Prof. Dr. Erol Göka
One of the inevitable realities that awaits a former Marxist — and I am one of them — in the course of an intellectual journey is the necessity of reckoning with Marx anew at every stage of development. I remained a Marxist from adolescence through my early youth. The Marxism I later renounced is a system of thought that descends into the practices of human life and encircles the individual almost like a religion. That is why, at every significant turning point in my life, I have tried to see how much distance still remains between me and Marxism. I have published my thoughts on this subject at every opportunity. I would now like to share them once again, this time through Kritik Bakış. Needless to say, the reflections in these writings will not aim at a comprehensive examination of Marx, but rather will take the form of concentrations shaped by the demands of my personal story.
Our readers at Kritik Bakış are surely aware that the articles I have written up to now have also functioned as an implicit critique of Marxism (1). These writings, while drawing inspiration from classical Marxism, prioritized the individual, the collective mind, the state as the embodiment of that collective mind, morality, and justice as a virtue — and were thus a challenge to Marxism’s reductionist approach. God willing, my objections will rest on firmer ground once I go on to highlight the errors Marx and Engels made in establishing the connection between the family, the state, and private property. For now, I will attempt to offer an assessment from within an intellectual pursuit that, since my youth and in accordance with my professional orientation, has been primarily focused on psychology.(2)
Spiritualizing Marx
Freedom and solidarity. Two utopias of humanity. Two ideals that have always been pursued, and at times believed to have been attained. Two essences originating from two distinct sources within the human being, impossible to express simultaneously and with equal intensity. A symbol born from the dream of being united with the Other in a single being without losing one’s own identity. A miraculous line of unique tensions — between mother and child, Creator and servant, state and citizen, class and worker, vanguard and mass, group and the individual.
I am in favor of solidarity — of the collective and the public — as the foundation for the individual and for freedom, but only on the condition that they never destroy the individual or freedom, and indeed allow them to flourish. However, when it comes to freedom, I believe there is little left for me to learn from Marx. I should elaborate:
Even a cursory glance at the social and political dimensions of human relations in today’s world makes it hard to disagree with Marx when he says, “One thinks differently in a peasant’s hut than in a palace.” Indeed, in today’s world where money is the universal commodity, it determines not only the rules of the game wherever it enters, but also the horizons of life and worldviews of those who possess it. In our country, especially in recent years, the sudden change in the lifestyles and perspectives of certain social circles — who have climbed the economic ladder by accumulating capital, likely thanks to factors such as religious solidarity and trust, along with the absence of a modern consumer culture — unmistakably confirms this prediction of Marx. The burning truth that brings together capitalists from the right, the left, and (now) the religious sector side by side in their ways of living and thinking, despite all the conflicts and contradictions between them, is precisely the truth that Marx so clearly saw at a glance: Material life practices take precedence over worldviews; in other words, a person’s social consciousness is determined by their social environment. (3)
But this is not all that Marx sees at a glance; he perceives only one aspect of the dialectical relationship between material life practices and worldviews, and thus grasps only one side of the truth. Yet there is another side to the relationship between material life practices and worldviews — one that he merely intuits but never fully comprehends. It is indeed not easy to perceive this dimension of the human–life relationship that slips through Marx’s conceptual grasp, for it possesses a fluid, elusive nature; it easily slips away from the hands of those who try to seize it with their fingers rather than skillfully enclose it within their palms.
The aspect that Marx overlooked was, to some extent, grasped in the West by Hegel, and to a greater extent by Nietzsche and Heidegger. This aspect concerns the primordiality of meaning in the human lifeworld555. Human beings are not merely defined by a consciousness shaped by their social environment, but more fundamentally, they are beings who understand — and by understanding, possess the potential to both live within and renew the tradition into which they are born. Human understanding, the attainment of awareness regarding reality, liberates the individual from the grip of material practices and natural determinations; it creates the possibility for emancipation and can lead to revolutionary transformation in one’s way of living. Were this not the case, we would not be able to explain individual and social changes in history in any truly convincing way. This is precisely why Marx’s explanation of social change in terms of the tension between the relations of production and the productive forces ultimately remains unsatisfying.
For example, in today’s modern world, psychotherapy practices offer individuals the possibility of personal change — to a certain extent — despite the constraints of material life practices. By becoming aware of the blind spots in one’s life journey, it becomes possible to transform a life that has until then been filled with sorrow and dissatisfaction. Likewise, in moments of existential awakening, thanks to the light emanating from the truth of life one has come to recognize, a person may suddenly cast the noose upon the neck of a life that is ordinary, numbing, consuming, and soul-crushing.
Likewise, history has its revolutionary moments. At such times, a word descends upon the earth that rescues people from oppression and ignorance; things become illuminated, and those who have decayed under the determining power of material life practices are granted an opportunity for collective purification and renewal. For the word that brings enlightenment also brings with it an entirely new morality — one that transforms how people see themselves and each other. The word, and the morality formed in response to it, changes the world.
Marx set out with purely ethical and revolutionary aims such as the emancipation of human beings and the enrichment of human existence. He saw the foundations of rationality in collective effort, yet he was highly reluctant to move beyond the framework of ego rationality and consciousness, and remained unresponsive to depth psychology. He could see that a certain spirituality and moral maturity were necessary for the ethical and revolutionary goals he envisioned, but at the same time, he claimed that categories like “divine justice” and “natural law” originated in alienation. He pursued an ethics that had no need for morality, a religion without God; this is why he referred to religion as both “the opium of the people” and “the soul of a soulless world.” On the one hand, Marx could speak harshly of Proudhon for preaching a transcendental morality that ruled over society; on the other, even in an age where greed for money was idolized, he could not hide his admiration for the English factory inspectors — for their moral courage, inexhaustible energy, and spiritual superiority.(4)
Marx understood only part of the dialectical relationship between material life practices and worldviews, and left the other part underdeveloped. Nearly all of his followers, in turn, viewed reality through the partial lens with which he had seen it — failing to notice the rest, or dismissing it as a relic of the past to be discarded as soon as possible.
However, followers such as E. P. Thompson and Raymond Williams were among the first to recognize that something was going wrong in the way Marxists were grasping reality; for this reason, they reinterpreted the concepts of culture and class by incorporating the struggles found in historical and religious traditions. The effort to infuse Marxism with a sense of spirituality was carried on by proponents of liberation theology — a movement that has now significantly lost momentum. Today, even if they do not openly declare themselves Marxists, this current has remained alive within Europe’s labor parties.
“The human being has nothing but what they strive for”
This subtitle is from verse 39 of Surah An-Najm. The word sa‘y in the verse does not correspond exactly to what we mean today by “labor” or “worker.” Beyond its literal meaning of “movement” or “effort,” it also carries the sense of ‘amal — which can be described as “the totality of physical, psychological, and spiritual activities directed toward a purpose,” or praxis. All our actions as human beings — all effort, striving, and exertion — correspond to ‘amal. In today’s terms, “labor” can at best be considered a subset of ‘amal. Without understanding this broader meaning of human labor — that is, ‘amal — envisioning a new world seems hardly possible.
To be able to perceive this dimension, one must go beyond the view that limits human labor to physical strength — or at best, to mental activity — and grasp the encompassing and determining role of spirituality above both. Once you place spirituality above both physical and intellectual labor in your thinking, your perspective on labor begins to shift as well. The meaning of labor expands, transforming into ‘amal’ — a form that also includes the afterlife, acts of worship, and moral conduct.
The human being is not merely defined by a consciousness shaped by their social environment, but more fundamentally, is a being who gives meaning, who understands, and who believes. Through understanding and gaining awareness of reality, the human being escapes the grip of material practices and natural determinations; this opens the door to liberation and endows life with the potential for radical transformation. Were it not so, we would be unable to convincingly explain individual and social changes throughout history. That is why Marx’s explanation of social change as the result of tension between the relations of production and the productive forces does not fully resonate with many of us.
Religion, in the end, is the consciousness of first pausing to reflect on worldly life — on our fears, both internal and external, and on our very existence — and then undertaking the necessary transformations. It is both the acceptance of fate (what is), and at the same time the effort to transcend what exists; both the willingness to receive what is given, and simultaneously the resistance to ever accepting servitude to another human being.
Muslims who understand labor as ‘amal’ and believe that submission and struggle complement each other, therefore see themselves as representatives of a civilization — one that is always driven by the determination to build a new world. They are aware of the value and sanctity of working with both physical and intellectual effort. But they do not stop there. As expressed in verse 71 of Surah An-Nahl — the chapter named after the bee, which symbolizes work — they believe that sustenance can be distributed justly:
“God has granted more provision to some of you than to others. Yet those who have been given more do not share their provision with those under their authority so that they would be equal in this respect. So, are they knowingly denying God’s favor?”
Just as the lives of the wealthy tend to resemble one another, it is also true that the lives of the poor are inclined to look alike — but according to Islam, human inclinations do not originate solely from material practices. For example, Muslims refer to the first Thursday night of the month of Rajab as Raghaib, a word derived from raghāba, which means “to long for something, to desire it, to incline toward it, and to strive to attain it.” Drawing upon this positive spiritual inclination, they engage in ‘amal’ on behalf of a civilization that seeks to turn the world into a realm of peace, brotherhood, and well-being for every human being — regardless of material wealth. The verse “The human being has nothing but what they strive for” continues as follows: “And the outcome of their effort, struggle, labor, and sincere intentions will be seen in the future. Then they will be fully rewarded for it.”
As intellectuals living in Türkiye — a Muslim country — we must develop a deep understanding of the dialectical relationship between material life practices and worldview. It is precisely this understanding that can reveal to us the revolutionary role of morality, protect us from the oppressions of worldly life, and sharpen our determination to struggle for goodness and justice, while at the same time preventing us from becoming puritanical moralists or miserable conservatives. Through this perspective, the necessity of political resistance against oppression — no matter who it comes from — can be recognized; and politics itself can become a means not for power, ambition, or self-interest, but for the realization of justice on earth. This understanding will also liberate theology from mystification by saving it from being pitted against science, and will enable it to be reconciled with freedom.
Footnotes:
- I did not merely criticize; I also tried to show how, in the world we live in, one branch of Marxism has been dragged into a direction completely contrary to its ultimate goal — and how hostility toward tradition has led some Marxists today to serve the interests of the very wealthiest.
- For a more detailed account of my perspective on psychology, please see my book Psychology, Existence, Spirituality (Psikoloji Varoluş Maneviyat, Kapı Publications).
- In my view, the following words of Imam Ali in Nahj al-Balagha express more clearly the reality that “social consciousness is determined by social relations”: “What we believe does not determine how we live. How we live determines what we believe.” This statement by Imam Ali helps us better grasp the mental frameworks that guide people’s life strategies in daily existence — frameworks that legitimize worldly relations and realities, and present them as the best of what is possible.
- Marx’s admiration for these deeply spiritual individuals is reminiscent of Sigmund Freud’s sentiment toward the Swiss priest and psychoanalyst Oskar Pfister.