Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

In the final essay, Marx switches his focus to the philosopher G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831), and whether the critics of Hegel have really innovated upon his teachings. Marx believes that those who think of themselves as improving on Hegel have remained within his framework. One main similarity is stylistic; Hegel’s text is notoriously difficult, and Marx cites a passage from the Hegelian thinker Bruno Bauer that is nearly incomprehensible. Some innovations have made things worse, as the so-called “Young Hegelians” developed an elitist attitude of pitting their quest for higher self-consciousness against the presumed idiocy and superstition of the masses. They are critics who have failed to be properly critical of themselves. Of all the successors to Hegel, Marx’s contemporary Ludwig Feuerbach came closest to the mark. He showed that philosophy and materialism have a religious dimension, dedicated to the establishment of fulfilling social relationships. Feuerbach reoriented the Hegelian philosophy away from overly abstract categories to the real world as discoverable by the senses. Most importantly, he identified the idea of the “negation of the negation,” a philosophical ideal capable of “negating” the “negative” or alienated quality of human existence. In other words, there is a real-world philosophical answer to the most profound problems of existence, but Feuerbach had not quite identified what that was, at least not in any concrete way.

Marx then turns to an overview of Hegel’s “phenomenology” or the study of consciousness. For Hegel, consciousness moves from sensory perception to self-consciousness to reason to moral and cultural sensitivity to religion and then to absolute knowledge. Human beings have to work their way through their alienation until they can link their own sensory experiences with the abstract principles of nature and achieve the most objective form of knowledge. Marx finds this account to be overly abstract, taking material objects like money and power and rendering them into idealized concepts. Thought and thought alone is supposed to achieve the final reconciliation of humanity with nature, which of course bestows enormous importance upon the philosopher. Material reality is denigrated as an imitation of the purportedly true reality which can exist only in the mind. Alienation itself is entirely psychological, rather than a reflection of material conditions. This means that the individual is alienated from the concept of wealth, the state, or God so the more authentically conscious mind will be at peace with wealth, the state, and God in both theory and practice. As difficult and abstract as Hegel’s text is, Marx believes its main goal is to reconcile the individual with the status quo.

Hegel is still important insofar as he recognizes the value of labor in overcoming alienation toward the achievement of a more objective condition. Yet his concept of “absolute knowledge” as the highest good remains unsatisfying. His understanding of labor is far too tied up in mental activity, without proper regard for the profoundly alienated state of physical labor (along with its attendant mental costs). For Marx, any proper understanding of human beings must consider their physical form and most importantly their capacity for real action. It is odd that Hegel talks so much about the relationship between “self” and “objects” without considering the material substance of those objects and how they shape and are shaped by human activity. Physical nature posits a discernible separation between the person and the object as well as a relationship between them, like the plant that is nourished by the sun. Furthermore, there is an essence specific to humanity, which draws individuals outside of themselves to become conscious of the entire species, its history, and its ultimate destiny. Hegel’s absolute knowledge requires a consciousness liberated from objects, whereas Marx believes that proper knowledge should be directed toward things outside consciousness.

Marx insists that politics must be rooted in a philosophy of human nature. Atheism is the proper religion because it defines the cosmos around the needs of humanity rather than God, and communism is the ultimate expression of humanism by focusing exclusively on human needs. They have the added benefit of being concrete programs for action, and not merely topics of reflection. Hegel was close to the truth in recognizing the profundity of humanity’s alienation but could not establish the proper relationship between being and object through which human beings could create more authentic selves. Marx regards his great innovation over Hegel as the realization that human beings are not just trying to understand nature but also grapple with nature to improve their condition.