It's been discussed before the relationship of existentialism and libertarianism, and why some existentialist are Marxist and socialist. Sartre is a good example. Yet, his growth towards Marxism seemed to stem from his childhood instead. He grew up in the care of his grandparents when his father died, and while they were wealthy they didn't pay much attention to Sartre as a child. He had a private tutor, but was isolated. His health was also disregarded which led to a growth near his eye which caused him to have the defective eye seen in his pictures as an adult. He felt that the bourgeoisie class was only concerned with their ownselves and not that of others, which he felt as he grew up in a wealth home, but his own needs were disregarded on a whole (his alienation).
Yet, the Marxist attacked his philosophy that it gave too much power to the individual and would have have destroyed the proletarian class interest. That it's subjectivity would undermine that of Marxism. While Satre's philosophy is rather nihilistic and individualist, it seems rather hard to put something like this forth, and at the same time subscribe to something such as Marxism where the individuals whims and demands are disregarded for the collective whole. I haven't found anything in his writings (yet) that specifically lean towards Marxism specifically that would contradict his own philsophy. Thoughts on this?
EDIT: The Search for Method: Introduction to Critique of Dialectical Reason - I. Marxism & Existentialism
Well he was a Marxist as far as philosophy went... not really economically...When Austrians talk about Marxists, they are concerned about the economics side, but Marxism is also a philosophy, and we don't talk too much about the philosophy portion. Marxist philosophy stresses that humans must work in order to live. they must not only work, but love what they are doing. If one hates work, then, according the Marx, one hates themselves. That is why they stress that a capitalistic society would only lead self-hating people. People would not appreciate on what they do in society because they fall in the wage slavery trap. Sartre wrote about loving work alot. Camus, another Marxist existentialist, uses Sisyphus as an example of loving work...Sisyphus' punishment was to work for all eternity, yet, Sisyphus did not mind his work because all his emotions, desires, pleasures was put into work...
One key mistake is that people think of Sartre as a nihilist. He was not. He believed the meaning to life was life itself. The meaning to life was whatever we want it to be...
People like Walter Block would disagree with this. Block would say that if he didn't have to work, he wouldn't work... Life isn't always about work. Just because we might hate our job, doesn't mean we lack self confidence...
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
When Austrians talk about Marxists, they are concerned about the economics side, but Marxism is also a philosophy, and we don't talk too much about the philosophy portion.
What do you mean by "we"? As far as I know the Austrians do talk about the philosophy portion, as that's the only thing left for Marxist to hold on to as the economics has been long refuted. Take Theory & History for example.
Marx didn't believe that one must work to live, but that instead work would be simplified to that of mere hobbies, and everyone would engage in what they needed as mere activities, in which they would get what they needed. He also believed in a breakdown of the division of labour, and I would assume that through the worker being alienated from his own labour that each would work according to his need and be self sufficient through their own independence.
I'm addressing Sartre as a nihilist in accordance to ethics and morality in existentialism, which has been addressed on a scholarly level, and Evola goes over this specifically in Ride the Tiger.
yes, what you said about Marx is right, about work, but what I said is right too... Marx takes this idea of work from how Hegel views man and nature, "when man alters nature, he himself is altered... "(Hegel) Marx takes Hegel's idea and applies it to work, when man works, he interacts with nature and transforms it, but in the process nature also interacts with man and transforms his consciousness. Therefore, how we work expresses how we feel about ourselves. When we are unemployed, Marx says that not only is one depressed but feels a sense of emptiness. Marx then agrees with Hegel on the work being a positive thing. When a worker works for a capitalistic system, the labor is in a sense, alienating himself because he is a slave for wage... This whole thing is called ''the view of man's labor'''
What I mean as 'we dont talk about Marxist philosophy'' is that we do not really criticize it, we only criticize the economics of it, well for the most part, Hayek did criticize the philosophy, but that is because he was a huge philosophy buff..
to bert:
paul johnson's intellectuals has a different take than yours on sartre's early life.
http://www.4shared.com/document/d47iA1es/Johnson_Paul_-_Intellectuals-H.htm
What has Sartre stated worthwhile that is unique to his superiors Stirner, Kirkegaard, and Nietzsche? I don't see him as anything but a left winger speaking trendy language while not observing the actual consequences of material reality. Than again I am no expert on Sartre, I just don't see anything worthwhile he stated
"Camus, another Marxist existentialist, uses Sisyphus as an example of loving work...Sisyphus' punishment was to work for all eternity"
Camus was not a Marxist. See his work The Rebel (L'Homme révolté). He may have seen much office work as ultimately unpurposeful over all. But existentialism necessarily points out that there are no higher purposes in existence. That you must revolt against the mundane and do what is necessary.
Sartre's work can easily be separated from Marxism. He came to it in the middle of his life and later abandoned it.
That goes quintuple for that idiot Albert "Stirner goes too far" Camus.
"What has Sartre stated worthwhile that is unique to his superiors Stirner, Kirkegaard, and Nietzsche?"
I think he is apples and oranges compared to those. If he was doing the same thing, one could claim superiority or inferiority. But he is not really.
On the one hand, Sartre wrote a lot of literature to easily and more artfully illustrate things to non-philosophers.
On the other hand, he goes through different things. Like consciousness, Being, ontology, phenomenology, existence, Nothingness, sex, facticity, and bad faith. All of which, as far as I know, were never explored by Stirner, Kirkegaard or Nietzsche; at least not as explicitly or in a very similar way. Some of these were explored by Martin Heidegger but in a much different way and for Heidegger's own highly idiosyncratic interests. But Sartre remains his own thinker and certainly not an imitator.
Like consciousness, Being, ontology, phenomenology, existence, Nothingness, sex, facticity, and bad faith.
I would say Stirner and/or Kirkegaard cover this minus phenomenology and maybe Being depending on how you use that term. I have read Heidegger, but only once so I can't comment on what he stated (it is a very difficult read, bested only by Hegel himself so far) though I do think it is a different aspect of ontology Stirner was talking about, particularly if it was mostly Husserl type of stuff. If somehow Being and Nothingness expands or elaborates on that idea, my statement would most likely have been wrong.
I don't see much worth in the existentialists other some short pithy quotes and some amount of amusing rebellion.
I can't imagine following the 'systems' created by any. Especially, since they build them up while saying it is impossible. That to be 'marxist' or 'anarchist' or any other ism a threat to authenticity or Heidegger's 'resolve'.
I think the reason many of the existentialists could fall into marxism, is that marxism denies itself as an ideology. But Heidegger was not a Marxist. And even refuted the marxist point 'philosophers only interpret the world. the point is to change it.'
"When this statement is cited and when it is followed, it is overlooked that changing the world presupposes a change in the conception of the world. A conception of the world can only be won by adequately interpreting the world."
Once you've resolved this problem, then you can go full force into philosophy -- or even nihilism -- without Marxism. Without Marxism being some truth which precedes philosophy. Because when you say 'existence precedes essence', it means a certain amount of freedom to do within the realm of facticity or what we are given upon birth. But there is also a sense in which history is overwhelming the sense of the possible or some modern definition of 'free' which may not be an eternal definition of the free. But a 'bourgeois freedom'. But Marx is also a conceptualizing thinker, a modern thinker, and not merely historical or purely 'free' thinker (free from ideology or bias). Which I imagine is why Sartre later left it. Sartre signed Being and Nothingness with a remark that said it was an antidote to all forms of determinism.
I prefer Camus to Sartre, both in style and substance. Sarte still clung to Certesian notions and his writing can be rather obscure. I found Camus to be much more clear and coherant.
I don't know if we are talking about the same thing, because I never meant to imply he{Heideggar] was a Marxist. I certainly did not view Being and Time as a political book. The thought of politics never realley crossed my mind while reading it. My reference to Sartre being a leftist was to specifically point out that I was unsure of what he said of value that was not political.
This was my own aside w/r/t the existentialists and their relation to Marxism.