UDC

141.8+123.1

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V379

Authors

Pavel A. Mishagin

Cand. Sci. (Philos.), Assoc. Prof. at the Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences, Reshetnev Siberian State University of Science and Technology (address: prosp. im. gazety “Krasnoyarskiy rabochiy” 31, Krasnoyarsk, 660037, Russia).

e-mail: mishagin@sibsau.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7799-905X

Anastasiya A. Medova

Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Assoc. Prof., Prof. at the Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences, Reshetnev Siberian State University of Science and Technology (address: prosp. im. gazety “Krasnoyarskiy rabochiy” 31, Krasnoyarsk, 660037, Russia); Prof. at the Department of Music and Art Education, Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V.P. Astafyev (address: ul. Ady Lebedevoy 89, Krasnoyarsk, 660049, Russia).

e-mail: medova@sibsau.ru*, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0637-6741

Abstract

The authors turn to the Marxist interpretation of freedom, which is viewed as a turning point in the historical paradigm shift in the understanding of this phenomenon. The Marxist idea of freedom is compared here with its preceding version that was suggested by classical German idealism. While in classical German idealism, I. Kant’s works in particular, freedom is conditioned by the intrinsic structure of the human mind, i.e. it is the right of reason and is purely spiritual in nature, Marxism reveals its objective modus: object-transforming activity, being a manifestation of freedom, involves a person in a relationship with nature. Processed objects become mediators between society and nature; freedom is realized in the mutual creation of subject and object. The process of identifying the social subject and object leads to the interpretation of freedom as a social creation. German idealism considers man to be free and does not acknowledge any social prerequisites for freedom, while Marxists, on the contrary, see social communication as a condition for freedom, based on which the subject of freedom is identified. This subject is a socially and historically determined person as a concrete, real and perceptual being. A new stage is the consideration of the socio-biological and objective material foundations of freedom, which makes it possible to discern the ancient prerequisites of the Marxist idea of freedom. This confirms P. Critchley’s (2001) version, according to which Marxism inherits the Greco-German concept of rational freedom. Despite all the differences, the authors conclude that the Marxist approach to the problem of freedom largely continues the line of German transcendentalism. In both systems, freedom is analysed in the aspect of universality and is understood as a way of a person’s self-determination and a prerequisite for implementing one’s essential qualities, as an overcoming of human biological properties and as a form of independence from the physical world. In both traditions, we can trace the dialectic of freedom and necessity. In Marxism, labour is a genuine manifestation of freedom and an eternal natural necessity. For Kant, the essential human characteristics, including morality, necessarily presuppose man’s freedom.

Keywords

transcendentalism, activity approach, deobjectification, dialectic, German idealistic philosophy, I. Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Plato

References

1. Zhao Hong. Three Aspects of the Marxist Theory of Historical Freedom. Obshchestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul’tura, 2021, no. 5, pp. 74–81 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24158/fik.2021.5.10
2. Walicki A. Karl Marx as Philosopher of Freedom. Crit. Rev., 1988, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 10–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913818808459537
3. Zhao Hong. On the Development of Marx’s Views on Historical Freedom. Obshchestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul’tura, 2022, no. 5, pp. 102–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.24158/fik.2022.5.14
4. Rakitov A.I. Svoboda i neobkhodimost’ [Freedom and Necessity]. Rakitov A.I. Marksistsko-leninskaya filosofiya [Marxist-Leninist Philosophy]. Moscow, 1986, pp. 330–334.
5. Sayers S. Marxism and Human Nature. New York, 1998. 203 р.
6. Sowell T. Karl Marx and the Freedom of the Individual. Ethics, 1963, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 119–125.
7. Raekstad P. Freedom. Karl Marx’s Realist Critique of Capitalism. Marx, Engels, and Marxisms. Cham, 2022, pp. 49–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06353-4_3
8. Volkov-Pepoyants E.G. K. Marks i F. Engel’s o svobode kak atribute demokratii i demokratii svobody. Problema prav cheloveka. Protivorechivost’ i paradoksal’nost’ kontseptsii [K. Marx and F. Engels on Freedom as an Attribute of Democracy and the Democracy of Freedom. The Problem of Human Rights. The Inconsistency and Paradoxicality of the Concept]. Volkov-Pepoyants E.G. Metamorfozy i paradoksy demokratii. Politicheskaya doktrina bol’shevizma: istoki, sushchnost’, evolyutsiya, al’ternativy. 1903–1929 gg. Kn. 1. 1917–1929 [Metamorphoses and Paradoxes of Democracy. The Political Doctrine of Bolshevism: Origins, Essence, Evolution, Alternatives. 1903–1929. Book 1. 1917–1929]. Kishinev, 1993. Available at: https://proza.ru/2019/08/14/353?ysclid=ly2y6gdl9114686765 (accessed: 1 July 2024).
9. Brenkert G.G. Marx’s Ethics of Freedom. London, 1983. Available at: https://marxists.architexturez.net/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/brenkert.htm (accessed: 1 July 2024).
10. Lektorskiy V.A. Deyatel’nostnyy podkhod: vchera i segodnya [Activity Approach: Yesterday and Today]. Shchedrina T.G. (ed.). Stil’ myshleniya: problema istoricheskogo edinstva nauchnogo znaniya [Thinking Style: Historical Unity of Scientific Knowledge]. Moscow, 2011, pp. 15–27.
11. Krijnen C.H. Sittlichkeit and the Actuality of Freedom: On Kant and Hegel. Bykova M., Westphal K. (eds.). The Palgrave Hegel Handbook. Cham, 2020, pp. 389–407.
12. Nevvazhay I.D. Transcendentalism as a Program for the Development of Epistemology. Epistemol. Philos. Sci., 2021, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 70–94 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202158230
13. Kant I. Sochineniya na nemetskom i russkom yazykakh. T. 2, ch. 1. Kritika chistogo razuma. 1787 [Works in German and Russian. Vol. 2, pt. 1. The Critique of Pure Reason. 1787]. Moscow, 2006. 1081 p.
14. Katrechko S.L., Vladimirov P.A., Perepechina A.S. Modern Images of Transcendental Metaphysics. RUDN J. Philos., 2021, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 729–738 (in Russ.). http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2021-25-4-729-738
15. He C. Dilemma and Rebirth: How Marx’s View of Practice Overcomes Kant’s Dilemma of Freedom. Open J. Philos., 2021, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 358–369. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2021.113025
16. Menozzi F. Reading Hegel After Marx: Lukács and the Question of Teleology. Int. Crit. Thought, 2022, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2022.2035792
17. Marx K., Engel’s F. Nemetskaya ideologiya. Kritika noveyshey nemetskoy filosofii v litse ee predstaviteley Feyerbakha, B. Bauera i Shtirnera i nemetskogo sotsializma v litse ego razlichnykh prorokov [German Ideology. Critique of Contemporary German Philosophy as Represented by Feuerbach, B. Bauer and Stirner, and of German Socialism as Represented by Its Various Prophets]. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya [Works]. Moscow, 1955, pp. 7–544.
18. Marx K. Kapital. Kritika politicheskoy ekonomii. T. 1, kn. 1. Protsess proizvodstva kapitala [Capital: Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1, book 1. The Process of Production of Capital]. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya [Works]. Vol. 23. Moscow, 1960, pp. 5–784.
19. Demiryol G.I. Labor as Freedom in Hegel and Marx. FLSF felsefe ve sosyal bilimler dergisi, 2018, vol. 25, pp. 367–381.
20. Marx K. Ekonomichesko-filosofskie rukopisi 1844 goda [Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844]. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya [Works]. Vol. 42. Moscow, 1974, pp. 41–174.
21. Kondrashov P.N. Fenomen tselostnosti cheloveka i ego bytiya-v-mire: ekzistentsial’no-antropologicheskaya interpretatsiya v kontekste filosofii Karla Marksa [The Phenomenon of Human Integrity and Being-in-the-World: An Existential Anthropological Interpretation in the Context of Karl Marx’s Philosophy: Diss.]. Chelyabinsk, 2019. 381 p.
22. Plato. Gosudarstvo [The Republic]. Plato. Sobranie sochineniy [Collected Works]. Vol. 3. Moscow, 1994, pp. 79–420.
23. Kravchenko A.I. Postroenie kategorial’nogo apparata v sotsiologii truda [Creation of the Categorial Device in Work Sociology]. Sotsiologiya, 2017, no. 4, pp. 15–31.
24. Starosta G., Caligaris G. The Commodity Nature of Labor-Power. Sci. Soc., 2016, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 319–345.
25. McNally D. Beyond the False Infinity of Capital: Dialectics and Self-Mediation in Marx’s Theory of Freedom. Albritton R., Simoulidis J. (eds.). New Dialectics and Political Economy. London, 2003, pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230500914_1
26. Hegel G.W.F. Philosophy of Right. Oxford, 1954. 404 р.
27. Marx K. Debaty o svobode pechati i ob opublikovanii protokolov soslovnogo sobraniya [Debates on Freedom of the Press and Publication of the Proceedings of the Assembly of the Estates]. Marx K., Engels F. Sochineniya [Works]. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1955, pp. 30–84.
28. Kant I. Kritika prakticheskogo razuma (1788) [Critique of Practical Reason (1788)]. Kant I. Sochineniya [Works]. Vol. 4. Moscow, 1994, pp. 373–565.
29. Critchley P. Marx, Reason, and Freedom: Communism, Rational Freedom and Socialised Humanity. 2001. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/10006922/Marx_Reason_and_Freedom_Communism_Rational_Freedom_and_Socialised_... (accessed: 1 July 2024).
30. Gioia V. Individualism and Social Change. An Unexpected Theoretical Dilemma in Marxian Analysis. J. Interdiscip. Hist. Ideas, 2019, vol. 16. Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/jihi/286 (accessed: 1 July 2024).
31. Simondon Zh. O sposobe sushchestvovaniya tekhnicheskikh ob”ektov [On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects]. Translit, 2011, no. 9, pp. 94–105.
32. Bardin A., Raimondi F. Shall We Forget Human Nature? Political Anthropology and Technics from Marx and Engels to Simondon. Contemp. Polit. Theory, 2023, vol. 22, pp. 24–45. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-022-00546-9