“It is absurd that we live, it is absurd that we die.”
— Jean Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1943

“What is rational is actual, what is actual is rational.”
— Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Elements of a Philosophy of Right, 1820

Existentialism is a philosophical strain that attempts to subvert the basic roots of Marxist philosophy. During the Cold War, it rapidly grew in popularity, becoming hegemonic in Europe and the United States as an answer to the ideology of existing socialist states.¹ Those in the western left who were opposed to Marxist-Leninist philosophy and its Soviet representation attempted to create a philosophy that could deny crucial aspects of Marxist thought while still retaining a claim to a progressive view.

George Novack’s 1966 book “Existentialism Versus Marxism”² offers sections from various authors within this debate, bookended by essays by Novack setting up the history of the debate and evaluating whether these two philosophical trends can ever unite. For those new to the topic, this book can serve as a broad introduction, and I found it particularly useful for getting a survey of the argument as well as for understanding the stakes of the debate. Here, I’ll summarize the selected works, and then consider what this book does well and where it misses the mark.

After an introduction that briefly sketches the history of the two philosophical trends, Novack introduces us to the central originators of this debate. Marx and Engels understandably represent the building blocks for the Marxist side, while Nietzsche showcases the Existential view. The use of Nietzsche here is noteworthy given that he’s often treated as superfluous in this debate due to his lack of direct commentary on Marx or Marxism. Many books have been written positioning Nietzsche as a reactionary philosopher whose primary aim was to oppose socialism.³ As these writers have argued, Nietzsche’s extremely reactionary philosophy is often avoided as the locus of his thought,allowing Existentialism to be presented as containing a progressive core. Grounding our understanding with Nietzsche as an originator of Existentialism allows us to better grasp key elements of this philosophy—the inherent absurdity of life, existence preceding essence, and a focus on individual freedom from determinism—and see the reactionary elements that underpin them.

Subsequent sections set the scene for when Marxism and Existentialism directly meet. Sartre’s Existentialism is a Humanism⁴ is notable for being one of the first works to try to bridge the gap between Humanist and Existential philosophy, and his flirtation with Marxism foreshadows his later attempts to synthesize an Existentialist Marxism. He writes in favor of the prioritization of subjectivity over objective reality (“What they have in common is simply the fact that they believe that existence comes before essence—or, if you will, that we must begin from the subjective.”) and further frames class struggle as determined centrally by individual choice (“If I am a worker, for instance, I may choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union.”). We also are given a short section of Simone de Beauvoir’s “Freedom and Ambiguity,”⁵ questioning the role of the individual in a teleological Marxism where a Communist future is certain. She writes that in Marxism,

Subjectivity is re-absorbed into the objectivity of the given world. Revolt, need, hope, rejection, and desire are only the resultants of external forces…. [That] is the essential point on which existentialist ontology is opposed to dialectical materialism.

Thus, these writers oppose Marxism while also occasionally trying to strip away from it certain elements—frequently dialectical materialism— to create a framework that can be more easily absorbed by Existential metaphysics.

The next section includes responses to these attempts at opposition and partial fusion, written by György Lukács, Roger Garaudy, and Herbert Marcuse. Lukács views Existentialism as an effort of bourgeois ideology to curate a pseudo-radical framework that poses as a “third way” between the dialectical materialism of existing socialism and the idealism of capitalist imperialism.⁶ Marcuse argues that the Existentialist metaphysics conflicts entirely with a revolutionary project, writing that, “[Sartre] presents the old ideology in the new cloak of radicalism and rebellion.”⁷ Garaudy has some of the harshest words, asserting that Existentialism constitutes science-denial at its roots: “In truth, having abandoned en route everything that can make freedom rational and our history scientific, Sartre allows the minds of his disciples to wander between a subjectivity without laws and a world without structure.”⁸

Some of the most valuable texts of this book, in my view, are the rebuttals near the end. One important entry comes from Jean-Pierre Vigier, who writes on the Existentialist rejection of the dialectics of nature. The dialectics of nature debate constitutes a sharp divide between the ‘Western Marxism’ found within the imperial core and the ‘Eastern Marxism’ found in Actually Existing Socialism, and this dividing line is also a major fracture between Existentialism and Marxism.⁹ Existentialists, if they uphold dialectics at all, hold that dialectics are only applicable in relation to humanity, rather than applicable universally and scientifically as Engels wrote in The Dialectics of Nature. Vigier writes that, “The practice of knowledge, that is to say, science, is indistinguishable from philosophic theory itself. With Marx, science broke into philosophy and the barrier that divided them definitively crumbled.” Vigier’s short essay remains valuable beyond just this scope given the barrier the dialectics of nature presents for any attempt to synthesize Marxism; dialectical materialism is often first on the chopping block for those wishing to comfortably absorb a Marxist view into their own.

Two other essays provide compelling rebuttals to Existentialism. Investigating Existentialism’s pernicious individualism, Pyama P. Gaidenko argues that, “Existentialism likewise reflects the position of the individual in capitalist society, but it cannot and will not see any real way out of this situation and substitutes an illusory escape, just as Christianity does.”¹⁰ Criticizing later attempts to synthesize the two philosophies, Adam Schaff writes, “The proposed marriage of Marxism and Existentialism cannot, then, be celebrated. Materialism and idealism cannot come together, and no kind of ‘dialectic’ can unite them. Sartre has suffered the fate of many ‘completers’ of Marxism before him, and has entirely failed as a ‘renewer’ of Marxism.”¹¹

This book contains one major pitfall, and it is one common to studying this debate in the hegemony of western society. The “Stalinist” perspective is often mentioned, yet the philosophers of this trend are only represented antagonistically through the polemics of their detractors. Novack writes that Lezsek Kolakowski, an ardent Existential Marxist featured in the later section, distinguished between an institutional Marxism which defends the ‘dogmas’ of existing Marxist states, and an intellectual Marxism which purportedly stands apart from this ossification. Marxist state-building thus acts as a crucial line in the sand, yet without any authors directly arguing for a philosophical “Stalinism” we are left pigeonholed in our understanding. We are given a survey of opposing sides that nonetheless leaves one side voiceless.¹²

The book ends with a section of an essay from Novack¹³ where he details the key arguments of Marxism in opposition to Existentialism:

1. A rationally ordered scientific totality versus an irrational or absurd view of life
2. Determinate movement of history rather than an indeterminate or ambiguous chance
3. Nature as prior to and independent of humanity opposed to a view of human subjectivity as primary.
4. Freedom as the recognition of determinate necessity and not as an ability to escape determinism; this view also furthers defending an ethics intertwined with the future Communist horizon rather than an Existential claim to post-morality due to the ambiguity of the future.
5. An optimistic view of struggle and the possibility of socialist construction contrasted by a deeply pessimistic and tragic view of humanity’s path.
6. Alienation as a modern phenomenon that can be reconciled through a Communist horizon, not as a transhistorical condition of the human spirit.
7. The humanist centering of life’s fulfillment against the Heideggerian centering of death.¹⁴

Novack concludes with:

Let existentialism be what it really is—the ideological end product of liberalism and individualism—and not pretend to be something else. Let Marxism likewise be what it should be: that dialectical materialism which is the scientific expression and practical guide of the world socialist revolution of the working masses. But let not the two be intermixed and confused. Their mismating can produce only stillborn offspring, whether in philosophy or in politics.

The debates between Existentialism, Marxism, and their misbegotten offspring are still alive and well amidst a western left desperate to find a “middle way.” Novack’s anthology, although half a century old, remains a useful introduction for those hoping to navigate this discourse.

Last modified on 2026-02-25