Would you classify Marx as a thinker of the Enlightenment or of Romanticism?

Leaving aside the merits of Marx and what you might think of him, how would one intellectually characterize his philosophy? As part of the Enlightenment tradition or as an extension of Romanticism? Or some combination of both?

Note that I'm not merely looking here for a classification based upon dates of writings.

His insistence on his being a scientific socialism as opposed to utopian, a belief in rational critique of society and traditional institutions would seem to put him more in the Enlightenment camp.

His emphasis on historicism as opposed to a more classical conception of truth as being ahistorical, his theory/explanation of alienation (a topic generally discussed more amongst existentialists although they don't usually view it as a result of capitalism), his belief that it is not merely the job of philosophers to contemplate the world but to change it, would seem to be ideas generally grouped in the category of Romantic thought.

If you classified him as part of Romanticism would you attribute that to the starting point of much his philosophy being Hegel?

Ok, now back to what you think of Marx. If you disagree with most of his philosophy, do you classify yourself as either in the Enlightenment camp or Romanticism and Marx in the opposite? If you find value in Marx, and you classify him as Enlightenment would you consider yourself Old Left? And if you find value in Marx but classify him as within the tradition of Romanticism, would you consider yourself New Left?

Just trying to generate some ideas. If you don't like these dichotomies and find them oversimple, then feel free to suggest your own ideas.

Great question!
Ive always thought of Marx as falling very much within the Enlightenment tradition. I have never, ever thought of him as a Romantic, but i agree that those aspects that you point out could indeed be seen as Romantic. I thank you then for bringing to light those aspects of Marx's Romanticism, its a very interesting topic. Of course both 'Enlightenment' and 'ROmanticism' are very diffuse and generalized terms that are as obfuscating as they are clarifying in many cases. But i would argue that 'Romanticism' is generally a literary movement whose standard bearers were poets and artists who, by and large, are united in the rejection of scientific materialism. Whilst Marx is in essence a scientific materialist

After reading your post I would say now a little of both. Surely I never imagined anything of writing other then Enlightenment. Thank you for opening my eyes to what I as missing in reading his work.

Hi Mr...Wormwood:

Great answer!

I think youʻre right that Romanticism can be best identified by its standard bearers. Chronologically, perhaps, Karl Marx SHOULD be a Romantic. I canʻt think of any other adverb that would place him in that company.

The first wave of Chrstian missionaries here in Hawaiʻi were of the generation before the young Marx; they landed, in fact, a few months before his birth. It has crossed my mind to question whether they could have undergone "Romantic" influence, "Enlightenment" influence; or both; or neither. I can see some affinities with the Enlightenment, none with the Romantics. They would have in common with Marx that they were, in a very different direction, mainly interested in CHANGING the society, based on a rigid version of para-Enlightenment
principles.

I have been translating a late Enlightenment author Claude Emmanuel Pastoret ( 1756 - 1840),* who lived almost equal time in the 18th cand 19th centuries, and worked for governments as different as the Revolutionary and the Restoration. In his case there are clear Enlightenment influences; the only sign of Romanticism is (by his later career) the chronological coincidence.

*author of Zoroaster, Confucius, and Muhammad (2nd ed., 1787)

After just making a distinction between Marx and the Romantic movement, id like to,
very briefly, and in rough form, spend a few words comparing the Romantic poet Lord Byron with Marx.
What are the similarities? Well, surprisingly (at least to me), there are some very significant similarities. No 1 has to be a shared deep rooted appreciation for history and politics. With Marx this is too well known to warrent a retelling. With Byron it is less well known. Sure everyone knows that Byron died fighting for Greek independence, but this is often spoken of as simply evidence of his romantic dashing and daring, his adventurous spirit. It went deeper than that though. Byron's sensibility was fundamentally forged in the fire of the Napolenic wars and he retained an ongoing admiration for Napoleon as a man of political genius. As a young boy he nourished his imagination, as did so many young boys of the time, on the works of Walter Scott. Scott's works heralded the true birth of the genre of historical fiction with their vivid reconstructions of scottish history. This burgeoning historical imagination was further fed by the classical education he received as an English peer, dieted as he was on ancient Greek and ROman authors. Finally it is forgotten that Byron was involved in radical politics during his twenties striving for political reform.

Another striking similarity is a common dislike for philosophical idealism as against philosophical materialism. Thus they both represent a radical break with the Platonic tradition which has definied the philsophical enterprise for thousands of years. In Don Juan Byron accuses Plato of being " a bore, A charlatan, a coxcomb". Indeed, savouring the irony, Byron goes so far as to argue that Plato's philosophy is at heart deeply immoral. This can be seen when he speaks of the "fancied sway your system feigns o'er the controlless core of human hearts". In saying this he's intimating how the famous Platonic repudiation of the human body, its natural urges and inclinations, is to encourage only the worst kinds of hypocrisy on the one hand and the most abiding pain and anguish on the other. This is of course a different tack taken than that taken by Marx, but both clearly see the falseness inherent in Platonic idealism.

...to be continued.

Since you've mentioned Byron that brings up another point in my mind where Marx might be characterized as more in the Romantic or at the very least trying to bridge the divide between Enlightenment and Romanticism. The stereotypical Enlightenment thinker is someone who either implicitly or explicitly believes in the progress of man and that as humanity becomes more and more enlightened barbarism and brutality recedes. Thus, when looking back on history, they see it as progressive and they tend to view earlier civilizations as more primitive and less enlightened. However, in certain types of Romantic thought, such as Rousseau, primitive man is emphasized as being closer to natural man. Civilization and progress begin to take on a much more dubious character in this view. This type of Romanticism questions whether man is merely becoming more artificial, more alienated from his own true nature, as opposed to better.

In regards to Marx, he is clearly in the Enlightenment camp in seeing history progressively. But he seems to have a Romantic character in that where he sees all this going is towards a natural non-alienated man. That in the end, the distinction between civilized man and natural man will be eliminated. Note I'm sure there are many Marxists who would disagree with this interpretation and would say I'm mischaracterizing Marx as the sort of utopian socialists that he always criticized. But that's just the way it seems to me. Also, it's likely that in viewing this through the lense of intellectually history and trying to classify his philosophy in one of two camps, I'm distorting the picture a little bit such this doesn't allow for much nuance in interpretation.

"Workers of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains", "Religion is the opium of the people", and "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". That should be enough for most of you to work out whom Radio 4 listeners have voted as their favourite philosopher: the winner of the In Our Time Greatest Philosopher Vote, chosen from 20 philosophers nominated by listeners and carried through on an electoral tidal wave of 28% of our 'first-past-the-post' vote is the communist theoretician, Karl Marx.

So, when you strip away the Marxist-Leninism, the Soviet era and later Marxist theory, who was Karl Marx? Where does he stand in the history of philosophy? He wrote in his Theses on Feuerbach, "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point, however, is to change it" - which begs the question, is he really a philosopher at all?

Contributors

Anthony Grayling, Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London

Francis Wheen, journalist and author of a biography of Karl Marx

Gareth Stedman Jones, Professor of Political Science at Cambridge University

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20050714.shtml

Utopian, wherever that falls.

I have probably a rather minority point of view on this excellent question, since I was a professor teaching history of economic thought for about a decade. From that perspective - which is probably a late Marx perspective - Marx was clearly a product of the late Classical school, and thus a descendent of the Enlightenment.

However, I am not at all certain that the same can be said of the earlier Marx - the Marx of psychological alienation as well as alienation of a worker from his product.

I wouldn't classify him nor in Enlightenment neither Romanticism. He was an XIXth Century man. You should classify as an economist or a sociologist or at least, in a certain way, belonged to Positivism

Marx was one of the last to use the phrase "political economy". The phrase might well be brought back, because it would better describe what many political and/or economic writers are really writing about.

If the label has to be either "politics" OR "economics", one element is likely to over ride the other, ev en though, without knowing it the writer is still trying to do "political economy".

In terms of Influence he is in my top three along with Einstein and Jung. I know most people would say Darwin instead of Jung but those who insist that evolution is a scientific fact are either pushing an anti God agenda like Dawkins. Or they are being brainwashed and believe that by chanting a mantra they will make it more real.

Some would argue that Marx was not a philosopher, that his project began with but ultimately rejected philosophy as he developed a critique of political economy. This project was fully expressed in Das Kapital. Others would argue that Marx never escaped the German Idealism of his Hegelian roots. Others might call him a historical materialist.

One cannot say, however, that he was an economist or sociologist. While he is portrayed as such in Sociology 101 classes, it is a gross misreading of his work.

I would not call him a positivist either.

12> If you think Jung is more influential than Darwin (or Freud for that matter!), I'm not sure what to tell you. Then again, your ranking of influence makes some sense when displayed next to your ignorance on the subject of evolutionary biology.

Message 14 You are one of many who are brainwashed, no doubt you believe evolution is fact when it will only ever be a theory. The model is and will always be like any other science model, a work in progress. If the history of science is anything to go by, then it is wrong. And remember, history invariably repeats itself.

Yes, of course evolution is a theory. Do you know what theory means in the context of science?

Yes, of course evolution is a theory. Do you know what theory means in the context of science?

Of course, it means tomorrows Fish and Chip Paper. If you are a Yank swap fish and chips for toilet roll and hopefully the penny will drop.

Do you feel similarly about scientific theories regarding gravity or the earth's orbit around the sun?

I do because the earth and the sun are just clever illusions. Next!

Interesting perspective. Ok, time to get back on subject.

9> I don't think the late Marx ever abandoned his critique of alienation. While this is disputed, Andrew Kliman recently wrote a book that argues there is no discontinuity between 'early' and 'late' Marx.

Here it is: Reclaiming Marx's Capital: A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency.

I'd say both. He's heavily influenced by Hegel, and Hegel himself stands with one foot in either camp. He has an enlightenment attitude about the systematic explanation of whatever phenomena he encounters. But there's also the corresponding idealist thread concerning the role of human interaction or 'will' in determining the 'world', which is derived from romanticism.

Personally I'd like to hear more from Arten60. He has some very interesting views...

HI TC
My views are constantly changing which I think it is the way it should be. We should never hold onto beliefs to strongly or we risk becoming dogmatic.
I am with Socrates in that the more you know, the more you realize, you don't know.
Lets put it into perspective. We live in a galaxy which contains a 100 billion stars. There are a 100 billion galaxies. Anyone who thinks they know it all are not only deluded they are down right dangerous.
And here I am paraphrasing my current favourite Philosopher Timothy Freke who is a expert on the Gnostics who were the first Christians.

Arten

That seems fine, but some explanations explain more or less than others - I'd say, for example, that the Creationist theory explains far less about observed phenomena than does the Evolutionary theory, so I go with the theory of Evolution. It's not impossible that the Creationist theory could explain more, it just seems highly unlikely for the foreseeable future, so I'm obliged to ignore it in lieu of a radical and unimaginable change in the phenomena. I'm also happy that skepticism has a valuable role to play here, but skepticism should not be construed as a refusal to believe in anything because it might in some highly unlikely condition be shown false. That would be more like intellectual paranoia.

Hi I think the problem is people take the attitude that because we cannot see any proof for God that God does not exist. They forget William James "Law" about all crows being black, it only takes one white crow (recently discovered ) to throw the whole fallacious assumption into the bin.

Of course God cannot be proved, for how could, say a clothes moth that eats Australian wool prove to other moths that Australia exist? God’s existence does not depend on proofs.
Dr Carl Jung

I'd have to agree with you there. I don't believe in God, but obviously if there were such a power/thing then it wouldn't obviously be open to scientific dispute. As far as I can tell the best reason to believe in God is faith, and I simply don't have it, that doesn't mean it can't happen to me. For the time being I'm happy to live without it. Even if I were to have faith, I imagine I'd still accept the scientific evidence on, e.g., evolution. I find it odd that some believers find God and evolution incompatible - I don't see that such a conflict is necessary. The bible, for example, seems to refer to many historical events, but I regard the various miracles as, at best, allegorical. Why not accept that Jesus interpretation of ethics/morality is more than 95% right, but treat his status as 'Son' of God as allegorical, just as the transubstantiation of blood into wine and flesh into bread can now be accepted as allegorical in the Catholic church. I don't think you lose what's impressive about Jesus if you abandon the idea that he's Son of God.

As I say, I don't believe in God, but I'm sympathetic. Debates have been far too polarised, because the issues are mainly presented from extreme positions, of which Dawkins and the Creationists are archetypes.

You know I really admire Flew for changing track and going where the evidence takes him.
Evenso, God is not about Faith for me. I am a Gnostic God is about Experience. I am lucky I have experienced God a number of times in my life, so like my Gnostic fore fathers I can claim to know God.
I can no more prove that God exist than I can prove I loved my Mother. The experience are subjective but my last God experience I shared with my wife.
We both saw a non material being in the bedroom in the early hours of the morning which walked through the wall,after giving me a message.
Don't ask what that message was I forgot what was said but I know they said it.

The abscence of proof is not proof of abscence.
Anon

wow, this really has absolutely nothing to do with the orginal question.

I gave my thoughts on Marx and thread drift is inevitable.

I think 'thread drift' is a really interesting phenomena. It'd be a great subject for a PhD in something or other. It's not as if we're short of data. No doubt someone's already at it.

I agree, Wormwood. There is, of course, thread drift. There are also those who have a obsession that they have to inject into every discussion, no matter how irrelevant it may be to that discussion.

30>

That's my fault probably, I got drawn into an off-topic discussion, thinking the thread otherwise dead. Sorry.

It is dead for me now TC let those who want to get back to Marx have at it.
Catch you on another thread hopefully enjoyed chatting with you!

When I last looked at this, the tendency to use the terminology of social class seemed to be taking root around the end of the first decade of the nineteenth century, a little before Marx was born. I could be wrong, but it's not a terminology which leaps out from the manifestos of the Enlightenment. But it does tend to fit in with the concerns of utilitarians, who might (with, for example, the Benthamite notion of a felicific calculus), be held to be influenced by the scientific side of the Enlightenment. If you were going to argue for changing the world in the 1840s you had more clout if you did so from that direction. By then, the custodians of the conventional wisdom were impressed by, for example, Malthus, and Ricardo and the other creators of that very Enlightenment school of thought, Classical Economics. What Marx does is to use the Hegelian notion that the world progresses through conflict (thesis, and antithesis leading to synthesis (dialectic), but towards an ideal state seen by Hegel in semi-religious terms - in other words "Idealism"(you could not have a more romantic notion)) as an allegedly rational tool for analysing and attaining a just materialist society. If that is a Heaven on Earth, Marx has to be a romantic thinker, but he dresses in Enlightenment clothing when it comes to scientific presentation. Hence "Dialectical Materialism", He is, after all, out to destroy Classical Economics in the name of an irrefutable concept, a scientifically defensible social justice.