Kant and Marx: Philosophical Parallels and Divergences

Kant and Marx: Shared Philosophical Ground

Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx share a dialectical view of history. For both thinkers, history progresses through various stages, and some may even seem to be a denial of previous progress, or even a setback in historical development. However, measured with sufficient perspective, it appears as a stage in the unfolding of human potential. In this sense, Kant would be a precedent not only for Marx but also, as mentioned, for Hegel.

A Positive Assessment of Conflict

One consequence is that Kant and Marx also share a positive assessment of conflict. For Marx, this is reflected in the concept of class struggle. Kant also admits that conflict and antagonism are what drive history forward, suggesting that even war can have a positive sense.

The Teleological Purpose of History

A third philosophical similarity is that both defend a goal in history. For both, history has meaning and cannot be merely a succession of unconnected facts. Quite the contrary, Kant develops the idea of human beings' inherent capacities as an inalienable end. Nature has placed in us capacities that we are meant to develop fully. Marx also believes that this end will be the inevitable result of class struggle. While there is conflict, humanity will not yet have reached its proper end.

Key Divergences in Kant and Marx

Visions of the Ideal Society

Regarding the purpose of history, we can discuss the different views of both thinkers. For Kant, the purpose of history would be that great “union of peoples” through a just and perfect civil constitution. For Marx, it would be a classless society based on the abolition of private property, the collectivization of the means of production, and self-management.

Differing Views on Politics

They also have very different assessments of politics: For Kant, politics is the appropriate way to achieve a just civil society and a cosmopolitan order. In contrast, Marx believes that politics can become a tool for the dominant class to defend its interests.

Conceptions of Human Nature

Another difference lies in their conception of man: What defines man for Kant is his rationality, and in relation to society, that tension which Kant refers to as the unsocial sociability of man. For Marx, what defines man is not rationality but work. And as for the sociability of human beings, Marx believes that it is work that defines human beings and leads to their encounter with other human beings. Humans are by sociable nature, but private property and a society based on social class can lead them to become unsociable animals.

Laws and Institutions: Trust vs. Distrust

A further difference is their conception of laws and institutions. For Kant, laws and institutions represent the means by which civil society lifts us out of the state of nature. Laws and institutions are intended to rectify human shortcomings. Marx, however, distrusts laws and public institutions, suspecting them of concealing the interests of a particular class. The just and perfect civil constitution that Kant aspires to is, in Marx's eyes, merely another instrument of exploitation for the influential, privileged classes.

Kant's Enduring Philosophical Legacy

The German philosopher's (Kant's) influence on other thinkers such as Hegel or Marx, particularly in terms of history, is beyond doubt. Furthermore, his contributions to the theory of knowledge or ethics are still being discussed today.