Comrade Freeman writes:
"
The Absurd Hero & The Ruthless Critic

“O my soul, do not aspire to immortal life, but
exhaust the limits of the possible.”
-Pindar, Pythian three

Albert Camus is regarded as the premier illumination of the philosophy known as Absurdism, which is often considered a pessimistic version of Existentialism and sometimes the division is not even recognised. The optimistic existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre was a friend of Camus, the two met during the Nazi occupation of France in the resistance movement. Camus during this period wrote on two of his major works “The Stranger “and “The Myth of Sysiphysus” while working along side the likes of André Malraux and Jacques Baumel on “combat” a famous resistance newspaper. After the war Sartre and Camus were both considered celebrities of the French intellectual scene. Camus a member of Sartre’s entourage wished to strikeout an independence so as not to be seen as a younger Sartre. This volition leads Camus to create “L'Homme révolté” or as normally translated into English “The Rebel” in 1951, a book size essay which deals with rebellion as an affirmation and search for order and unity in the face of absurdity. Through this piece the current author will firstly give the reader an insight into the philosophy of Albert Camus and then give an analysis of Camus’s comments on Karl Marx in “the rebel”.

To understand the philosophy of Camus it is wise that we explain it within the frame of its historical context. Camus was born in Algiers 1913 just before Europe fell into the “great war” the “war to end all wars” which before he could speak the man’s name took his father Lucien Auguste Camus who was drafted into the army and died fighting in France at the Battle of the Marne. This tragic but all too common event gave Catherine Camus Albert’s mother a stroke which permanently impaired her speech from that point on and leaving her a widow and single parent. Thus Camus grew up in a time of great turmoil in poor working class conditions. It is not a surprise that within such a milieu, the triumph of authoritarian principles and the clashing of imperial powers having extinguished all great hopes in the world, that a young intellectual would find the notion of the absurd alluring.

Camus found “the Absurd Hero” (1) in “Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious” (2). Sisyphus according to homer was king and founder of Corinth or Ephyra as it was called in those times, who scorned the gods driven by a passionate desire to outwit them. He stole the gods secrets, withheld information regarding the kidnapping of Aegina the daughter of Aesopus (god of the river which bears his name) by Zeus for water. But his Crowning deception of the gods came close to his death, when Thanatos personally came to claim him for the underworld. Sisyphus pretended to be intrigued by the handcrafts which Thanatos possessed convincing the sprit to show him how they worked, Thanatos did so and on himself. Thus Sisyphus had captured the sprit of death keeping him chained within his house for days, because of this the order of thing was servery out of wack, soldiers could be hacked to bits but be back in camp for dinner. Hades unimpressed with an empire that didn’t expand sent the god of war to free Thanatos and send Sisyphus to the underworld for eternity. But the cunning Sisyphus had another trick up his sleave. He convinced his wife to throw his body into a public square, thus he complained to Persephone that he hadn’t been given proper funeral rights and no coin with which to pay Charon and cross the river Styx. Persephone granted him leave of the underworld. But upon being delivered from the eternal darkness into the light Sisyphus was overwhelmed with the beauty and pleasure of the world, he revolted against the gods by denying death and the aphorism of the natural order death consummates life. He remained in the light for quite some time but even he could not fight off the inevitable and was cast down into the underworld where his indiscretion caught up with him. Sisyphus was then sentence to eternal labour and meaningless labour at that accumulating into nothing. The task according to some versions of the myth was pushing a rock up a mountain only to have it fall back down upon reaching the apex; he then would descend down the mountain to start his toil again. Camus sees the myth of Sisyphus as an allegory of the human condition, Sisyphus and “his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted towards accomplishing nothing. This is the price that must be paid for the passions of tis earth” (3). According to Camus what is tragic and heroic about Sisyphus is his consciousness of the absurdity of his existence and instead of committing suicide he asserts his liberty and passions in the act of revolt. He gives the absurdity a subjective meaning by affirming his passion in his rebellion and thus “he is superior to his fate. He is stronger then his rock” (4).

The ideals contained within Camus interpretation of “the myth of Sisyphus Marks the being an idea which I [Camus] was to pursue in the rebel. It attempts to resolve the problem of suicide, as the rebel attempts to resolve that of murder, in both cases without the aid of eternal values” (5). Thus the rebel was a continuation of the ideas expressed within “the myth of Sisyphus”, but dealing with the history of revolt and revolution in modern history. In part it was a criticism of radicals like Sartre who were willing to apologise for Stalinist crimes in the name of a future city of humanity. Sartre on the other hand believed that in order to surpass nothingness one needs to commit to action, in his novel “The Age of Reason” the protagonist Mathieu is unable to commit to any definite course such marrying Marcelle his pregnant mistress thus he is in a crisis of bad faith. Mathieu’s friend Bret on the other hand has joined the communist party, affirming a value and lifting himself out of bad faith and nothingness. Therefore Sartre believed that in order to have value one needed Praxis and through having a political Praxis one needed to get their hands dirty. Thus Sartre’s criticised Camus because “This Descartes of the Absurd refused to leave the safe ground of morality and venture on the uncertain paths of practicality. We sensed this and we also sensed the conflicts he kept hidden, for ethics, taken alone, both requires and condemns revolt” (6). Sartre reference to Descartes is quite apt, Descartes questioned many fundamental axioms which were held by the empiricalists, but came to an uninspired conclusion that “god” would not leave us in a state of illusion thus we can trust our thoughts and senses. Sartre’s and Camus’s critiques of each other are both quite apt and a synthesis of the two positions is often seen as the best course. But for our purposes we will not be looking at Camus’s whole take on the history of rebellion and revolution but his Critique of Karl Marx the Ruthless Critic.

We call Marx the Ruthless Critic because he posed his new enterprise as a “ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be” (7). If Karl Marx proposed a ruthless criticism of everything exiting, is it not legitimate that he also be critiqued especially in light of new historical data, thus unearthing his historical limits? Defiantly, I think Marx himself would have supported the enterprise, but some criticisms are warranted and some are not. Thus we will examine Camus criticisms to see if they are warranted or not. Camus starts introducing us to Marx inter-dispersed within analysis of other radical figures throughout history. One of the first comments he makes on Marx though is that he is one of the most misunderstood philosophers along with Nietzsche, both of which he claims have been wrongly employed by their followers. But throughout the book Camus draws up lines of categorisations but then he runs right through them. For example “the fascist revolutions of the twentieth century do not merit the title of revolution…the difference between them and the classic revolutionary movements is that, of the nihilist inheritance, they chose to deify the irrational, and the irrational alone, instead of deifying reason”(8). But latter on Camus continues to call fascist takeovers revolutions. Camus commits the same sin while analysing Marx drawing lines between the ruthless critics his ideas and his followers, even though he commits to criticising the religious-Marxist who deny facts when it conflicts with the prophecy but then falls down analysing Marx’s methodology because he sees him through the graze of the religious. This in mind we will analysis Camus’s Criticisms by quoting his major points and then weighing there value then continuing to the next point.

For Camus Marx’s methodology consisted of: - “the most valid critical method with a utopian messianism of highly dubious value” (9).

Camus by using the word “messianism” doesn’t mean that Marx was waiting for Sabbetai Zevi to reappear and bring world peace and justice (though he ‘disappeared’ in 1676 some Jews still await his return today), but a prophecy of a inevitable further society that supersedes the current society. Though this is a rather negative account of Marx’s method and world view, it’s not totality inaccurate. Antonio Gramsci correctly asserted the Marxist method in this maxim "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will" (10). This maxim illuminated the critical aspect of Marx’s method which Camus recognises but also highlights his Anti-absolutist determinism of Marx. Which is a factor often neglected but nether the less obvious to anyone who has read Marx’s criticisms of Cartesian materialism which used the machine-animal theory of Descartes applying it to human beings. Thus what is meant by the optimism of the will is that everything is in constant flux ever evolving (which is a notion held ever since the time of Hericlitus) therefore the negation of capitalism as we know it is inevitable; the question though is what will replace it? For Marx it was necessary and logical that Socialism replaced capitalism though Alexandre Kojeve following Hegel and Marx that the human “Geist” (11) was progressive felt that it lead to a kind of liberal capitalism not socialism.

Camus comments “for Marx Nature is to be subjugated in order to obey history, for Nietzsche nature is to be obeyed in order to subjugate history” (12).

This is absolutely correct, for Marx history consisted of the human manipulation through labour of the material conditions, thus nature must be dominated in order to obey ourselves. He never wrote that history was governed by abstract laws of progression like some French Materialists but rather that human volition or geist worked for a bettering of the situation to accomplish gains. Thus through this process of human praxis we create history, the evolution of our situation and ourselves. But for Nietzsche the historical problem is that of Nihilism, god is dead and existence is absurd, But even within the limits of nihilism we can transcend it by returning to nature to the will to power.

“Marx, then, is not a pure materialist, for the obvious reason that there is neither a pure nor absolute materialism. So far is it from being pure or absolute that it recognizes that if weapons can secure the triumph of theory, theory can equally well give birth to weapons. Marx’s position would be more properly called historic determinism. He does not deny thoughts: he imagines it absolutely determined by exterior reality” (13).

Camus in this point simply conflicts with the facts upholding a Cartesian dualism which has been severely undermined but modern cognitive science, though it was quite in vogue during his time with existentialism drawing large inspiration from Descartes. Consciousness has to be conscious of something either awareness of itself or of the situation in which it is placed, all of which are physical entities for example emotions are not an immaterial phenomenon but rather the workings of the paleopallium brain, comprising the structures of the limbic system reacting to stimulus. Therefore there is no mind/body split in the Cartesian sense but rather one physical entity. Thus for Marx there is no abstract thought because all processes of reasoning find their roots firmly planted within the Material context(past or present) of the subject. Camus comments on Marx’s epistemology and metaphysics untimely contradicts itself by reconsign that Marx saw the relationship between the subject and the situation as a two way street but then claiming that Marx thought one is entirety dominated by the other.

“Marx, following in the footsteps of Adam Smith and Ricardo, Defines the value of all commodities in terms of the amount of work necessary to produce them” (14).

This misrepresentation is rather perplexing when Marx spent a large time criticising people with the same view Camus attributes to Marx, particularly the authors who wrote the draft programme of the Gotha Congress. The Physiocrats were the first political-economists to focus on production as the origin of value and surplus-value. Quesnay and his acquaintances deliberated that value comes from land and nature extracted by agricultural labour; they considered manufacturing a mere act of circulation supplemented by labour thus not a form of value or surplus-value creation. Adam Smith Contrary to the Physiocrats thought that all value came from the labour used to create the commodity but Marx analysed commodity value as arising out both nature and human labour i.e. the two components of production (the capital eg. The machinery used in production is produced by the same process of labour-power and raw materials (from nature). Many theorists have expanded and broken down in to smaller categories of value Marx’s broad categories exchange-value and use-value, notably the structuralist Marxist/situationist influenced philosopher Jean Baudrillard who studied commodity fetishism developing the object-value system.

“Marx is the prophet of production and we are justified in thinking that on this precise point, and on no other, he ignored reality in favour of the system. He never ceased defending Ricardo, the economist of production in the manner of Manchester, against those who accused him of wanting production for production’s sake (‘he was absolutely right! Marx exclaims) and of wanting it without any consideration for mankind.” (15).

The Frankfurt schooler master of the ‘negative dialectic’ who forgot to negate T.W. Adorno used to remark (never in print) that Marx wanted the world to become a giant workhouse (16).But Marx praised the industrial revolution for unleashing productive powers that had never been seen because but was critical of its exploitive nature. A nature that lead to a great contradiction within the totality that is capitalist production the contradiction between Proletarians and bourgeois, production was developing in such a way as to provide for everyone but the drive of the bourgeois lead to concentration of capital into a few hands. Thus the productive powers that could lead to a society of free association and free development of each, lead paradoxically to a system of exploitation and servitude. The reason Marx exalted production was for two reasons, production or creation is a human function which at it’s lowest level of manifestation is our drive for survival, we survive through using our labour-power to transform a hospitable situation into a more conducive situation, if we have no shelter we create shelter etc. second reason being if the processes of production develops (eg. More output for less input especially less man hours to create said product) to the point where all things necessary to our survival as a species-being can be produced we can finality negate the bonds of necessity and all forms of economic domination. Thus Marx exalted production and creation not without any consideration for mankind but rather as a drive of mankind that would deliver a better world.

“The tendency observed in industrial England of nineteenth century has, in certain cases, changed its course, and in others become more complex” (17)

Marx and Engles as Camus comments saw that the communist manifesto was not strictly correct twenty years after it was first written, that Das Kapital Marx’s major work was going to be reworked following the arrival of new socio-economic data. The situation of capitalism has changed by the fundamental structures that make it capitalism have changed littlie other then accumulation of different capital holdings into corporations that existed in Marx’s time but were less prevalent. Thus Marx’s and Engles analysis of Capitalism remain relevant today along with the methodology which they employed in the analysis.

“The only really scientific aspect of Marxism is to be found in its preliminary rejection of myths and in its exposure of the crudest kind of interests. But in this respect Marx is not more scientific in his attitude then La Rochefoucauld” (18).

Marx and Engles used the title of a scientific method for their theories as a way of highlighting the difference between themselves who analysed the situation systematically and early socialist who dreamt of sailing away to distant places to set up utopias or who wrote of how society would be in 2000. So even though Marx brought to the table a Methodology of analysis and plan to attain Socialist change his method was wrongly labelled a science. Though the negative part of the method have scientific landings and could be held as part of the human sciences which should not be subject to the same burdens as natural sciences, the positive part of the method the optimism of the will is utopian but a minimum utopian compared to the schemes of early pre-Marx socialists.

Albert Camus’s Criticisms of Marx’s methodology generally contradict themselves or see Marx through the eyes of the religious-Marxist the Stalinist and as a result fall short of a legitimate Criticism of Karl Marx the ruthless critic. But we do get an insight into the pervasions of Marxism by the Lenin cult though Lenin himself was not a cultist he did provide the basis for the Stalinist religion as Camus comments, “Lenin, therefore, beings from the firm and indisputable principle that the state dies as soon as the socialization of the means of production is achieved and the exploiting class has consequently been suppressed. Yet, in the same pamphlet, he ends by justifying the preservation, even after the socialization of the means of production and, without any predictable end, of the dictatorship of the revolutionary fraction over the rest of the people” (19). Though Camus gives sufficient reason why we should avoid the Leninist course of State socialism, the alternative the Descartes of the absurd puts forward is a kind of Neo-stoicism of passiveness to grand-narratives is not more alluring to anyone seeking to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves condemned.

Notes to The Absurd Hero & The Ruthless Critic.

1) Albert Camus’s “The Myth of Sisyphus”, p 108.
2) Ibid, p 109.
3) Ibid, p 108.
4) Ibid, p 109.
5) Albert Camus’s 1955 Preface to “the Myth of Sisyphus”, p 7.
6) Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Tribute to Albert Camus." Published in The Reporter Magazine, February 4, 1960, p. 34.
7) Letter from Marx to Ruge, written in Kreuznach during September 1843.
8) Albert Camus’s “The Rebel”, p 146.
9) Ibid, p 156.
10) Antonio Gramsci’s “Prison notebooks” (selected, translated and edited by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell smith), p 173.
11) For Marx geist (eg human sprit, essence, soul etc…) was material and progressive in the sense that human volition strives for development. Alternately for Hegel geist was progressive but immaterial.
12) Albert Camus’s “The Rebel”, p 71.
13) Ibid, p 166.
14) Ibid, p 170.
15) Ibid, p 172.
16) Adorno’s remark is quoted in martin jay’s “the dialectical imagination”, p 57.
17) Albert Camus’s “The Rebel”, p179
18) Ibid, p 188.
19) Ibid, p 196."