PARIS103opposition to the consequences of the German political regime; it is in
total opposition to its presuppositions. It is, finally, a sphere that cannot
emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of
society and thereby emancipating these other spheres themselves. In a
word it is the complete loss of humanity and this can only recover itself
by a complete redemption of humanity. This dissolution of society, as
a particular class, is the proletariat.^87This passage raises an obvious and crucial question as to the reasons
for Marx's sudden adherence to the cause of the proletariat. Some have
claimed that Marx's description of the proletariat is non-empirical and
thus that its ultimate source is Hegel's philosophy. It has, for example,
been maintained that 'The insight into the world-historical role of the
proletariat is obtained in a purely speculative manner by a "reversal" of
the connection that Hegel had established between different forms
of objective spirit.'^88 Others have claimed that Hegel's insights were funda-
mentally those of a German Protestant and thus that Marx's underlying
schema here was the Christian conception of salvation - the proletariat
played the role of Isaiah's suffering servant:
Through Hegel, the young Marx links up, no doubt unconsciously,
with the soteriological schema underlying the Judaeo-Christian tradition:
the idea of the collective salvation obtained by a particular group, the
theme of salvic destitution, the opposition of injustice that enslaves and
generosity that frees. The proletariat, bringing universal salvation, plays
a role analogous to that of the messianic community or personal saviour
in biblical revelation.^89Or even more explicitly: 'That the universality of the proletariat echoes
the claims of the universal Christ is confirmed by Marx's insistence that the
proletariat will exist, precisely at the point when it becomes universal, in
a scourged and emptied condition - and this, of course, is Marx's variant
of the divine kenosis.'^90 Others have claimed that, since Marx's views are
not empirically based, this shows that they have their origin in a moral
indignation at the condition of the proletariat.
All these interpretations are mistaken - at least as attempts at total
explanation. Marx's proclamation of the key role of the proletariat was a
contemporary application of the analysis of the French Revolution out-
lined earlier in his article, when he talked of a particular social sphere
having 'to be regarded as the notorious crime of the whole society so
that the liberation of this sphere appears as universal self-emancipation'.^91
The proletariat was now in the position the French bourgeoisie had
occupied in 1789. It was now the proletariat which could echo the words
of Sieyes, 'I am nothing and I should be everything'. The context thus