The Basic Fallacies of Marxism

Author(s): J. E. LEROSSIGNOL
Source: Prairie Schooner, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Spring 1951), pp. 83-89
Published by: University of Nebraska Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40624315
Accessed: 19-06-2016 22:37 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Nebraska Press, Prairie Schooner are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Prairie Schooner

This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Basic Fallacies of Marxism
J. £. LEROSSIGNOL

according to Marx, rests upon two main pillars: the

SOCIALISM, economic interpretation
In this connection Engels wrote: of history
"These and
twothegreat
theorydiscoveries,
of surplus value.
the
materialistic conception of history and the revelation of the secret of
capitalist production through surplus value we owe to Marx. With these
discoveries socialism became a science."
But, as critics have often shown, these theories are at most half-truth*
and the edifice of Marxism rests on insecure foundations. Marxism is not
a science but an ideology, a group of ideas representing the interests ofe
the proletariat as conceived by Marx.
The word ideology is said to have been coined by Napoleon Bonaparte
as a term of contempt for certain ideas of questionable validity. As used
by Marx and Engels the word denotes a sort of thinking by which social
institutions are surrounded and protected by a false idealization, encircled,
as it were, by a halo which gives them an aspect of sanctity which they
do not deserve. In denouncing the bourgeoisie in the Communist Manl·
festo they said:
"Don't wrangle with us so long as you apply to our intended abolition
of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom,
culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions
of your bourgeois production and property, just as your jurisprudence
is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential
character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the
existence of your class."
In the same revolutionary document we read:
"Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views,
and conception, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every
change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations,
and in his social life ? - The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the
ideas of its ruling class."
Ideology, according to Engels, is a false set of ideas connected with the
interests of the ruling class. In a letter to Mehring he wrote: "Ideology
is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, indeed, but
with a false consciousness. The real motives impelling him remain un*
known to him, otherwise it would not be an ideological process at all.
Hence he imagines false or apparent motives."
It follows, therefore, though Engels did not say so, that there must be
as many ideologies, or illusory reflections of economic conditions, as there
are economic classes. So we must surely have a proletarian ideology as

83

This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRAIRIE SCHOONER

well as the ideologies of the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, and the peasantry,
inasmuch as the ideas and ideals of the working class are determined by
their economic status and environment.
Both Marx and Engels, in fact, were revolutionaries before they made
their "two great discoveries" and, therefore, their so-called "science" was
strongly tainted with ideology in that it professed to reflect the thoughts,
feelings, and interests of the proletariat. In 1847 Marx wrote:
"Just as the economists are the scientific representatives of the bourgeois
class, so the Socialists and the Communists are the theoreticians of the
proletarian class - From this moment, science, produced by the historical
movement and associating itself with it in full recognition of its cause,
has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary."
Many years later Lenin put the same thought in a nutshell when he
said of Marx and Engels that they were "from first to last partisan in
philosophy."
Here, confessedly, is a glaring contradiction between the ideology of
Marxism and its claim to be a scientific explanation of the structure and
dynamics of human society. The "science" of Marxism, therefore, is not
impartial, disinterested seeking of truth for its own sake, but an ideology
or distorted view of nature and human society used as a weapon for
revolutionary ends. Science, therefore, has been degraded and prostituted
as handmaid to revolution.
Such misuse of science has continued from the time of Marx until the
present day and is obligatory in the Soviet Union, where th£ authorities
demand conformity with proletarian standards in science, literature, art,
music, and every other phase of intellectual activity. But, as Nicholas
Berdyaev has well said: "A class science is nonsense. But it cannot be
disputed that perversions of science can and do flourish; there is no such
thing as class-truth, but there is class error." And Max Eastman, a former
communist, writes: "To identify objective truth with the fighting ideology
of one camp in a pitched battle between classes and to call this truth
philosophy - that is the fundamental fallacy of Russian Marxism."
Another fallacy of Marxism is connected with the dialectics or logic of
the great German philosopher Hegel, which Marx used as an explanation
of past history, a prophecy of coming events, and an appeal to the workers
of the world to join the procession of the ages moving toward the in-
evitable revolution.
Without going into the obscurities of Hegelian dialectics it is enough
to say that it is a philosophy of creation and change as applied to the
material universe and the history of mankind, and that, according to
Hegel, the universe is rational and intelligible because back of all change
is the absolute idea, the world spirit, or God, who is always active, creat-
ing, making all things new. Therefore there has been from the beginning
of things a trinity of creative activity: first, the world spirit, then the

84

This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE BASIC FALLACIES OF MARXISM

idea or logos, and, finally, the created world as it is, with reason and
thought at its heart.
These three stages of development Hegel calls, respectively, thesis,
antithesis, and synthesis, thus finding a helpful formula by which he tries
to explain, not only the origin of the material universe, but also the
development of the human mind and the history of mankind. As applied
to human history a given society or social condition is called the thesis;
anything unsatisfactory or opposed to it, or any thought of change, is the
antithesis or negation; and the consequent new situation is the synthesis,
or negation of the negation.
According to this formula, therefore, every society has within it op-
positions, contradictions, or negations which bring about change and,
usually, change for the better. The dialectics of Hegel, then, was idealis-
tic and optimistic because he believed that God, the creative spirit, is re-
vealing Himself in human history as fast as possible, overcoming evil
and making the world better and better. Human progress, therefore, is
possible and probable, though by a painful procçss of gradual develop-
ment, now commonly called evolution.
But Marx and Engels, as materialists, repudiated the idealism of Hegel
and yet held fast to his dialectics and a large measure of his optimism as
well. In the year 1846 Marx wrote: "In sharp contrast with German
philosophy, which came down from heaven to earth, here an ascent is
made from earth to heaven - Consciousness does not determine life, but
life determines consciousness."
Years later, in his essay on Feuerbach, Engels told how the idealistic
dialectic of Hegel, which had been standing on its head, was reversed and
placed upon its feet. According to Hegel, the idea or concept was the
origin of the real world, but now "the dialectic of the concept itself be-
came merely the conscious reflex of the real world." Thus Marx and
Engels adopted, as part and parcel of their revolutionary arsenal, dialectical
materialism which, as Engels said, "for years has been our sharpest
weapon."
Marxian dialectics, as applied to the class struggle, is thought to ex-
plain how ancient society, based on slavery, passed over into feudalism be-
cause of internal contradictions, antagonisms, and conflicts; and feudalism,
in its turn, is said to have been broken up by similar negations, followed
by capitalism, a system of exploitation by wage-slavery. But there is
nothing final about capitalism which, according to Marx, has within it
irreconcilable contradiction or negations, which will presently break it
up and bring about a new social order, the classless commonwealth, the
negation of the negation.
But to Marxian communists dialectics is not only a philosophy of
history but also, and chiefly, a practical method of dealing with problems
of the day and a weapon with which to smite the enemy. There is no

85

This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRAIRIE SCHOONER

great mystery about it, for, as part of communist strategy and tactics, it
is an effort to discover contradictions and antagonisms in any and every
country, to foment conflicts, to discredit and weaken capitalism, and pre-
pare die way for the coming proletarian revolution. Chief among these
contradictions is, of course, the so-called class struggle between labor and
capital, but there are many minor and subsidiary pairs of opposition which,
according to Marxism, help to make capitalism unworkable and con-
tribute toward the final debacle.
Among these may be mentioned the oppositions or so-called contradic-
tions between rich and poor, employer and employee, buyer and seller,
lender and borrower, landlord and tenant, value and surplus value, social
production and individual appropriation, competition and monopoly, ex-
pansion of industry and decline in the rate of profit, over-production and
underconsumption, political democracy and economic aristocracy, capi-
talist and proletarian ideology, nationalism and imperialism, and the
conflict of interests between nations which have colonies and those which
have none.
Unquestionably there are many weak features in capitalism, as in
everything human, but there are also elements of strength which far
outweigh the defects. Even Marx and Engels recognized this in the
Communist Manifesto when they wrote:
"The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has
created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all
preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man,
machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam
navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, canalization of rivers, whole
populations conjured out of the ground - what earlier century had a
presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social
labor?"
To be sure, the authors of the Manifesto go on to say that these very
productive forces, by creating a vast supply of goods which, because of
the increasing misery of the proletariat, cannot be consumed, have brought
about their own negation in the recurrent and ever-worsening crises of
over-production and under-consumption, which must cause capitalism
to collapse, even without a proletarian revolution. This collapse, of course,
has not yet occurred in any country, but the communists are waiting and
watching for it.
Here we have a good example of excessive negation, which is a per-
version of dialectics. The dialectic way of thinking, if it has any merit in
it, is a philosophy of social evolution rather than revolution. According
to the formula - thesis, antithesis, synthesis - the synthesis is not a mere
negation of the negation, but a union or compromise between the old and
the new- the thesis and the antithesis. Dialectics looks for and discovers
defects, difficulties, and conflicts of human interests, the so-called negations

86

This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE BASIC FALLACIES OF MARXISM

of given social conditions, but it recognizes the fact that most, if not all,
of them may be reconciled and that compromise and improvement- the
negation of the negation - is possible without a violent revolution.
Capitalist society, of course, has within it many defects or "contradic-
tions" which make for change, but that it is disintegrating and passing
over into socialism is a twofold assumption for which there is insufficient
evidence. In fact, the experience of socialist countries has been, to say the
least, disappointing to many idealists and may yet induce the masses of
most countries to take the path of reform rather than that of revolution.
But Marx and Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, and the rest of that ilk had
so much confidence in dialectical materialism that they fiercely repudiated
all compromise, opportunism, and proposals for reform, and did not fear
to take a leap in the dark. Their master, Hegel, had some right to be
optimistic about the process of change, as he had faith in a beneficent
world spirit, or God, who was gradually realizing and revealing Himself
in the negation of evil and in human betterment; but upon what founda-
tion rested the faith of Marx and his disciples ?
Just why Marx, as a materialist, should have iinagined that change in
the material world proceeds according to a logical or dialectical formula
it is hard to see. Did he have faith in a benign, material universe, or did
he believe that, after the revolution, all would be well under the leadership
of himself and Engels and those who should come after them?
However that may be, it is evident that the Marxists have perverted
dialectics by exaggerating the defects of Capitalism, insisting on a violent
and destructive revolution, and fatuously expecting to create a new and
ideal social order out of the ruins of the old. In the lingo of dialectics, they
are guilty of excessive negation, and their imaginary classless common-
wealth - the negation of the negation - is no true synthesis, or union of
the new with the old, but a Utopian product of wishful thinking. To quote
Max Eastman again:
"Hegel put his faith in a reasonable, purposive spirit conceived to
reside within, or be revealed by the sticks and stones of which the world
seems to be made; Marx attributed his reasonable purpose to the sticks
and stones. Out of the indubitable fact that historic evolution is condi-
tioned by the raw materials and technique of production - which really
sets stern limits to the possibilities of an earthly paradise- he manufactured
an optimistic philosophy according to which historic evolution is de-
termined by the raw material and technique of production, and deter-
mined in such a direction that an earthly paradise is sure."
This brings us to the most specious fallacy of communism and a vital
part of communist ideology. It consists of a misleading comparison of
the world as it is with a vague ideal or vision of a better and near-perfect
social order - the classless commonwealth. Capitalism we know, with all
its imperfections, and when, in moments of discouragement and despair,

87

This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRAIRIE SCHOONER

we look at our poor world, with its poverty, vice, crime, disease, and death,
we are likely to blame it all on capitalism, forgetting that there was far
more misery before capitalism came on the scene, and that the masses are
now more miserable in China, India, and the Soviet Union than in any
capitalistic country.
Without question the contemplation and experience of human misery
has led many frustrated souls to communism, of whom were Marx and
many of his disciples, who were revolutionaries at heart before they took
up dialectical materialism and the theory of surplus value as their sharpest
weapons. Thus equipped, they began to preach a crusade against capital-
ism which, as a system of wage-slavery and exploitation, was destined to
be destroyed.
But indignation, hatred, and the desire to destroy, as mere negations,
were not enough to assure the leaders that all would be well after the ruin
and collapse of capitalism, or to induce recruits to join the revolutionary
army. Something positive was needed, some promise of better things,
some hope of reward. And yet, the "science" of historical and dialectical
materialism could not look beyond the veil that hides the future from
mortal eyes. Therefore all that Marx and his disciples could do was to
borrow from the Utopians the ideal of a better world of which sages and
prophets have dreamed from the time of Plato and Isaiah until the present
day.
That blessed state has been variously named Golden Age, Valhalla,
New Jerusalem, Heaven on Earth, Paradise Regained, New Social Order,
and Classless Commonwealth, but under any and every name it has been a
vision of human perfection and happiness that has inspired a multitude
of men and women to work and fight and even die for the realization of
their dream.
Marxism, therefore, once the "scientific" pretensions of historical ma-
terialism and surplus value have been unmasked, reveals itself as an
ideology, presenting a distorted picture of the present social order and a
dream of communism, a classless commonwealth that never was and
probably never will be. And yet, communists insist on making compari-
son between actual capitalism and imaginary communism,, a comparison
at once deluding and destructive.
In this connection one is reminded of the cynical and unforgettable
sneer of Marx who, in criticism of Hegel, said that religion, as giving to
the poor hope of a better world, is "the opium of the people." If so, this
saying may be applied to Marxism also, an ideology and near-religion,
whose votaries and victims, in and out of the Soviet empire, are consoling
and deluding themselves with an elusive dream.
In the Book of Proverbs we read: "Where there is no vision the people
perish." A true word, that. But what if the people are led by visionaries

88

This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE BASIC FALLACIES OF MARXISM

and false prophets - blind leaders of the blind? The vision and message
of the seer is a manifestation and, expression of wisdom, insight, imagina-
tion guided by reason, a gleam of light upon the path of life. But the
visions of visionaries and fanatics are day dreams, chimeras, castles in
Spain, illusions, figments of unbridled fancy which, like a will-o'-the wisp
or a mirage, may lead to a bottomless bog or death in the desert.
Unfortunately, it has always been hard to distinguish between the true
vision and the false, the seer and the soothsayer, as there is no accepted
sign by which we may know them apart from their works. But since the
Bolshevik revolution socialism, if not out-and-out communism, has been
more than a mere dream, for it has been realized as the new social order
of the Soviet Union. Now, therefore, it is possible to compare actual
socialism with actual capitalism, and certainly not to the disadvantage of
the latter.
In fact, the comparative situation is reversed, as soviet socialism is now
on the defensive and its prophets cannot explain why it has fallen so far
short of their splendid vision. Formerly, capitalism was pilloried as a
detestable tyranny of rich slavedrivers and exploiters, while socialism was
pictured in glowing colors as heaven on earth; but now the Soviet Union
appears as a darker despotism than that of the Tsars, while capitalism in
countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and
most of western Europe shines by contrast as giver and guard of liberty
and prosperity.
Furthermore, there is reason to. believe that if capitalism throughout
the world should be engulfed by communism, our posterity would look
back to it as a golden age and paradise lost.

s<)

This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:37:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms