Bridging The Gap Between Existentialism and Marxism

Skimming though Critique of Dialectic Reason, sipping on chamomile, listening to Bach in the background, imagining myself philosophizing in the intellectual ambiance of a Parisian cafe, I found the pertinent desire to draw the manifest relationship between the existentialist preachings of Sartre to the Marxist ones of Che. I have just completed the highly insightful Marxism of Che Guevara, where I grasped the true essence of Che's philosophy as an intellectual and renaissance man. As I flipped through the pages of Sartre's work, it hit me that to achieve the true freedom of the existentialist school, it is essential for men to come together through the collaborative effort, with hammer and sickle in hand, to construct a society where the notion that "hell is people" disappears. The only motive behind hell being people is entirely due to the fact that capitalism infests every corner of our society. It is imperative to eradicate every capitalistic belief from the hardwired human mind. As Che preaches, if brainwashing educational programs is what it takes, then let it be.
Factoring Sartre's philosophy, that aims to bridge the gap between the two philosophies, it is evident that in a world where the environment is the sole determinant of our cognitive and behavioral composition, where "existence precedes essence" that since our socio-economic status in the world is beyond our control. It is in this spirit that since we are morally responsible for our position in this world, creating this utopia people define as communism, we must work together in order to build a society that is harmonious. Otherwise, "hell is people" in a society where everyone is out to serve his own interest, as capitalists breach. Moreover, both Marxism and Existentialism preach rejection of the moral structure that the bourgeoisie have subjected upon the masses.
Sure, Marxism and Existentialism may be diametrically different at their core as the former preaches collectivism while the latter preaches individualism, one could also perceive them as being complementary where the latter is a subset of the former. Existentialism advocates absolute freedom for the individual. Isn't that the ultimate aspiration for Marxism? Isn't Marxism at its core the shattering of the proletarian's shackles?
Once the individual's struggle to liberate himself from societal oppression, what could be more benevolent but to share that freedom with society, by forgoing individual freedom for the greater good, which is ultimately what socialism preaches. In a society where there is no rule imposed upon the individual by others, the individual has fulfilled his existentialist aspirations and while giving his fellow man the opportunity to do likewise. Similarly, socialism requires all men to give up their individual freedom for there to be universal freedom so that all could share their part of the freedom pie. It is thus manifest that existentialism cannot exist without socialism and vice versa. The two are complementary. History has not seen this, but the only way for the individual to experience complete freedom is for all of the human race to be free.
Some may advocate that it is too idealistic to achieve this vision, but the writer does not see this to be in the too out of reach. It is possible to achieve absolute socialism within a capitalistic framework. The elite and the intellectual, which govern the masses, have always been groomed to guide the latter. It is through the open dialogue between the two societal forces that the proximity between the two forces can be shortened to achieve an egalitarian society. This will not be a one way dialogue where the elite preach down to the masses, as has been the case throughout history, but so that a knowledge trickle down effect to the masses can take place so that they can learn the essentials of leadership, justice, education, and the other virtues that being an intellectual entail.
Now one stark distinction needs to be drawn. When Sartre preached for the overthrow of the government, one must consider the exact context in which he preached such a communique. Socialism preaches that the state is the ultimate power in the hierarchy, simply because it is a pure representative and protector of the proletarian. The state is made up of the proletarians; therefore, in an ideal socialist environment, there would never be a conflict between the government and the masses. The writer wishes to now draw your attention to the fact that Sartre's denouncement against the government was due to the French student protests of the 1968, which saw the true draconian nature of the bourgeois government. From the regency, to the Church, to the government of De Gaulle, the French government has always been one that is suppressive and coercive, and thus justly condemned by Sartre in La Cause De Peuple.
In conclusion, the writer believes, that existentially, it takes one person to realize the significance of freedom for its virus to infect others. Once the true realization of freedom is sought, the New Man will be born. Only then will this usher an era where the gap between the individual and society will vanish.