MIA > Archive > Boudin > The Theoretical System of Karl Marx
Marxism— that theoretical system of which Karl Marx was the chief exponent, and which its adepts are wont to term “Scientific Socialism”— has reached a stage in its existence which marks it as one of those systems of thought which in the history of the intellectual development of the human race are epoch-making and stamp their character upon the age the intellectual life of which they dominate. While the fight for its existence is still raging, and it is growing in intensity from day to day, the character of the fight betrays the difference in its position. It no longer fights for recognition, so to speak, but on the contrary, it fights to maintain the position of an established doctrine, one might say the established doctrine, a position which it has assumed and occupied since the appearance of the last volume of Capital in 1894.
Marx-criticism is not any the less frequent or any the less vehement to-day than it was at any time during the life of his doctrines. Quite the reverse: At no time since the first foundations of the great system of thought which bears his name were laid down by Karl Marx, more than fifty years ago, have his assailants been so numerous or so active as they are now. Marxism— opposition to Marxism— is the moving cause, the burden of the song, the ever-recurring Leit-motif, of every new book, pamphlet, and essay on philosophy, sociology, or political economy, that lays any pretensions to being abreast of the modern current of thought. There are now being published numerous periodicals— weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.— devoted exclusively, openly or covertly, to the fighting of Marxism. This is itself, of course, one of the manifestations of the dominating influence which the teachings of Marx and his disciples have obtained over the minds of human kind: it now requires the constant efforts of a great army of intellectuals to combat, and that with very doubtful success, the progress of the teaching which less than a quarter of a century ago would have been passed by one of them as a negligible quantity in the sum total of our intellectual life.
Aside however from its volume, the tone of the anti-Marx-literature of the present day shows the change in the position of Marxism. The tone of personal hostility towards Marx, the slighting estimate of his position in the realm of thought, and of the importance of his system in the development of ideas,— which were once common to the majority of Marx critics— are almost entirely absent from this literature. On the contrary, the distinguishing feature of this anti-Marxian literature is the homage which is paid by nearly everybody to Marx the man and the thinker. More important, however, is the fact that most of the new critics of Marxism do not treat it as a new-fangled doctrine the correctness of which is yet to be proven, but, on the contrary, as the old-established and accepted doctrine which they attempt to prove false, in whole or in part, and which, they claim, must therefore be revised, supplemented or superseded. No one, however, dares openly defend the theories which Marxism has supplanted. Almost everyone admits expressly the justifiability of Marx's criticism of the theories which predominated before his advent, and that Marx's theories were correct at the time they were first stated and a proper generalization of the data then at hand. What they claim is that later developments have shown that they were based on insufficient data, and that our present knowledge requires the revision of some of his tenets or the supplementing of them by some qualifying truths, according to some, or that the whole system be thrown overboard, it having been built on false foundations, according to others. Most of the critics, however, stop at revision. Hence, the name Revisionists, under which most of the newer Marx-critics are known, and the term Revisionism applied to their writings and teachings.
The most important feature, however, of modern anti-Marx literature and that which in our opinion conclusively establishes not only the pre-eminent position occupied to-day by Marxism as the recognized and established sociological doctrine, but also the fact that there is no doctrine capable of competing with it for establishment or even of dividing honors with it, are the writings of those of the critics of Marxism who claim that the whole system must be thrown overboard as unscientific. These writings are the most edifying sort of reading for a Marxist. I shall have occasion, later on, to examine this literature more particularly. Here I wish to say only this: These latter-day critics of Marx do not dare accept in its entirety any other system which has been advocated before their advent; and they do not, with some exceptions which are quite negligible, (of which I shall, however, and nevertheless, treat later on), advance any system, wholly or partly original with its authors, which would be capable of taking the place of Marxism as an explanation of social phenomena. They almost all, therefore, fall into what may well be termed Nihilism, that is to say, they are led to deny the existence, nay, even the possibility, of any social science. In other words: Marxism is so much the scientific doctrine in its sphere (which covers all the life of humanity in organized society, including all its social and intellectual manifestations) that you cannot destroy it without at the same time destroying all scientific knowledge of the subject.
It must be said, however, in justice to these writers, that this Nihilism is not confined to those who would destroy Marxism root and branch. A leaning towards Nihilism is discoverable also in most of those critics of Marxism who go no further than revision, as is well exemplified in their leader Eduard Bernstein, who attempted to prove the impossibility of scientific socialism, in a lecture delivered before a body of students at Berlin.
Of course, this Nihilism is not equally pronounced in all of Marx's critics. But it is to be found as a more or less conscious substratum of their criticism in all except those who confine their criticism to some one phase or branch of the Marxian system. These later critics, not dealing with the system as a whole, naturally do not feel the void created by the supposed demolition of the Marxian theory, and can therefore run their course merrily without feeling constrained to either fill the void or account for its existence. Those however who viewed and reviewed the system as a whole could not but feel the aching void which would be left if the Marxian system were demolished; they naturally looked for another system to be reared in its place, and, that task proving beyond their powers, they fell into Nihilism. Thus the question whether Marxism is or is not science turned into the question whether there is, or could be, any social science. How keenly this was felt by some of the critics of Marxism can be judged from the following statement of Dr. Paul Weisengruen, one of the ablest critics of Marxism and one of those who believe that the whole Marxian system must be abandoned as being radically and basically false. He says, alluding to the so-called “crisis” in Marxism, by which term the Revisionist movement is sometimes designated— “The crisis in Marxism means a crisis in the whole range of social science.”
All this makes it absolutely imperative to re-state the Marxian theory, in the light of this new criticism, examining the objections raised with a view of determining whether and how far this criticism has led, or must need lead, to a revision, modification, or abandonment, of any of the subsidiary or tributary theories of Karl Marx; and whether such revision, modification or abandonment, if any be necessary, affects the Marxian system as a whole.
This is the only way in which the latter-day critics of Marxism can be properly answered. It is absolutely impossible to reply separately to every book and article written by them. Besides, this would be a waste of energy even if it were possible, for a good deal of this literature is mere repetition, or is based on the same assumptions of fact or logical deduction. And it is also impossible to take one of these writers, as typical of the whole movement, analyze his arguments, and estimate the value of the whole movement thereon, for the reason that Marx-critics are an extremely independent lot and it is therefore hard to find two of them agreeing on all points. Not only does each of them follow his own or what he at least thinks is his own line of argument, and draw his own conclusions, but these arguments and conclusions are very irreconcilable with one another and often have a tendency to refute one another. Furthermore, they do not very often agree with each other as to what Marxism is, that is to say, as to what are the essential elements of Marx's theoretical system. So that among the critics of Marxism the rule seems to obtain that not only does each tub of criticism stand on its own bottom, but that every man constructs his own Marxism. With some of these critics, of the cheaper sort, of course, this method plays peculiar pranks. A Marxism is constructed, which, while easy of refutation, is so much different from the doctrine of Karl Marx and his disciples that nobody cares a whit as to what happens to it.
All of which goes to show that it would not be fair, and well-nigh impossible, to treat any one of these critics as typical of them all. Each is entitled to a separate hearing, if he is to be answered. This claim was expressly put forth by one critic of Marxism. He argued that while Marxists should be held responsible for one another, for the reason that Marxism was a well-defined system of thought and body of doctrine to which all adepts of the school are expected to adhere, the opponents of Marxism, and particularly those of a nihilistic bent of mind, belong to no school, believe in no particular system, in short are a lot of free lances and must be treated accordingly.
This makes a systematic review of the Literature of Anti-Marxism— the only term which is comprehensive enough to include all of the Marx-criticism— impossible. We will, therefore, at this time, only briefly characterize its leading features, and mention the most important authors, leaving such discussion of any individual writer or argument as may be necessary to the time when that particular part of the Marxian system to which it may be most pertinent will be taken up in the topical discussion which will follow.
The appearance, in 1894, of the third volume of Karl Marx's chief work, Capital, naturally led to a revival of Marx-criticism. But this revival was not in any way general, and nothing of importance in this line immediately followed the publication of the third volume of Capital, with the single exception of Böhm-Bawerk's essay on “Marx and the close of his system,” which, because of the method in which the subject is treated really belongs to the old rather than the new style of Marx-criticism. Böhm-Bawerk's essay which deals with Marx's economic teachings was followed, in 1896, by Professor Rudolph Stammler's important work on the Materialistic Conception of History. The real beginning, however, of the anti-Marxian literary crusade dates from the publication by Eduard Bernstein in 1897 of his series of articles in the Neue Zeit, the organ of the German Marxists, under the title “Socialist Problems,” in which the first attempts at Revisionism manifested themselves. Later, in discussing the net results of the new Marx-criticism, we shall endeavor to explain the cause which led Bernstein to a discussion of these “problems.” Here it is sufficient to say that aside from the inherent importance of the problems and the causes which led up to and brought about their discussion the personality of Bernstein played an important part in the profound sensation which his articles, and afterward his book “Die Voraussetsungen des Sosialismus,” created.
It must be remembered that for years Eduard Bernstein had been one of the recognized exponents of Marxism. He was the editor of the Zurich “Social Democrat,” the official organ of the German Social Democracy during the Bismarck anti-Socialist laws. He had for years been closely associated with Frederick Engels, the co-worker of Karl Marx and one of the fathers of “Marxism.” He was, therefore, rightfully looked upon by both socialists and non-socialists alike as one of the leading representatives of scientific socialism. His demand, therefore, for a revision of Marxism gave an impetus to Marx-criticism never equaled before. Everything now made for Revisionism. There was a general overhauling of old beliefs and accepted doctrines. The old opponents of Marxism, both open and covert, took heart and mustered again in battle array. Most of them, however, changed their weapons: They threw away the old stock arguments of the old and discarded theoretical arsenals which had become obsolete and useless, and had therefore been left to rest and rust, and took up the more modern weapons of the Revisionists. Hence, the Revisionist hue of all latter-day anti-Marxian literature.
The most important of the writers to be considered, besides those already mentioned, are: Werner Sombart, Th. G. Masaryk, Paul Barth, Rudolph Wenckstern, Franz Oppenheimer, Ludwig Woltman, Tugan-Baranowsky, and Jean Jaures. Another Revisionist whose writings, although of little intrinsic value, arrest our attention by the peculiar reflection they cast upon Revisionism, is Dr. Alfred Nossig, the only man who attempted to raise Revisionism to the dignity of a system.
According to the manner in which they treat the subject, the Marx-critics may be roughly divided into three classes: First, the philosophers, who dwell principally on Marx's philosophic system; secondly, the economists, who examine his economic theories; and thirdly, the sociologists, that is to say those who concern themselves chiefly with Marx's theories of the laws which govern the development of the capitalistic system of society. That does not mean that this division is in any way strictly observed. To begin with, there are those who, like Bernstein, treat of all the three subdivisions of the subject, although separately from each other. Then there are those who, while making one of the divisions their chief topic permit their discussion to overlap into the other provinces.
In order that the reader may have well in mind during the following discussion the co-relation of the different parts of the Marxian system, and particularly the inseparability of his “philosophy” from his sociology and economic theory, properly so-called, a brief outline of the system is herewith given:
“In making their livelihood together men enter into certain necessary involuntary relations with each other, industrial relations which correspond to whatever stage society has reached in the development of its material productive forces. The totality of these industrial relations constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis upon which the legal and political superstructure is built, and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond. The method of producing the material livelihood determines the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not men's consciousness which determines their life; on the contrary, it is their social life which determines their consciousness.
“At a certain stage of their development the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the old conditions of production, or, what is its legal expression, with the old property relations under which these forces have hitherto been exerted. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into fetters of production. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic basis the whole vast superstructure becomes slowly or rapidly revolutionized.”
At any given stage of the development of society based on the private ownership of property that social class which owns the tools of production then in use dominates that society politically. When the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the old conditions of production, a new class has arisen in that society, which disputes the political supremacy of the old dominating class, the class which owns and controls the new material productive forces, and a struggle for life and death then ensues between these two classes. In this struggle the new class invariably comes out victorious. In the social revolution which follows the victory of the new class the new material productive forces are unchained and are given free scope to assert themselves, and the new class, controlling these forces, becomes politically supreme.
“A form of society never breaks down until all the productive forces are developed for which it affords room. New and higher relations of production are never established until the material conditions of life to support them have been generated in the lap of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets for itself only such tasks as it is able to perform; for upon close examination it will always be found that the task itself only arises where the material conditions for its solution are already at hand or are at least in process of formation.
“The industrial relations arising out of the capitalistic method of production constitute the last of the antagonistic forms of social production; antagonistic not in the sense of an individual antagonism, but of an antagonism growing out of the social conditions of individuals. But the productive forces which are developed in the lap of the capitalistic society create at the same time the material conditions needed for the abolition of this antagonism. The capitalist form of society, therefore, brings to a close this prelude to the history of human society.”
The material conditions needed for the abolition of this antagonism have matured in the lap of the capitalistic system itself by the time it has reached that stage of development when the material productive forces come into conflict with the old conditions of production, and these conditions of production have become obstacles in the way of production and lead to social revolution.
The breakdown of the capitalistic system of production leading to social revolution will be brought about by the inherent contradictions of the capitalistic system of production itself.
The laws which govern the capitalistic form of production will ultimately lead to the extinction of the middle strata of society as independent, property-owning, classes, and divide society into two classes: the very small minority owning all the wealth of society, and the large mass of the people, the working class, who own nothing, not even their own bodies if they want to keep from starvation. At the same time the development of machinery will continue to throw more and more workingmen out of employment and make the share of those workingmen who are employed in the product produced by them grow continually smaller. The productive forces of society will not only become fettered, so that they will largely have to remain idle, but even that portion which will not remain in enforced idleness will be able to produce only with tremendous accompanying waste and convulsive interruptions, until finally, a point will be reached when, by the very conditions of capitalistic production, because of the large portion of the working class out of employment and the small share of the goods produced by them received by the employed workingmen in return for their labor, there will accumulate such an enormous mass of goods which the capitalists will be unable to dispose of, that is to say find a market for, that production will have to be indefinitely suspended, unless a new basis of production be found.
Meanwhile the discontent of the working class has been growing, and the sense of the injustice done to it accumulating. It has developed a code of ethics of its own. Having no property themselves the workingmen have lost all sense of the sacredness of private property. Most property being owned by corporations having “no body to be kicked and no soul to be damned,” they fail to see the necessity of private ownership or the usefulness of private owners. They have nothing to lose, and they have grown bold. They have forgotten their duties to their families, for which they can do nothing and which are, for the most part, their independent co-workers instead of dependents, but their sense of duty to their class has been constantly growing upon them during the long period of struggle preceding the final encounter.
The working class has been organized by the very process of capitalistic production and exploitation. It has been educated to understand its own powers and possibilities. It is animated by the world-historic mission devolved upon it. It contains within its own ranks all the elements necessary for conducting the production of society on a higher plane, so as to utilize all the productive powers of society. The mechanical development of productive forces requires production on a large co-operative basis. The working class takes possession of the social machinery, and the real history of human society begins— the co-operative commonwealth.
Last updated on 3 October 2022