Kant vs. Marx: Philosophy of History, Freedom & Critique
Kant and Marx: Freedom, History, and Critique
Shared Goal: Human Emancipation
Marx and Kant share a spirit focused on history as a path toward human emancipation, both individual and political. Both advocate a teleological conception of history as a field for realizing freedom and equality. For Kant, this end is the cosmopolitan society, while Marx’s horizon is the communist society—a just and egalitarian society.
History’s Engine: Conflict and Progress
The Enlightenment idea of progress is a common reference for both, though devoid of the naive optimism it sometimes entailed. The role of conflict is viewed similarly by both authors. According to Kant, nature has a hidden plan employing a mechanism, the ‘unsocial sociability’, to establish a civil society with a republican constitution and stimulate progress towards a cosmopolitan society.
Marxist theory posits class struggle as the motor of history, stating that social relations between different groups are characterized not by harmony, but by economic, political, and ideological conflict. This struggle drives the emergence of different societies and the advancement of history.
Critique of Enlightenment Reason
Both philosophers represent critical approaches, breaking from earlier romantic visions. Kant’s caution is manifested in his nuanced conception of progress, distinguishing between the human-nature relationship (scientific and technological progress) and relationships between humans (social and moral progress). This distinction serves as an important reminder that progress cannot be reduced to a single dimension, as that would be insufficient.
Furthermore, Marx critiques ‘Enlightened reason’ for prioritizing ideas (like freedom, equality, fraternity) as drivers of social progress. He argues this is a mistake because it neglects the material conditions—the socio-economic relations founded on the exploitation of one human by another.
Ethics: Dignity vs. Alienation
The second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative states that humanity should be treated as an end in itself, never merely as a means. According to Kant, things have a price and thus a relative value. People, by contrast, have dignity, an absolute value, and must be treated with respect.
Marx echoes a moral imperative in denouncing the alienation of the worker under capitalism, where the worker becomes a commodity—a mere means, bought and sold—and suffers exploitation through the appropriation of surplus value by the owner of the means of production.
Reality and Knowledge: Idealism vs. Materialism
The two differ, however, in their conception of reality and knowledge. Kant adopts an idealist position: things are not independent of the knowing subject; reality is, in a sense, a construction of the subject (or the structure of human cognition). In the process of knowledge, the subject and consciousness hold primacy.
In contrast, Marx advocates a materialist conception: the subject is not independent of things; reality is a social construct dependent on the material conditions of human life. Therefore, the social dimension (group, social class) of human existence holds primacy. Thought arises from one’s situation, not from ‘pure reason’ independent of circumstances.
Legacy: Critical Theory and Praxis
Kant was a precursor to a philosophical tradition continued by Marx and, in the twentieth century, by the Frankfurt School:
- Adorno
- Horkheimer
- Marcuse
- Fromm
- Habermas
This tradition, known as Critical Theory, seeks not only to theoretically analyze reality but also to influence and transform it.
This foundational influence can be traced to Kant’s thesis of the ‘primacy of practical reason,’ which posits that science, while important, cannot fulfill the human desire for happiness. Hence the relevance of action—moral action in Kant and transformative praxis in Marx. For Marx, philosophy must not be limited to interpreting reality but must also strive to transform it.