Marx believed that human history, on the whole, is such a process: from the individual being just ″the accessory of a definite and limited human conglomerate″ to ″the independence of the people on the basis of the dependence of object″ through the bourgeois' ″political revolution″ and then to ″a real community in which the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association.″ In such a historical perspective, on the one hand, the modern citizenship in a bourgeois state shows its historical limitations, and on the other hand, it also represents a historical progress. Marx's critique of modern citizenship in the modern bourgeois state is not to end the citizenship, but to transform citizenship. The historical limitations of modern citizenship lie in that the person whomthe bourgeois state recognizes through ″human rights″(droits de l'homme) and protects through ″citizenship rights″(droits du citoyen)is just a member of ″civil society″ rather than a member of the ″human society.″ The so-called human rights are just the egoistic rights of members of a civil society. Such rights only focus on formal equality, while ignoring the real social conditions need to realize these rights. However, in the existing structure of the civil society, the distribution of these conditions among its members is structurally unequal. Therefore, the human rights system of the modern bourgeois state, as a matter of fact, recognizes and preserves the privileges of the propertied class through the formal equality of rights, and consequently the substantial inequality in the civil society. The historical progress of modern citizenship is that it replaces the absolute obedience to a monarch with the political system based on the rights of citizenship, liberates its members from the feudal relationship of personal dependence, and makes them become members with personal freedom in the ″civil society.″ Without the personal freedom that modern citizenship affirms and recognizes, there would be no free flow of factors of production, no capitalist development, and hence no material precondition towards ″a real community in which the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association.″ In this regard, the establishment of modern citizenship is an insurmountable step towards human emancipation; in addition, the citizenship in the modern bourgeois state also provides the weapon for the proletariat and its political party to fight for and defend their own interests and to promote the human's emancipation. From the standpoint of Marx's theory, how would hesee the development of modern citizenship in the 20th century, especially the development of social citizenship? In terms of its emphasis on the substantive equality, social citizenship is consistent with Marx's view in the spirit, but this does not mean that Marx would have no criticism against the practice of social citizenship in the 20th century. From the perspective of Marx's theory, the development of social rights shows at least two disadvantages: First, in the western developed countries, social rights became new goods for consumers in the 20th century. What social rights reflect and encourage is consumerism, rather than human emancipation with freedom practice as its value orientation. Second, the social rights of developed capitalist countries in the 20th century were a practice that was carried out and enforced by the state power. When citizens file applications to the authority in order to prove that they are eligible for the welfare rights, they are actually expressing their consent to the existing order of state power. Therefore, the social rights did not become the conditions for citizens' freedom; on the contrary, they lured and seized the citizens' free will and free action, thereby collapsing the social forces, and strengthening the state control.