Marx et Leibniz

[translated excerpts]

by Jon Elster

In re:

Elster, Jon. “Marx et Leibniz,” Revue Philosophique de la France et de l'Etranger, 108 (2), April-June 1983, pp. 167-177.

In rough English translation [which was probably a product of automatic translation]:

[1]

Leibniz’s theodicy has a temporal dimension that is at the basis of the secular philosophies of history developed by Kant, Hegel, and Marx.

Much of the reasoning about Marx’s alleged lapses in causal explanation are unconvincing to me, but Elster at least read Marx.

Here are some choice excerpts translated:

[2]

In his critique of the partial nature of vulgar economics, Marx uses the notions of Leibniz. The word 'harmony’, certainly, comes forth under his pen. He also employs other terms more specifically related to the Leibnizian system. This is a major theme in our Making Sense of Marx, forthcoming (Cambridge University Press). A term coined by Raymond Aron and Daniel Bell in the 1960s, independently of each other. See, for example, MEW, 25, p. 390-391. MEGA, I.22, p. 51, 100, 138-139. See notably the text on Bastiat and Carey, MEGA, 11.1.1, p. 3 ff. as well as MEGA, II. 3.4, p. 1500-1501.

[3]

In Capital, he extensively discusses the "theory of compensation" according to which workers displaced by machines will find employment in the construction of those same machines, and he opposes the "vulgar apologist" to the "real facts, disguised by economic optimism". Let's recall that the term "optimism" was invented precisely to characterize Leibniz's theodicy. It should also be noted that there is perhaps a less known fact, namely the existence of a text by Leibniz that deals with this problem: it is the "Discussion of a useful and curious question, whether one should admit the introduction of instruments that shorten labor and by means of which one man can do as much as several." He first notes that "this question has often been raised," while acknowledging "that there will be some who would be surprised at first that one can ask whether to use the advantages that one has at hand; but these advantages can be compensated by other disadvantages," so that they must be weighed to see which way the scale tilts." Among the examples cited by Leibniz, that of mines is the most important: "It is known that miners are always strongly opposed to such inventions, by which work was shortened, believing that this would make them less necessary in part, and would reduce their numbers. But no attention was paid to their objections, and their apprehension was unfounded, as they were employed in other things." Unlike the vulgar economists, criticized by Marx for having sinned by Leibnizian optimism, Leibniz does not say that inventions provide employment for those they displace, but the idea is completely in line with his conciliatory spirit. Regarding Bastiat, Marx also used the expression "economic theodicy." To our knowledge, this is the only occurrence of the term. On the other hand, the phrase, Leibnizian among all, of "the best of worlds" is found several times.

[4]

[Marx: ....] The bourgeois, on one hand, is an expression of their servility as they represent all functions as being in the service of wealth production for him; on the other hand, they represent the bourgeois world as the best of all possible worlds, in which everything is useful for something, and the bourgeois themselves are sufficiently educated to understand it. These expressions - harmony, theodicy, optimism, best of all possible worlds - demonstrate without ambiguity that Marx viewed the vulgar economist in the image of Leibniz as seen by Voltaire. Nothing authorizes one to see a personal reading or a direct influence. Their interest lies mainly in the context of the philosophy of history sketched above. From the point of view of history, Marx was ready to justify all the sufferings, but he refused his opponents the right to do as much.

[5]

All capitalist justification does not accept self-justification. This brings us back to the origin of both ideas. 3. - The Leibnizian origins of Marx's individualism The principle of the identity of indiscernibles plays a capital role in Marxist theory of communism. This firm notion may seem founded in the texts we are going to cite. It is important to note that Marx was indeed an individualist, in the sense Louis Dumont gives to this expression: the valuing of the individual human being. In numerous passages, he characterizes communism because it allows for the free flourishing of the individual.

[6]

Marx first cites the text of Leibniz according to which "any monad necessarily differs from any other, for there is never in nature two distinct beings such that one should be strictly identical to the other", and adds that "the uniqueness of Sancho [i.e. Stirner] is here reduced to the level of an equality he shares with any grain of sand". Marx here uses the principle of indiscernibles to reduce the individualist philosophy of Stirner to an analytical level; one cannot assert the value of the individual, as he will do later.

[7]

.... in the manuscript of 1861-1863. It engages in a polemic against economists who deny the possibility of measuring value by the labor time, asserting that the products of two individuals during the same period are absolutely commensurable.

[discussion of Critique of the Gotha Programme]

[8]

Marx's references to the principle of indiscernibles anchor themselves in and culminate in this theoretically conscious passage. It is allowed to think that his "admiration" for Leibniz largely comes from the use he may have made of this principle as a foundation for his individualism. The influence of theodicy is subjective rather than chosen; it could not engender any admiration. On the other hand, the appeal to the principle of indiscernibles is to refute any conception that would erase specific individualities perfectly liberated. It suggests that one of the roots of Marxist vision of the communist society is found in Leibniz's metaphysics. We insist on the word "suggests" rather than "demonstrates"; [.....]

R. Dumain, 27 July 2025

Leibniz and the Development of Economic Rationality
by Jon Elster

Logic and Society: Contradictions and Possible Worlds (Contents)
by Jon Elster

Introduction: Logic and Society (excerpt)
by Jon Elster

Leibniz & Ideology: Selected Bibliography

Marx & Individualism Reconsidered: Selected Bibliography

Marx and Marxism Web Guide

Offsite:

Logic and Society: Contradictions and Possible Worlds
by Jon Elster

CONTACT Ralph Dumain

Uploaded 21 December 2025