In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.14
In other words, Marx thought the ideal society was one in which identify was forged through men’s actions and not the labels assigned to them. One can, for example, hunt without being labeled a hunter, fish without being labeled a fisherman, raise cattle without being labeled a cattleman, criticize without be labeled a critic. The role through which the person acts is determined by a natural and inherent need if not interest and/or desire, not some “artificially” generated determination made by an external party who may or may not know the individual or have his or her best interests at heart.
In other words, allowing the individual to follow a path prescribed by him- or herself, society would find its purpose: namely, to organize opportunity and outcomes in a way that would promote the greatest good for the greatest number. Creating the means through which individuals might be educated and/or trained to realize their identity and form their character, outcomes could be realized by the individual and shared at large when appropriate because the conditions would exist for a society to be “self-regulating.”
And that, of course, presents the rub: How do you do that? Well, given that such an environment was not available to Marx in the 19th century (nor to us in the 21st century), it would only be appropriate that one study the realities of the present so to “re-present” through contrast various possibilities. In Marx’s time, as in ours, that would require understanding what conditions occurred inside capitalist societies – inside capitalism – that restricted a person’s ability to experience such a full and self-determining life and caused him or her instead to be defined solely through the labels of others.
Marx was, in this sense, raising and attempting to address some very serious moral issues and was doing so through an examination of the predominant economic order. He was, in short, acting both as a philosopher and as an economist when reviewing various historical responses to the human conditions as they came to be expressed by Aristotle, through Locke and Kant and Hegel to Adam Smith and Ricardo and their peers. Therefore, when trying to understand Marx and Marxism, a person needs to read Marx as a philosopher who is using the language of economics to describe the human condition. Reading Marx in this way, the consequences are profound.
Marx the Philosopher
Readers must understand, however, reading Marx in such a way was not always acknowledged and most certainly not accepted. For example, with publication of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, a new debate opened amongst Marxist scholars: was Marx a humanist or economist? Few if any commentators who entered the debate thought it wise to consult the writings of Lukacs, who, in History and Class Consciousness, had already demonstrated a humanistic side to Marx, even though only Das Kapital – and not the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 – was available to him. To these commentators, dogma often took precedence over substance and scholarship took a backseat to a political war waged over which sect could bring the most material to bear in support of their dogma. A silly endeavor to say the least: but all the same, it was an endeavor that has subsequently hampered Marxist scholarship and demeaned the work of Marx.
Therefore, in contrast to those commentaries, the argument presented herein will suggest the dichotomy between Marx the philosopher or
humanist and Marx the economist is a false one. Marx is nothing more and nothing less than a philosopher, who believes political and
13