-
frage.”
Hess, “On the Essence of Money,” 190 , 201 ; “ Über das Geldwesen,” PSS, 335 , 343
On Hess’s use of a metaphorics of blood, cannibalism, and human sacrifice, see P. Rose, RA,
313 – 16.
Hess, “On the Essence of Money,” 203 ; “ Über das Geldwesen,” PSS, 345.
I analyze Hess’s Spinozan critique of the institution of the modern sovereign indi-
vidual in chapter 6. Clearly, a great deal in Hess’s “ Über das Geldwesen” pointed Marx in
new directions. Its influence is evident on much of what Marx would soon go on to write,
