Reading
and writing about Marx is a nostalgic experience for me. As a young man
communism held great appeal to me. Perhaps it was the naiveté of idealistic
youth or maybe the desire to cut through the complexity of a harsh world by
believing in a Marxian utopia brought about by Dialectical Materialism? Whatever
the reason, Marxist thought is deeply ingrained in my psyche.
 |
| Karl in 1882 (source: Wikipedia) |
My
fascination with the left wing intellectual tradition was furthered during my
college years in the 1980s. In the 1980s, it was considered fashionable for
professors to adhere to left wing intellectual ideas. Many spoke of their ‘communist’
ideals as if they were a badge of honor ... and, yes it surely was!
Hence,
when I was asked to write a paper on Enlightenment, Kant and Marx for a course titled,
‘The Modern and
the Postmodern (Part 1)’ it brought back fond memories of philosophical
intellectualizing as a student!
My
paper is reproduced below.
Marx: an Outgrowth of Enlightenment
Thought
Karl Marx (1818-83) was an Enlightenment figure. Marx
reached radically different philosophical conclusions about society and the
human condition from those put forward by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) almost a
century earlier. Nonetheless, there is little doubt Marx used reason to develop
his arguments; arguments which he put forward to encourage the betterment of
the world.
Kant, a central figure of the Age of Enlightenment, in his
work “What is Enlightenment?” said “Enlightenment
is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity."[1] Stated
another way and in line with the course syllabus Enlightenment is defined as a
“project to make the world more of a home
for human beings through the use of reason.”[2]
For Kant, always trying to walk a middle path between
evolution and revolution, the use of reason had limits. For example, Kant made
a conscious distinction between knowledge which may be gained by reasoning and
experience, through the ‘scientific’ realm and knowledge which humans are
unable to grasp through experiential / scientific terms (e.g. faith or
religious beliefs). Kant referred to the former, i.e. scientific process, etc.
as the phenomenal side while the latter, i.e. “a posited object or event as it
appears in itself independent of perception by the senses” as the
noumenal world.[3]
For Kant, the noumenal world is where faith resides. In
other words, faith in the religious scriptures and beliefs cannot be validated
through the use of reason. However, that does not necessarily mean God does not
exist because religious ideas and structures exist only in the noumenal world,
not the phenomenal world. Therefore, the existence of God and / or other
supernatural forces cannot be determined via scientific reasoning.
 |
| Statue of Marx and Engels in Shanghai, People's Republic of China (Source: Wikipedia) |
To be sure, Marx had far less place for religion in his
philosophy. Often famously quoted as saying “it [religion] is the opium of the people,” Marx also wrote passages
suggesting religion is an illusion and acts as an obstacle to humans’ achieving
their true state of happiness.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of
the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up
their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition
that requires illusions. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves
around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.[4]
For Marx improving human society and the human condition lay
in economics. Using dialectical reasoning as the basis for his interpretation
of contemporary (mainly English) economists, Marx’s economic determinism model
postulated that “economic
forces determine, shape, and define all political, social, cultural,
intellectual, and technological aspects of a civilization.”[5]
Coupled with Marx’s belief in historical materialism which
stated that history was a constant class struggle between those in power (who
also owned / controlled the means of economic production) and the oppressed
labor force responsible for production, Marx asserted all aspects of society,
including religion, culture, law, etc. were determined by economic forces.
Consequently, for Marx (and his later writing partner
Engels) to improve human society a revolution was required. A revolution would
overthrow the existing order, especially ownership of the means of production,
by which the bulk of oppressed humans suffered alienation and, hence, remained
unhappy. The Communist Manifesto authored by the Marx-Engels duo in 1848
highlighted these beliefs with a call for revolutionary action across Europe.
Kant and Marx did not share many philosophical similarities.
Unlike Kant, Marx did not believe in gradual change. Marx was a revolutionary
while Kant called for gradual change. Through the notion of noumenon Kant made
space for religion in his philosophy. On the other hand, Marx dismissed
religion as one means through which a ruling class maintained society’s status
quo.
Despite these differences Marx was undeniably a figure and a
product of the Enlightenment. Why? Marx believed that the use of reason, a
central notion in the definition of Enlightenment, will improve the world and
better the human condition. However, unlike Kant and other philosophers Marx
was inspired by English economics, German philosophy, and French radicalism to
believe the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from history is that of
inherent contradictions in the economic means of production which will
ultimately only lead to one place: a communist revolution.
[2] Professor
Michael S. Roth, Wesleyan University. The Modern and the Postmodern (I). Week
One, Lecture One transcript.
Posts
