The philosophy of Marx

Foreword

npHE perversions and misconceptions of the -*- misinterpreters of Marx — the Kautskys, the Plechanoffs and the Hillquits — gave birth only to the cowardice of the Second International. Bolshevism, the Socialism of Marx and Engels, is leading the proletariat of the world to victory, as it has done in Russia.

The outbreak of the War in 1914 shipwrecked the social-chauvinists and traitors of the Second International in the sea of empty phrases which they had created, and they floundered back to their own countries to hide behind the skirts of Patriotism. Only those who stood on the bedrock of Marxism weathered the storm of the imperialist war. Kerensky, one of these compromisers, lost

-^ the faith of the workers after the crash in Russia

03 in 1917. Then the party of the Bolsheviki, built on the firm foundation of the Marxian theory,

J~ ruled with an iron discipline and with Lenin and Trotzky at its head, seized the opportunity. For

"y three years they fought world capitalism and came

6 FOREWORD

out victorious. They have proved to the proletariat of the world, that waited breathlessly for the outcome, the soundness of Marx' principles, "the only revolutionary theory," according to Lenin, and the hypocrisy of the blatant, opportunistic charlatans, who had posed as leaders of the proletariat.

The working class of the world has taken this lesson to heart. It has severed all connections with these opportunists and has allied itself with the Communist International and the Russian proletariat. At the same time these renegades have shown their true colors and are aligning themselves, in the Class Struggle all over the world, on the side of reaction. In Germany they have become the bitterest enemies of the revolutionary proletariat. In America there has been a sharp demarcation between the revolutionary working class and the Hillquits and Spargos; in France the majority of the Socialists have allied themselves with the Communist International, thrusting aside Longuet and Thomas; and, in the same way in every country, the proletariat has put its faith in uncompromising Marxism.

The Philosophy of Marx in an abbreviated form was published several years ago in the Radical Review. In the present publication

FOREWORD 7

Comrade Waton's original, unmodified and clear discernment is merely enlightened by the experience of the Russian revolution. This completed >vx>rk, however, is more than a paraphrase of Marx; it combines the soul and intellect of Comrade Waton to complete an understandable truth pointing the way to proletarian emancipation. Comrade Waton has in this book rendered an inestimable service to the Socialist movement by crystallizing the differences between revolutionary Socialism and the opportunism of the Second International.

Marx Institute.

Philosophy cannot realize itself without the rising of the proletariat; the proletariat cannot rise without the realization of philosophy.

Men make their own history, but they do not make it out of the whole cloth; they do not make it under conditions chosen by themselves, but under such as are immediately found at hand, given and transmitted.

Karl Marx.

Introduction

/ 1%/TARX said: Philosophers have only interpreted -*-"-*• the world differently, but the point is to change it. This is significant. Up till now philosophers busied themselves about the interpretation of the world. It is high time that the interpreters of the world begin to concern themselves about changing and improving it. To Marx the interpretation of the world was but a means to an aim — to understand the world so that we may change and improve it to suit our purposes. According to Marx, men make their own history, though not of the whole cloth, and they must make their own history, if their existence is to be satisfactory. And only from this point of view does the socialist movement become necessary and rational, since the state of socialism can come only through our own efforts,

Of itself it will not come. At no time, therefore, was a correct understanding of the philosophy of Marx so essential to the progress of the socialist movement and the emancipation of the working class as it is now, when the socialist movement suffered heavily in the great world tragedy, and when the socialists themselves lost their bearings in the overwhelming storm and stress.

But, the questions will arise: — What has philosophy to do with the practical solution of the problems that confront the working class; and, if philosophy has much to do with these problems, why must it necessarily be the philosophy of Marx?

The first question cannot be answered here, for the very philosophy of Marx is the answer to this question. One therefore must first know the philosophy to understand and appreciate the answer to the question. Therefore, in this case, as in most cases, the reader will have to take on trust the assurance that the answer will be found in the philosophy that he is now to pursue.

The second question, however, can be answered at the outset, and therefore should be answered at once.

In his "Creative Evolution" Bergson shows that the tendency of matter is towards mechanism and constraint, while the tendency of life is towards self -consciousness and freedom. Between matter and life, therefore, there is this antagonism — while matter pulls down towards constraint, life lifts up towards freedom. And, while in all other living beings matter still holds life in constraint, in man only did life succeed to unburden itself of the constraint of matter and attain to some degree of freedom. This freedom life achieved through the instrumentality of human society. Society, like a reservoir, stores up and preserves the excellent and great achievements of the human race, by the accumulation of which society constantly raises the level of human progress ever higher, and to which level the individual must raise himself at the outset, if he is to live in society. And by this necessity and initial stimulation the average man is saved from the state of slumber and petrification, like in the case of insects and plants, and the superior man is enabled and encouraged to rise higher still. Unlike all other living beings that, on coming into existence, are almost equal to the full-grown of their species, man, on coming into existence, finds himself amidst a society of his own kind that collectively has reached a much higher level of progress than he brings with himself in his own being, and higher than any which, unaided by society, he could ever attain. That the individual may even exist in society he must spend several years of his early life to acquaint himself to some extent with the accumulated knowledge and experience of society. During this period of education the individual must train himself to follow the methods of thought and action crystalized by mankind from experience. This task is so difficult and requires so many years of hard training and exacting discipline that, by the time the individual reaches the level of social progress in any direction and attains to that very state in which he can exercise his initiative rationally and advantageously to himself and others, he has become so thoroughly accustomed and adjusted to the methods of thought and action of mankind and has found them so convenient and effective, that then and thereafter, of his own accord, he follows those methods as being the shortest and most certain means to further achievement and success. There is a fundamental reason for this.

Mankind lived in this world a very long time and during this time passed through an experience infinite in extent and variety — an experience which an individual could not go through in an eternity.

In most cases men, in their striving to attain to some aim, fell short of their aim and failed in their endeavors; and this failure was but the result of inadequate experience and imperfect knowledge of themselves and of the world. But when, aided by the accumulated experience of the human race and the combination of favorable circumstances, a gifted individual succeeded to achieve some work of excellence or greatness, mankind, strongly desiring to succeed in this world, most readily followed his methods and most carefully treasured up his concrete achievements as models for itself and future generations. And, quite naturally, with the appreciation of the achievements also came the appreciation of those that achieved.

Emerson tells us: "It is natural to believe in great men. Nature seems to exist for the excellent: they make our earth wholesome. The search after the great men is the dream of youth, and the most serious occupation of manhood." Now, the master minds of all ages were but the happy mediums through which mankind achieved excellence and greatness. And, as motion is in the direction of least resistance, mankind most naturally followed those methods of thought and courses of conduct that were discovered and opened up for it by the piaster minds.

What Shakespeare achieved for English literature and Spencer for the" doctrine of evolution, Marx achieved for social science. And just as no one can hope to acquire a fundamental knowledge of English literature without a study of the works of Shakespeare or a fundamental knowledge of the doctrine of evolution without a study of the works of Spencer, so no one can hope to acquire a fundamental knowledge of social science without a study of the philosophy of Marx. It is for this reason that we must endeavor to understand his philosophy.

But, we shall be told by Socialists as well as by non-socialists that, though Marx in his day was a great man and has contributed great knowledge to the human race, since his day mankind has progressed so wonderfully that we might better use our limited time and capacity to an understanding of the latest achievements in sociology, and leave it to the antiquarian to satisfy his curiosity by a study of the philosophy of Marx.

Plausible as this argument seems, it has no merits. One might as well say that because since the days of Shakespeare the English-speaking race made great progress in language and literature, therefore, there is no further need of studying the works of Shakespeare. But we know that the English-speaking race will stand in need of a fundamental study of the works of Shakespeare as long as the English language will be spoken, and even after that language will become antiquated and dead Shakespeare will for a very long time to come remain great.

The same is true of Marx. Though great progress has been made in the social sciences, yet until the working class achieve its complete emancipation, Marx will remain the transcendent genius and leading light in the realms of social science. That this is not an idle prophecy is attested by the living facts. During the 19th century the cultured races brought out a large number of men of great eminence. One needs but mention Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, and many others to show how wonderful that age was. And amidst all of them was also Marx. Nevertheless, while the glory of the names of all other great men rapidly wanes, the glory of Marx rises ever higher and waxes ever more brilliant and comprehensive. And now, when the human race is passing through a great trial, the doctrines of Marx are the only ones that are of value to the struggling masses, and are the only ones that show the way to emancipation and salvation.

At the outset, therefore, we must throw aside our native vanity that readily lends itself to the belief that we of the living generation have a monopoly of all truth and wisdom, and that the ancients cannot teach us anything. On the contrary, we must learn to appreciate the truth and wisdom crystallized by the past generation at the same time that we value the truths and wisdom which we in our own generation are crystallyzing. Goethe said:

The same truth was even better expressed by Jesus: "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." If the individual wants to rise to the level of social progress in any direction, and to attain to that state in which he can exercise his initiative rationally and in a manner most advantageous to himself and others, and to contribute to human knowledge and achievement something of real value and lasting benefit, he must, in the first instance, like the corn of wheat, bury himself in the fertile ground of the accumulated achievements of mankind, there to remain for a long time, dead to the outside world as well as to his own ambitions, and only then will he be able to rise to the level of social progress, and then only will he be able to rise still higher and bring forth much fruit.

Now, if we are sincere about the Socialist movement and if we earnestly want to acquire a fundamental and correct understanding of society and the tendency of its evolution so as to be able to further the cause of Socialism, we must endeavor to master the philosophy of Marx. The future achievements of the working class and the salvation of the human race are organically bound up with this philosophy. It is for these reasons that we now betake ourselves to an earnest study of the philosophy of Marx.

CHAPTER L

7TTHE philosophy of Marx is neither a cosmology -*- nor an ontology. It does not attempt to explain the universe, nor does it undertake to discover the nature of things or the ultimate aim of Creation. The philosophy of Marx is a philosophy of human society. It traces the course of human society and points out the determining factors of that course. It is true that the history of human society is involved in the history of the world and that a knowledge of the latter is essential to a correct understanding of the former. Nevertheless, when once a general idea of the world's history is acquired, the course of human history may be traced and adequately described, without a detailed and collateral account of the former. And this was what Marx did. Having first grasped the general course of the world's history, he betook himself to an investigation of the facts and the conditions of human life and discovered the course of human history and the factors that determine that course. The results of his achievements he embodied in his monumental works, chief of which is "Capital." Marx's philosophy is known as the materialist interpretation of history.

Among the reasons usually urged against socialism, one is that it is materialistic. The materialistic view of life seems to be opposed to God and contrary to the doctrines of religion and morality. The opponents of socialism therefore charge socialism with the aim to dethrone God, repudiate religion, undermine morality, break up the family and to destroy the very foundation of society; and for these reasons they repudiate socialism.

Now, the upholders of the present state of society would be opposed to socialism even if it were perfectly free from the taint of materialism, and therefore their objection against socialism must not be taken seriously. Nevertheless, since so much ,is made of this objection, it must be disposed of in an adequate manner, so that it may not stand any more in the way of a clear understanding of the philosophy of Socialism. This, then, will be our first step.

Darwin familiarized us with the expression "the struggle for existence." The reality of life would have been described more adequately by the expression the struggle for the means of existence; for, as we shall presently see, living beings struggle, not for their existence, but for the means necessary for their existence.

The reality of life manifests itself as a cooperation between life and the means of life. All living beings endeavor to persist in their being and to multiply their kind. But that they may live and multiply their kind, living beings must have the means of life. These means are material objects: land, water, air, sunshine, food, shelter, and, in the case of the human race, clothing. Without these material means of life, living beings cannot exist.

Now, though the cooperation between life and the means of life is absolutely essential to the existence and to the multiplication of living beings, these two factors are not commensurate with each other, for, while life is infinite in its capacity and tendency to increase and multiply, the means of life are limited. Science abounds in facts and illustrations, showing the infinite power and tendency which living beings possess to increase and multiply their kind. For instance, Professor Huxley tells us that, if a protozoa — a mere microscopic creature — be given the opportunity to increase and multiply according to its capacity and tendency and a like opportunity be given to its progeny, in the course of but six months the aggregate mass of their bodies would be equal in size the mass of the earth — so infinitely great are their power and tendency to increase and multiply. Again, Professor Owen tells us that fishes usually throw out about a million ova at a time, which, if favored by conditions, would in a short time mature into a million fishes. And the same is true, in varying degrees, of all the living beings, from the lowest to the highest and from the smallest to the largest. One can well speculate that, if all living beings now to be found in the waters, on the surface of the earth and in the atmosphere, were given the opportunity to increase and multiply according to their capacity and tendency and a like opportunity be given to their offspring, in the course of perhaps a thousand years they would fill up the universe with their bodies.

On the other hand, the material means for life are limited. The earth and all it contains were given once and for all times to come. Even if the earth continue to harbor on its surface living beings for countless millions of years to come, it will not during that time perceptibly increase in mass or in surface area. And even if life should succeed to make an economic and most efficient use of the means of life available on the earth, these means of life cannot keep pace with the inherent capacity and tendency of life to increase and multiply itself. This, then, gives us an idea of the disparity and incommensurability between the factors that manifest themselves in the reality of life. Nothing in nature is so abundant, and therefore so cheap, as life, and nothing is so dear, because it is limited, as the means for life; for, while life can easily increase itself infinitely, it cannot easily increase the means for life. Life, therefore, is more than meat.

Now, since life, which is infinite in capacity and tendency to increase and multiply, is organically and indissolubly bound up with the means of life that are limited, it follows that life tends to overflow and transcend the means of life, and living beings, therefore, must struggle with one anothei for the possession and the use of the limited means of life. Hence, the history of life on the earth was but the history of an unceasing struggle of living beings with one another for the limited means of life. And that which was true of life generally will continue to be true for life generally to the end of days. And, that which was true of life generally was equally true of human life. The history of mankind was but the history of its unceasing struggle with one another for the possession and the use of the limited means of life. And as their past history, so also, their future history will be but a continuation of a fierce struggle, growing ever Xnore fierce and brutal, for the limited means of life, unless mankind should wake up to the realization of the truth, that, if it is to emancipate itself from the necessity and the conditions, that, like the beasts of prey, compelled it to struggle for the limited means of life, it must take its destiny into its own hands, and, guided by the light of reason and truth, endeavor to transcend the material conditions by making these conditions serve rather than master the human race. But of this in the sequel.

Again, since the material means of life are limited and determined both in their quantity and nature, while life is unlimited and undetermined, it follows that life must adjust itself to the quantity and the nature of the means of life. When the material means of life were yet in their elemental nature, life could but manifest itself in an elemental nature and form. Therefore, in the beginning, life appeared in the nature and forms of protozoas, protophytas, and the like. But, in the course of time through the interaction between life and the material means of life, an advancement resulted, and life, too, assumed an advanced nature and form. And so, in the course of millions of years life passed to higher and ever higher forms of existence.

Hence, Spencer defines life as a continuous adjustment of inner relations to outer relations. Living beings, if they are to exist, must adjust themselves to the outer conditions of existence, which conditions are of a material nature. A failure of such adjustment is inevitably punished with sickness and death. This law is eternal and universal; it admits of no exception. It operated from the beginning of time, and it will operate to the end of time. No living being ever violated this law with impunity. This is true of the smallest as well as of the largest beings; it is true of the lowest as well as of the highest forms of life; it is true of the individual as well as of the group, the species, the race and of all orders of life.

Again, if the conditions of existence were of a fixed and permanent nature, given to life once and for all times, the task for life then, would have been a simple and easy one. All that life would then have to do would be to adjust itself to the fixed and permanent conditions of existence. And by this time that adjustment would have been so perfect and complete that between life and the conditions of existence there would have been harmony and equilibrium. But the conditions of existence are not of a fixed and permanent nature; they are not given to life once and for all times. On the contrary, the conditions of existence perpetually change and perpetually undergo an evolution of their own. Change is the eternal and universal order of existence. Therefore, since the conditions of existence perpetually change, living beings, if ,they are to continue to exist, must perpetually adjust themselves to the perpetually changing conditions of existence. And this they can accomplish by perpetually re-adjusting themselves to the ever-changing conditions of existence. Hence the significance of Spencer's definition of life. Life is a continuous adjustment of inner relations to outer relations. Living beings must continuously adjust themselves, that is, they smust continuously readjust themselves to the ever-changing conditions of existence.

Again, this adjustment of life to the conditions of existence is not a mere mechanical reaction; life is not merely a passive reflex of the changing conditions of existence. A more intimate knowledge of the relation between life and the conditions of existence brings to light the further fact, that, not only does life adjust itself to the ever-changing conditions of existence, but also, that it actively anticipates the coming changes in the conditions of existence and beforehand prepares itself to meet those changes. A few illustrations will make this clear.

Insects, in anticipation of the coming changes in themselves and in the conditions of existence, deposit their eggs at such places in which, during the coming spring, their offspring may be hatched out and find their immediate means of subsistence. Some insects, like the bees and the ants, in anticipation of the coming winter, store up food for themselves during the summer.

Birds, in anticipation of the coming summer, migrate from the south to the north, and in anticipation of the coming winter, return from the north to the south. In anticipation of the coming generation, the birds mate themselves and build nests. And so it is in varying degrees with all other living beings. The characteristic that essentially distinguishes a being of a higher degree of evolution is the greater capacity it possesses to anticipate the future changes in the conditions of existence and beforehand to adjust itself to these future changes. And the degree of intelligence in living beings is but the degree of this capacity to anticipate the future changes.

But even this does not yet give us an adequate idea of the nature of life. The anticipation by living beings of the future changes in the conditions of existence could not bring out an evolution of life from lower to higher forms; that anticipation could bring out only a more accurate adjustment to the changed conditions. That life should continually advance from one form to a higher f orm, and perpetually, to strive to rise ever higher still, there must be an irresistible urge in life itself to transcend the forms already attained. The endeavor to surmount the existing conditions and to overcome opposition must be prompted by the very nature of life itself. This springs from the very nature of life, because life is infinite in nature and capacity. It therefore cannot satisfy itself with any attained state, for any such state is but limited in nature and extent. Hence, as soon as life attains to any form, it immediately seeks to transcend that form. And, while in the case of living beings generally this urge in life is more or less suppressed by the overwhelming constraint of the material conditions, in the case of man life succeeded to emancipate itself to a considerable extent from this constraint. Hence, in man life finds the most adequate instrument for its infinite nature.

But, since man is radicaly different from all other living beings, he must behave in a manner radically different from the behavior of other living beings. Man must, not only actively anticipate the future changes, but also, he must exert himself to shape those changes. He must not only anticipate the future, but also he must create the future. Otherwise, man could make no greater progress than other living beings made. The man would be like the dumb, driven cattle, without any power over the conditions of existence. But we know that in proportion as man rises higher and higher in evolution he acquires an ever greater power over the conditions of existence, to shape them so as to suit his conveniences and purposes in a more adequate and satisfactory manner. Man, therefore, must go a step further than other living beings. He must not only anticipate the future, but also he must beforehand work out a plan for his future, and then seek to realize it in time and space.

And for the performance of this higher task nature has endowed man with reason — a faculty possessed by no other living beings. Reason is the faculty that raises man above the conditions of existence, and shows him what he should and could accomplish to better the conditions of existence. By means of reason man created science — an instrument for a systematic and comprehensive prevision; it is an instrument by which man can, by a more comprehensive survey of the past and present conditions of existence, more deeply penetrate into the future and more clearly perceive the possibilities which he can realize. Man, therefore, is preeminently a being that looks before as well as after.

We see, then, that though man has power to shape the conditions of existence, that power, however, is also determined in its function by the very conditions of existence. Life is limited and determined by the quantity and the nature of the means for life. And the evolution of life is conditioned upon the evolution of the means of life. From this it follows that a fundamental knowledge and correct understanding of the history of life is possible only through a fundamental knowledge and correct understanding of the evolution of the means of life. This is true of human history, as it is true of the history of life generally. Hence, the history of mankind, its struggles, and its endeavors, can be understood only when interpreted in terms of the history of the material means of life. And this is called, the materialist interpretation of history. Engels expresses this well in his essay — "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific":

"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life, and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structures; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is produced and distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in man's brains, not in man's better insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch. The growing perception that existing social institutions are unreasonable and unjust, that reason has become unreason, and right wrong, is only proof that in the modes of production and exchange changes have silently taken place, with which the social order, adapted to earlier economic conditions, is no longer in keeping. From this it also follows that the means of getting rid of the incongruities that have been brought to light, must also be present, in a more or less developed form, within the changed modes of production themselves. These means are not to be invented by deduction from fundamental principles, but are to be discovered in the stubborn facts of the existing system of production."