Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Marx’s thought „covers“ the totality of man’s life as a social and historical
being and offers the possibility of searching for answers to a number of crucial
questions posed by contemporary man. It lacks, however, the most important point:
analysis of the development of capitalism as a destructive order and, in that context,
consideration of man’s possible future. The question is not „whether Marx knew“ or
„whether he could have known“ that capitalism is a destructive order (as in his time
the capitalist destruction of nature and man had not acquire the dramatic
proportions it has today), but that Marx’s critique of capitalism overlooks its essence
– which then casts doubt on its accuracy, political doctrine based on it and the idea
of the future arising therefrom. Marx’s thought moved critique of capitalism from
the existential (Fourier) to the essential sphere and thus contributed to the crippling
of the class (self)consciousness of workers, as well as to the crippling of the critique
of capitalism and therefore crippling of the political struggle against capitalism. In
his critique of capitalism Marx overlooked the most important point: the struggle
against capitalism is not only a struggle for man’s freedom, it is at the same time a
struggle for the very survival of mankind.
2
As far as the notion that Marx’s thought indicates the destructive nature
of capitalism is concerned, the question is why Marx, in his most important political
paper, „The Manifesto of the Communist Party“, as well as in other texts in which he
calls for workers to fight against capitalism, does not point out the destructive
nature of capitalism and does not call for workers to fight in order to prevent the
destruction of life on Earth? If Marx concluded that capitalism is a life-destroying
order, isn’t it logical that a call to fight for the preservation of life would be, if not of
utmost importanance (which by its nature it is supposed to be), then certainly one of
the most important parts of his revolutionary program? Would not the historical
(social) being of the working class, in that case, be also conditioned by the ecocidal
nature of capitalism, and would not the transformation of workers from a class in
itself into a class for itself also involve the development of an emancipated ecological
consciousness? Would it not be the case, then, that the workers, as a class and as
human beings, not only have the „task“ of dealing with the class society and liberate
mankind from oppression, but also to prevent its destruction?
If we bear in mind that for Marx history is the only true science and that
the idea of a historicity of the human society is the building stone of his
revolutionary thought, it becomes more obvious why capitalism cannot be a
destructive order. According to Marx, capitalism is a historical order. This makes up
its concrete essence and is the basis for its endurance. Capitalism is a historical
order in two ways: as a result and as a condition of the historical development of
society. In both cases it is a historical necessity. In other words, capitalism by its
historical being cannot be an order with which history ends, particularly not an
order annulling history. History has its rises and falls, but no force is capable of
stopping the wheel of history forever. Marx’s theory of history has a metaphorical
form and anthropological character. Speaking of history, Marx actually speaks of man
and his indestructible need for freedom and his ability to create, by means of
developing his universal creative powers and through his struggle against injustice,
a humane world. Historical periods in the development of mankind are but stairs
along which man climbs and falls only to attain, in spite of all obstacles and falls, the
heights which open the horizon of an unconditioned freedom. Freedom is the
„spirit“ giving purpose to human life and as such is the connecting tissue of history.
Marx’s conception of historicity of society is based on a libertarian optimism:
communism is a necessity because man’s freedom is a necessity. Libertarian
optimism presuposses existential optimism based on the development of productive
forces with which man becomes free from the natural determinism and develops his
creative powers. Since freedom is the essential point of Marx’s conception of the
historicity of society and unquestionable condition of the future, Marx’s notion of
history is, naturally, based on existential apriorism.
For Marx, truth is a synonym for freedom. It has an absolute rather than a
relative character and is based on man’s nature as a universal creative being of
freedom, and on the historical development of society. Truth is attained not by
theoretical discussions, but through a struggle for freedom, which involves
realization of genuine human powers and turning society into a community of free
people. Truth has a concrete-historical nature, which means that its essence is
determined by the concrete possibilities of acquiring freedom in a concrete
historical time. For Marx, revolution is not a basic ontological, gnoseological and
axiological principle, but the basic libertarian principle. It is not the theoretical
consciousness which should lead workers in their struggle against the ruling order
and for the future, but their concrete social existence, their status as hired workers,
5
philosophers’ thought, but from the political struggle of social layers deprived of
their rights. The French bourgeois revolution was carried out by the oppressed
working „masses“ and the bourgeoisie deprived of their rights, while German
classical philosophy took advantage of the political struggle of the despised, to turn
the revolutionary spirit into philosophical postulates, which became the foundation
of a political theory and practice that was supposed to create in Germany a civil
society and a single state – and at the same time to prevent a bourgeois revolution.
„Mindless“ working „masses“ became a moving force in creating a reasonable world.
Marx departs from the guiding ideas of the French bourgeois revolution not as a
means for obtaining a „humanist“ legitimacy for the ruling order, but as the basic
political principle in the fight for a humane world. He departs from the humanist
ideals of modern times, wishing that they be realised. His predominant vision is that
of a future which is not based on the creation of an idealized image of a future
society, but on a critique of capitalism and a faith in libertarian dignity and man’s
creative powers: man as a realized universal creative being of freedom – that is the
„image“ of the future.
dramatically affects man than does the ecological crisis. If the ecological crisis
created by capitalism could have been politically instrumentalized in the second half
of the 19th century and if it could have incited workers to fight against capitalism,
would Marx have ignored Fourier’s warning, from the early 19th century, about
destruction of nature and change in climate; namely, would he have „overlooked“
that capitalism is by its nature a destructive order, and would Engels in the last
decade of his creative work, when he warned about the destruction of nature, have
shifted responsibility from capitalism to humankind by using an abstract „we“?
x x x