Existentialism Versus Marxism: Conflicting Views on Humanism

by George Novack (Editor)

Included in this original and rich anthology are such classic figures as Nietzsche, Marx, and Ebgels, and such modern thinkers as Sartre, Camus, Marcuse et al.

Genres: Philosophy

Paperback

First published January 1, 1966

About the author

Leftist political activist and Marxist theoretician.

He attended Harvard University, earning a B.A. in 1926, and an M.A. in 1927. He was on a successful track in the publishing business, when the beginning of the Great Depression radicalized him. He joined the Trotskyist Communist League of America in 1933 and was a member of the National Committee of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) from 1940 to 1973.

In 1937-40 Novack served as the secretary of the American Committee for the Defence of Leon Trotsky. This body initiated the celebrated 1937 Dewey Commission that inquired into the charges made against Trotsky in the Moscow show trials, and found the Moscow trials to have been a complete frame-up.

George Novack was not one of the 18 SWP leaders imprisoned in World War II under the Smith Act, but he played a major role in the defense campaign.

Novack produced a number of books on various aspects of Marxism: An Introduction to the Logic of Marxism, America's Revolutionary Heritage, Democracy and Revolution, Empiricism and Its Evolution, Humanism and Socialism, The Origins of Materialism, Polemics in Marxist Philosophy, Revolutionary Dynamics of Women's Liberation, and Understanding History, Marxist Essays.

Reviews

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees · Rating 3 out of 5]

This review was originally written for Amazon in 2011. It's a bit embarrassing to read now, but I'm submitting it because the general outline seems to me still to hold true.

In 1960, Jean-Paul Sartre, the leading advocate of Existential thought, published Critique of Dialectical Reason, in which he reversed his antagonistic position toward Marxism and instead pushed forward the idea that Existentialism would "rescue and renew the original ideas of Marx". Existentialism versus Marxism: Conflicting views on Humanism seeks to answer--through the writing of prominent advocates of both positions--whether or not these seemingly opposite philosophies are indeed compatible. To do so, editor George Novack, himself a Marxist scholar, excerpts relevant passages to outline the history of each idea, to present the emergence of Existentialism and the reaction to it, and then to answer the question more directly by reprinting the response to Sartre's change of heart.

Part I contains writings from Nietzsche, Marx and Engels, which lays the groundwork for both philosophies. Part II excerpts passages from Sartre's Being and Nothingness to illustrate Existentialism as he originally conceived it, as well other writing by Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir to discuss Existentialism's reception and to outline a possible ethical approach. Part III features George Lukacs, Roger Garaudy, Herbert Marcuse as they attack Sartre's ideas. Part IV has Sartre changing his mind, and Albert Camus (from The Rebel) heatedly denouncing Communist views. Part V concerns French and Soviet views on existentialism, Part VI highlights orthodox and revisionist Marxism by way of the Polish thinkers Adam Schaff and Leszek Kolakowski, and Part VII is Mr. Novack's summation.

Given both the book's subject matter and its publishing date of 1966, I think it's safe to say that the prospective audience for Existentialism versus Marxism is limited--perhaps infinitesimal. Doubtless the conflict between the two seemed exciting and important at one time, but history seems to have passed one of them by and passed judgment on the other. Not that there aren't elements of each in modern thinking, but the weight assigned to this argument by Mr. Novack seems almost ripe for parody. Still, there are a few dividends--that I can think of--one might yet derive from reading Existentialism versus Marxism, though I doubt any of them are going to increase interest by much.

The first is the same as why I picked up the book: Glancing through the excerpts, I saw several names I recognized, but whom I had not as yet read. I thought that here might be a way to preview some of their ideas without taking out the time to study their longer works, which I'm not interested in doing right this moment. So in this way, I get a small dose of Nietzsche, Marx, Sartre, Kolakowski and Lukacs--all of whom I hope to return to someday--without getting too bogged down in a particular work. The other reason is a bit more abstract: The idea that the argument between these thinkers has a significance when considering the mindset of half a century ago. In our time, it strikes me that as soon as anyone takes himself seriously, a line of hecklers and satirists form up for the chance to throw the first rotten tomato. Probably there are a lot of puffed-up egos that need popping--both now and then--though I don't think there was as much balloon-bursting back then. Now, it seems to me, many serious people get around these hurdles by either self-deprecation (before anyone else can do the job), or else a folksy approach that belies their seriousness. In a way, I think it is refreshing to read a writers who are unapologetically deliberate about their subject.

It is also true that I learned quite a bit about Existential ideas and Marxist theory along the way, though every reader will have a different starting point for that--mine ended up being further behind the curve than I had assumed it was. But even with these reasons, or any others that one might think of, I can't rate the book any higher than three stars because it simply seems overwhelmingly irrelevant today. Additionally, the effort required in reading even a short excerpt of Sartre or Marx or Simone de Beauvoir is rewarded with too little substance, especially for readers only looking for a backdrop for contemporary thought. There is value here, certainly, but nothing that can't be obtained by reading the originals, or else within more modern interpretive works, which would place these two humanisms in historical context with the present.

[Leo46 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Novack’s intention seems theoretically interesting to compare and contrast these two prominent philosophies. The differences in belief in science in the first section is valid. "Freedom, necessity, and morality" outline the general merits of Marxism and common critiques of existentialism (which is far from original but still useful if you have never read critiques on existentialism). Honestly, it just proves that this comparison is not very useful… He sounds like he is trying to convert an Existentialist to a Marxist by critiquing Existentialism and praising Marxism--there is no real connection or relevant opposition between them.

The section "individuals and their environment" I see as problematic in its interpretation of existentialism. Of course, existentialism will always have its critiques on its individualistic nature, but Novack goes to an utter extreme reductionist stance that weakens existentialism to a point that makes it seem like pseudo-philosophy. He essentially reduces existentialism to a Heidegger quote and less than one sentence from Sartre to define it against Marxism. It may be true that some existentialists actually believe that their own experience dictates the existence of all things, but that constitutes little of the views of people who actually productively and meaningfully engage with existentialism (a.k.a. the people who actually matter in such a debate). If you just study existentialism with a little more depth, you can find that it drastically opposes nihilism (Nietzsche does this) and thus, solipsism, too, as both those ideas reject the responsibility needed to take up one’s freedom. Here, Novack wrongly equates existentialism to solipsism. The simplest counterargument against Novack is so elementary it’s funny: the literal definition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence--that one must come into existence first before assigning meaning to everything around them. This is a definition by Nietzsche who is arguably the most well-known Existentialist, and easily a better representation of the philosophy than Heidegger who is merely associated with Existentialism because of his influence on Existentialist philosophers but has never been really counted as one. Back to my argument, Novack saying that all existentialists believe all existence is dictated by themselves is bogus as he is confusing existence for essence here. A good existentialist builds their understanding through the essences they create for everything in the world in order to create the utmost meaning in their lives. This is what Novack isn’t understanding. Furthermore, he attempted to discredit existentialism by posing it as a useless revolutionary tool in a political framework. Of course, it’s useless if you frame it in something that it cannot be used for. It may be true that there are Philosophers who argue that existentialism can be used for political reasons, but most reasonable existentialists easily understand that the most significant and probably only useful utilization of existentialism is for the self to live a meaningful life, which is something that many people, if not most, care about. And of course, if you pit Marxism, a renowned political ideology/lens, against existentialism, existentialism will not prevail but it does not need to.

Furthermore, Novack's worst line of reasoning is in “The Destiny of Humanity” section where he surprisingly outlines a few Existentialist concepts quite well from Merleau-Ponty to Sartre to Camus but somehow he makes a fool out of himself afterwards. He literally proves the point I make in my previous paragraph that there is a responsibility in Existentialism where “Merleau-Ponty distinguishes between “bad” existentialism, which wallows in pure negativism, and “good” existentialism, which strives to project itself beyond despair. Camus regards the revolt against nihilism as the basis of everything worthwhile.” This is Novack’s quote. Somehow he arrives at the conclusions that “The pessimistic irrationalism of the existentialists clashes head-on with the militant temper of Marxism, which feels sure of the victory of humanity over all obstacles” and “This belief in the rationality of social evolution and in the necessity of the socialist revolution to usher in the next stage of human progress is the theoretical source of the optimism which suffuses scientific socialism” (the latter which is merely a report of marxism). Novack kicks himself back to square one, reducing existentialism to “pessimistic irrationalism.” He obviously has selective evidence if he quoted Sartre’s Being and Nothingness but decides to leave out Sartre’s response to communists and other critics at the time in Existentialism is a Humanism about the reality of Existentialism being a “stern optimism,” and having nothing to do with pessimism. It only seems pessimistic on the surface, and, sure, it deals with pessimistic ideas, but it is precisely the philosophy of dealing with pessimism that makes existentialism optimistic (that’s why Schopenhauer would never and is still never considered an existentialist--he is a thinker of pessimistic philosophy). I do not have time to argue for existentialism’s optimism here in its entirety, so just read Sartre if you are interested.

“Alienation In Modern Society” is just a section with a very short summary of existentialism’s response to alienation and then a longer summary of marxism’s response, of course. He, again, just sounds like a Marxist trying to convert existentialists, but really the existentialists that are even fitting to his descriptions are the ignorantly cynical teenagers misinterpreting existentialism that true existentialists would hate just as much.

Lastly, in his conclusion, he culminates his arguments poorly, saying that in his *opinion* existentialism and marxism are diametrically opposed. However, he does note that both sides will continue to reconcile each other’s philosophies just like Sartre does (which kind of kills the point of his claim). And for literally no reason but as an instinctual polemic against existentialism, he says that it is the product of liberalism and individualism with no evidence backing the claim at all (there could definitely be truth to this, but more to aspects of existentialism rather than its entirety; my point is that he did not even argue this well, though).

Honestly, I wish he just discussed Sartre more as he mentions him a lot but never goes into detail about The Critique of Dialectical Reason or his other works. Otherwise, it is just the timing of this work (1966) where Sartre arguably only had one work about Marxism available at the time. In agreement with the only two other reviews for this book, it has lost relevance. It is still an informative read if you leave out his claims about existentialism because his summaries of existentialism, summaries of marxism, and claims about marxism I can find at least some resonance and accuracy with.

[Ethan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is an enjoyable performance of mutually assured destruction of two philosophies. The Marxists point out the flaws in Existentialism and the Existentialists tear Marxism to shreds, neither provides a convincing case that they have any answers.