Kant vs. Marx: History, Society, and Human Nature
Kant vs. Marx: Comparing Theories of History
Taking the theory of history as a thread, let’s compare Marx to Kant. We begin with three similarities between both authors.
Similarities Between Kant and Marx
- For both, history is a dialectical structure. Kant, like Marx, argues that history suffers apparent setbacks that may have a sense since the present is not easy to determine. History, as Kant conceives it, is dynamic, and historical movements could be explained dialectically.
- For both authors, there is a positive assessment of conflict. History is conceived with a cosmopolitan purpose, where Marx says that the antagonism, present already in the same human nature (which is unsocial sociability), is the mechanism that nature uses for the progress of human affairs.
- Finally, both authors understand that history has a purpose. Both Kant and Marx claim that history is directed towards an end.
Differences Between Kant and Marx
Along with these similarities, there are important differences in the theory of history of Kant and Marx:
- An essential difference lies in their conception of history: for Marx, it would be the development of the subject (or the material conditions of life), while for Kant, history is the unfolding through time of Enlightenment ideals, including freedom, autonomy, and emancipation. This idealistic view contrasts very clearly with Marx’s historical materialism, from which the Kantian conception could be rated as ideology.
- The end of history is different for both: the classless society of which Marx speaks is not the same as the great cosmopolitan union of people that Kant describes in his work. Kant’s political and enlightened leadership approach clashes with Marx’s historical materialism, which gives importance to the economy.
- Both the conception of the human being and the culture in which they live are very different for both thinkers. For Kant, man is essentially right, and this is the attribute that, unlike animals, releases him from instinct and necessity. Culture thus represents an opportunity for liberation; it would be the real development path of reason, most of the human opportunities. In contrast, the essence of being human is, for Marx, work and activity. Man transforms nature in the development of his essence. With regard to culture, it is interpreted with suspicion, as it can often assume an ideological function that helps to maintain the basic contradiction of the infrastructure.
The Impact and Relevance of Marxist Philosophy
All of Marxist philosophy has been much discussed since the time of Marx himself. Marx’s followers were divided between supporters of radical activism against capitalism and those who advocated a political struggle following the parliamentary road. Marxist theory on labor and the proletariat served to draw attention to some serious defects of capitalist economics. They denounce the precarious and inhuman situation under which the working classes live and the terrible consequences of industrialization. They served to make capitalist economic systems aware of their own limitations and develop worker protection policies and improve their working conditions. The critique of Marx and socialism of the nineteenth century served to bring about labor law and emphasize the existence of economic and social rights. It also forged welfare states as a set of measures which, without renouncing the principles of capitalism, combined with the protection and assistance to workers, the unemployed, and the disadvantaged. Marx made a critical need and urgency in his time with that contributed to real improvements in the lives of many humans. But his prediction of an egalitarian society leading to a political dictatorship was wrong.
The Continuing Relevance of Marx’s Ideas
We would underscore the complexity of a philosophy that encompasses so many complex issues like the economy, society, history, or human beings themselves. The ideas proposed by Marx may remain applicable today, especially considering the growing planetary inequalities generated by capitalism: globalization, poverty, famine, and epidemics of debt in contrast to affluent societies, which include within them large pockets of poverty. In conclusion, we could highlight the importance of Marxist thought in the twentieth century, not just because there have been various schools of Marxism, but also because of the real progress that the various protest movements achieved during the twentieth century.