By JOSÉ CRISÓSTOMO DE SOUZA*
Does Karl Marx hide a problematic, unexamined philosophical underbelly?
1.
In our day and age, I do not think it is a good idea to simply set Karl Marx aside, much less to dilute and impoverish him in order to remedy his possible problems. What is most interesting is to see where these problems, at their core, lie, and how it is worth resolving them, in order to achieve a better conceptual reconstruction (than that of Jürgen Habermas, for example) and to make better use of them politically.
In the case of Marx, I understand that his main underlying problems lie in the normative, prescriptive foundations, which I do not see anyone examining properly, neither here nor anywhere else.
Our book The reverse of Marx deals with this metaphysical, even mystical-theological, background of the thought of a political philosopher, about which I believe there is a vast ignorance, both on the political left and on the academic and cultural left. This has had bad consequences for the development of an improved practical-critical philosophy, and of an effective radical progressive political position, non-quietist, for our time and context.
The aforementioned background has to do precisely with his speculative, hidden humanism, which is, however, the most central element of his thought. Often masked in a conceptual articulation that is apparently merely theoretical, which, however, that normative element in fact determines. This is how I try to show, in detail, letter by letter, in his most explicitly philosophical texts, but not only.
Indeed, a more careful investigation will reveal Marx’s thought, whether young or mature, as a dialectical, essentialized and substantialist humanism, at the same time involved with representationalisms and more complicated dualisms. And it will expose his philosophical foundation as a “transcendental human,” which supports ingenious and seductive critical metaphors, such as alienation, fetishism, reification, prehistory, the realm of freedom, etc., which in reality have little political meaning.
2.
Let us not be impressed, however, by these technical terms, nor by such a complete judgment about Karl Marx. Through the six “conversations” of The reverse of Marx, we have the opportunity to see all this up close, in an understandable way, by a thorough examination of what Marx himself says, and how he says it, that is, by an examination of the hidden intricacies of his thought. This includes a consideration of the philosophical references that he himself takes, on which or against which he actually builds his thought.
This book also includes an inevitable controversy with some of its main interpreters, including classics but not limited to Louis Althusser, Della Volpe, Adam Schaff or José Arthur Giannotti, who are generally completely mistaken, as I show, about what Karl Marx is actually doing. At the end of this journey, the reader will reach his/her own conclusions on the subject, with full knowledge of the facts. Which will be, in any case, I can assure you, philosophically and politically very instructive, even formative.
Some philosophical “sins” commonly attributed to Marx have been determinism, dogmatism and teleology, which accompany his canonization. And his most controversial political consequences may include Jacobinism, problems with democracy, claims to monopoly in the field of the Ideal, etc.
In fact, in the circumstances of our time, such sins can also paradoxically include limitations such as idealism, dissociation from reality, immobility, commitments to relationships of guardianship and dependence. Finally, in their most recent derivations, these limitations can lead to a moral pseudo-humanism, syrupy, supposedly anti-capitalist, often victimist or retro-primitivist, eventually anarcho-foolish, frequently reactionary.
These are problems that Marx himself – whose thought has precious elements of affirmation, strength and exuberance, together with a notable materialist bias that is truly practical, which is worth taking advantage of – tried to leave behind, within, however, the limits of his references and circumstances.[I]
3.
These are also problems that he, after seeking to criticize in other philosophers and social reformers of his time, ended up, as I demonstrate, dissimulating and repressing, instead of eradicating, in his own thinking, through a typical artifice of supposed empirical translation.
The fact is that, even against its own will, Marx's supposedly materialist communist anti-capitalism, misunderstood and uncritically examined, now in changed historical circumstances, still looms in its derivatives as a specter and as a degeneration, as a return of the repressed, behind modes of thought that are not only dogmatic but also, on the other hand, pious, depressed, falsely critical and political.
It goes around like a farce, in the form of various particularist theories, confused cultural Marxisms, dogmatic post-structuralisms, convoluted political correctness, abstract identitarianisms, and even allegedly emancipatory and political theologies.
All of this has to do with material, social, cultural and other changes in the world, outside of Karl Marx's original historical-philosophical script, which left his transcendental humanism without a basis in the social relations it counted on, and without the supposed real, universal, emancipating historical subject that it presupposes, precisely to avoid falling into idealistic and moralistic, utopian preaching.
However, the chances of successfully reconstructing its practical-material, historical point of view, under new circumstances, first and foremost national, are very promising. The reverse of Marx It is, in the end, about how to reconstruct Marx, how to develop him better, in critical dialogue with him, by locating, recognizing and overcoming, in his own spirit, his main underlying problems.
Towards a material, popular and democratic progressivism, which we need, amid the current impasses of our left and center-left, including in global terms. Here we have an invitation. As one of our heroes more or less said, “we need to look back, perhaps deep down, in order to better leap forward”. Without the dogmatism and fundamentalism of repetition, nor the dilution of moral sweetening, which often cover up.[ii]
*José Crisóstomo de Souza He is a professor in the Philosophy Department at UFBA. He is the author of, among other books, The Other Side of Marx: Philosophical Conversations for a Philosophy with a Future (Ateliê de Humanidades). [https://amzn.to/3XGbMUn]
Notes
[I] On this subject, see for example Marx's criticisms of the so-called “true socialism” by his former partners in The German Ideology, and various versions of socialism/communism, in Communist Manifesto, for which he reserves adjectives such as “reactionary” and “conservative”, which today find, in other circumstances, new pious developments.
[ii] Based on the “letter to the reader”, presenting The Other Side of Marx (Humanities Workshop, 2024).
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
