How did Kant define Enlightenment?

Use Kants definition to discuss whether

either Rousseau or Marx is an Enlightenment figure. In other words, choose one
of the following comparisons to write about: Kant compared to Rousseau, OR
Kant compared to Marx.

In the essay An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? published in 1784, Kant
provides his own personal definition of Enlightenment as mans emergence from his
self-incurred immaturity. The German philosopher described the movement referring
to the abandon of immaturity, intended as the inability to use ones own understanding
without the guidance of others, and its self-incurring nature, as it is the results of laziness
and cowardice instead of a proper lack of understanding. Indeed it is precisely the
devolution of human understanding, spiritual belief and power of judgement to others
guidance, namely guardians, that Kant is strongly criticizing and Enlightenment is
attempting to eradicate. In particular in this essay the author, spent major effort in
dispelling ruling elites fears concerning Enlightenment and its possible consequences in
the destabilization of the established social status quo of the time. Kant, using the same
philosophical procedure with which he steered a middle course between empiricism
and rationalism, generated a middle way between obedience and wild revolution, arguing
that man will work of their own accordtheir way out of barbarism so long as artificial
measures are not deliberately adopted to keep them in it but however they will proceed
gradually along this path of freeing their intellectual capacities. Thus, as long it entails
progress in education, in reason, and as long it unfold incrementally (and as long it leaves
enough room for faith, I would add), Kant, welcoming the advent of Enlightenment, is
absolutely embracing Modernity.
Whether Marxs thought is consistent with this definition of Modernity, and whether
himself can be considered an Enlightenment figure, is however not immediate.
Firstly Marx departs from Kant both for his definition of Modernity (despite they share
the ultimate objective of Modernity, namely human emancipation), and his approach
towards it. On one side, Marx, as Rousseau did with the state of nature, employs the
concept of economic injustice as a pulpit from which to hurl his sharp criticism of the
current production system, which is nothing but the product of the Modernity that Kant

so faithfully advocated. The sense of alienation (or self-estrangement) imposed to modern

workers which emerge from his first manuscript Estranged Labor, capable of turning
animal what is human, and human what is animal, constitute for Marx a strident
contradiction, a glaring conflict which, in turn, would necessarily generate an historical
change, recognized by him in workers revolution against the oppressive industrial system
of Capitalist mold. Marx, which inherited this philosophical conception from the
Hegelian dialectic sensitivity to history and that later become the founding pillar of his
revolutionary thought, not only foresee the inevitable solution of contradictions intrinsic
in workers condition as prescribed by the conflicting evolution of history, but conceive
that as a vehicle for achieving universal human emancipation. Thus, on the other side,
as long as Modernity is conceived as an era of conflict resolution in the history course
and human liberation, Marx, following Hegels footsteps, not only welcomes the advent
of Modernity, but foretelling a sudden social revolution promotes the most rapid
approach towards it. Thus we face two different approaches towards Modernity, whose
ultimate aim, common to both, is the achievement of human emancipation. The first is
the gradual liberation through reason advocated by Kant. Contrarily, the second,
attributable to Marx, comprises the rapid resolution of contradictions by means of
Proletariat Revolution. The differences in these two approaches are probably
attributable to authors divergent understanding of the sources of the troubled human
condition, and its makers. In fact, while Kant stresses the limits of human immaturity,
and its self-inflicted nature, emphasizing the therapeutic role of Enlightenment in this
regards, Marx point the accusing finger outside the sphere of who is suffering its
condition, right to the perverse capitalist mechanism of alienation. In conclusion, if we
must strictly attain to Kants definition of Enlightenment, Marx cannot be considered,
by any means, an Enlightenment figure. Indeed, despite both philosophers conceive a
Modern era found upon human emancipation, Marx, with respect to Kant, identified
different problems concerning the human condition (workers alienation versus immaturity),
different sources of the problems (capitalistic system of exploitation versus self-incurrence),
provides different approach to their resolution (abrupt revolution versus gradual learning),
and prospect different results (subversion of the ruling class versus persistent social order).