Karl Marx and Charles Fourier: criticism of contemporary society and new philosophical anthropology

Several great economists enriched their reflection with an anthropological vision, which engaged in a critical dialogue with economy and society of their time. Marx devoted to his vision of the human being the Manuscripts of 1844 and other works of the same period, some of which written with Engels. The individual, his liberty and the mode to express his whole potentiality in a historically determined environment are the issues dealt with in those writings. According to Marx, the fundamental historical determination is the mode of production. The scientific analysis of capitalism allows him to single out the historical pathway to trespass it. In the new classless society, the relationship beween people will be rational and authentic: then human potentiality will be fully developed. As is known, Marx’s philosophical anthropology remained in backstage with regard to his political and economic reflection. This due to the delay in the publication of some works, and also to the evolution of the countries where people tried to realise socialism, with poor result especially on this point. However in capitalistic countries the philosophical anthropology of Marx has been studied also by scholars far from several other aspects of the Marxist approach, who found important hints there. Charles Fourier has an original, strong philosophical anthropology and suggests a radical transformation of many aspects of society. However this criticism, appreciated by Marx and Engels for his biting sarcasm, doesn’t involve the mode of production, where waged labour (even though radically reorganized) and private ownership of the the means of production remain. Indeed Fourier maintained that capitalists should support the “New World”, which would allow them huge profit. Criticism and praxis of Fourier begin from his anthropology: by releasing people’s “passions”, the repressive and inhuman society will be dismantled, and will blossom the New World, which Fouriers describes with utmost accuracy. The play of the passions and the strength of the example transform the entire society: starting from his vision of the subject, Fourier is able to criticise the present world and draw the future. The present paper aims at comparing the dialectic between philosophical anthropology and transformation of society in Marx and Fourier. According to Marx, the liberation of Man can happen only in the classess society, established by the proletarian revolution. According to Fourier, people must begin to live in communities ruled by the “law of attraction”, and the example of these happy men, living their passions, will move the entire humanity. The dialectic between philosophical anthropology and social trasformation in our two Authors develops in opposite way. Another topic considered is the respective vision of the freed individual. Marx doesn’t offer a complete portrait, apparently letting this task to future Authors: his scope is the analysis of the present time and its possible development, not prophecy. However some hints about this can be found in Marx’s work. Comparing these clues with the pages of Fourier about man and his passions, interesting analogies emerge. Finally, my work puts forward some reflections about the importance that the utopian philosophical anthropology has in our advanced capitalist society. The critical analysis of Marx can be fruitfully merged with Fourier’s original vision of man (which influenced Marx), to suggest a possible way of transformation to our age of anxiety.