For Kant, “Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.

Immaturity is the inability to use one understanding without guidance from another.”
Enlightenment’s definition to Kant is the individual’s capacity of using their own reason to
make decisions regarding their own life and their experience in society in order to obtain
freedom, to transform the world in a more friendly place for the humanity.
According to Kant, laws must be imposed by people themselves (self-imposed laws)
to make them rightful. If a person follow the laws and the social rules even when they are not
being watched by someone who could apply sanctions, this person is truly enlightened
because the obedience shows the awareness of the laws’ importance to life in society.
Hence, men following laws they gave themselves is a sign of what Rousseau will consider
freedom. Actually deciding they want to obey the rules with a purpose of living in a world
where people behave in a certain way is a sigh of freedom and Enlightenment.
However, when we consider the context in which Marx started writing the thesis
Estranged Labour and the Communist Manifesto, he claims that the laws are imposed not by
men to men, but by monetary power to restrain men’s behavior and dictate a new social and
individual organization. Thus, the bourgeoisie has substituted the “natural superiority” motto
of feudal ties with a cash payment. “It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and
in place of the numberless and indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single,
unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and
political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.”. Despite the proletarians
exploitation, that happens through the alienation of their work, Marx’s thesis points to a sign
of what Kant would view as immaturity, even though both discuss restrictions to human’s
freedom.
To Kant, the individual’s freedom is restricted by others, such as religion. He says
that “But I hear calling from all sides: do not argue! The officer says: do not argue but rather
drill! The tax collector: do not argue, but rather pay! The clergyman: do not argue, but rather
believe! [...]. Here is everywhere restriction (Einschränkung) of freedom.” In his perspective,
people need to free themselves from immaturity by the agency of Enlightenment. By putting
away the shadows, one can create and follow self-imposed laws. This independence,
according to the philosopher, is positive for both the individual and the society as a whole.
On the other hand, as stated in Marx, the monetary exchange between work force
and a salary and also when the person uses part of this salary to by goods restricts freedom.
The laws are imposed by economic success of those who possess the means of production.
So, the proletarians’ freedom is despoiled by their necessity of selling their workforce.
Regardless, Marx’s view differs from Kant’s. While Kant assumes people are capable of
releasing themselves from immaturity, the Marx’s class struggle demands a fight between
the bourgeoisie and the proletarians in order to free the workers from the oppression.
 In the Communist Manifesto, we notice the importance of a revolution to change the
domain of capital and to extinguish the gap between “property owners and propertyless
workers”. Marx talks about a proletarian revolution able to give back workers’ dignity by
seeing and owning the results of their work. “By changes in the material conditions of
existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the
bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution, [...]”.
Therefore, the marxist thesis of a better world for the humanity relies on the equality of
purchasing power, which can only be achieved when there is no exploitation between
classes.
In Kant’s opinion, “A revolution is perhaps probably a waste of personal despotism
or of avaricious or tyrannical oppression (herrschsüchtiger Bedrückung); but never a true
reform in ways of thinking can come about; but rather, are new prejudices, just as well serve
as the old ones to harness the great unthinking mass.”. Reading Marx through Kant’s
Enlightenment, it is possible to verify that Marx’s proposals are not in sync with the concept
because the workers are not able to free themselves and imposed new self-imposed laws.
The proletarians depend on the chains’ rupture. And for this to happen, class distinctions
must disappear resulting “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class
antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the
condition for the free development of all.”
In conclusion, in both Kant’s and Marx’s theories, there are restrictions to individual’s
freedom among society. For Kant this lack of freedom should be solved with the faculty of
using one’s own reason to read the world, independently of others. The process of
Enlightenment is self imposed while the end of estranged labour requires revolutionary
actions.