Rosa Luxemburg Internet Archive
Stagnation and Progress of Marxism
Written: 1903
Source: Karl Marx: Man, Thinker and Revolutionist edited by D. Ryazanov
Publisher: International Publishers, New York, 1927
Translated: from German by: Eden and Cedar Paul
Transcription/Markup: Dario Romeo and Brian Basgen
Online Version: Rosa Luxemburg Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000
In his shallow but at time interesting causerie entitled Die
soziale Bewegung in Frankreich und Belgien (The Socialist
Movement in France and Belgium), Karl Gruen remarks, aptly
enough, that Fourier's
and Saint-Simon's theories had very different effects upon their respective adherents. Saint-Simon was the spiritual ancestor of a whole generation of brilliant investigators and writers in various field of intellectual activity; but Fourier's followers were, with few exceptions, persons who blindly parroted their master's words, and were incapable of making any advance upon his teaching. Gruen's explanation of this difference is that Fourier presented the world with a finished system, elaborated in all its details; whereas Saint-Simon merely tossed his disciples a loose bundle of great thoughts. Although it seems to me that Gruen pays too little attention to the inner, the essential, difference between the theories of these two classical authorities in the domain of utopian socialism, I feel that on the whole is observation is sound. Beyond question, a system of ideas which is merely sketched in broad outline proves far more stimulating than a finished and symmetrical structure which leaves nothing to be added and offers no scope for the independent effort of an active mind.
Does this account for the stagnation in Marxism doctrine which
has been noticeable for a good many years? The actual fact is
that - apart for one or two independent contributions which mark
a theoretician advance - since the publication of the last
volume of Capital and of the last of Engels's writings
there have appeared nothing more than a few excellent
popularizations and expositions of Marxist theory. The substance
of that theory remains just where the two founders of scientific
socialism left it.
Is this because the Marxist system has imposed too rigid a
framework upon the independent activities of the mind? It is
undeniable that Marx has had a somewhat restrictive influence
upon the free development of theory in the case of many of his
pupils. Both Marx and Engels found it necessary to disclaim
responsibility for the utterances of many who chose to call
themselves Marxists! The scrupulous endeavor to keep
"within the bounds of Marxism" may at times have been
just as disastrous to the integrity of the thought process as
has been the other extreme - the complete repudiation of the
Marxist outlook, and the determination to manifest
"independence of thought" at all hazards.
Still, it is only where economic matters are concerned that we
are entitled to speak of a more or less completely elaborated
body of doctrines bequeathed us by Marx. The most valuable of
all his teachings, the materialist-dialectical conception of
history, presents itself to us as nothing more than a method of
investigation, as a few inspired leading thoughts, which offer
us glimpses into the entirely new world, which open us to
endless perspectives of independent activity, which wing our
spirit for bold flights into unexplored regions.
Nevertheless, even in this domain, with few exceptions the
Marxist heritage lies shallow. The splendid new weapon rusts
unused; and the theory of historical materialism remains as
unelaborated and sketchy as was when first formulated by its
creators.
It cannot be said, then, that the rigidity and completeness of
the Marxist edifice are the explanation of the failure of Marx's
successors to go on with the building.
We are often told that our movement lacks the persons of talent
who might be capable of further elaborating Marx's
theories. Such a lack is, indeed, of long standing; but the lack
itself demands an explanation, and cannot be put forward to
answer the primary question. We must remember that each epoch
forms its own human material; that if in any period there is a
genuine need for theoretical exponents, the period will create
the forces requisite for the satisfaction of that need.
But is there a genuine need, an effective demand, for the further development of Marxist theory?
In an article upon the controversy between the Marxist and the
Jevonsian Schools in England, Bernard Shaw, the talented
exponent of Fabian
semisocialism, derides Hyndman for having said that the first
volume of Capital had given him a complete understanding of
Marx, and that there were no gaps in Marxist theory - although
Friedrich Engels, in the preface of the second volume of
Capital, subsequently declared that the first volume with its
theory of value, had left unsolved a fundamental economic
problem, whose solution would not be furnished until the third
volume was published. Shaw certainly succeeded here in making
Hyndman's position seem a trifle ridiculous, though Hyndman
might well derive consolation from the fact that practically the
whole socialist world was in the same boat!
The third volume of Capital, with its solution of the problem of
the rate of profit (the basic problem of Marxist economics), did
not appear till 1894. But in Germany, as in all other lands,
agitation had been carried on with the aid of the unfinished
material contained in the first volume; the Marxist doctrine had
been popularized and had found acceptance upon the basis of this
first volume alone; the success of the incomplete Marxist theory
had been phenomenal; and no one had been aware that there was
any gap in the teaching.
Furthermore, when the third volume finally saw the light, whilst
to begin with it attracted some attention in the restricted
circles of the experts, and aroused here a certain amount of
comment - as far as the socialist movement as a whole was
concerned, the new volume made practically no impression in the
wide regions where the ideas expounded in the original book had
become dominant. The theoretical conclusion of volume 3 have not
hitherto evoked any attempt at popularization, nor have they
secured wide diffusion. On the contrary, even among the social
democrats we sometimes hear, nowadays, reechoes of the
"disappointment" with the third volume of Capital
which is so frequently voiced by bourgeois economists - and thus
the social democrats merely show how fully they had accepted
the "incomplete" exposition of the theory of value
presented in the first volume.
How can we account for so remarkable a phenomenon?
Shaw, who (to quote his own expression) is fond of
"sniggering" at others, may have good reasons here,
for making fun of the whole socialist movement, insofar as it is
grounded upon Marx! But if he were to do this, he would be
"sniggering" at a very serious manifestation of our
social life. The strange fate of the second and third volumes of
Capital is conclusive evidence as to the general destiny of
theoretical research in our movement.
From the scientific standpoint, the third volume of Capital
must, no doubt, be primarily regarded as the completion of
Marx's critic of capitalism. Without this third volume, we
cannot understand, either the actually dominant law of the rate
of profit; or the splitting up of surplus value into profit,
interest, and rent; or the working of the law of value within
the field of competition. But, and this is the main point, all
these problems, however important from the outlook of the pure
theory, are comparatively unimportant from the practical outlook
of the class war. As far as the class war is concerned, the
fundamental theoretical problem is the origin of surplus value,
that is, the scientific explanation of exploitation; together
with the elucidation of the tendencies toward the socialization
of the process of production, that is, the scientific
explanation of the objective groundwork of the socialist
revolution.
Both these problems are solved in the first volume of Capital,
which deduces the "expropriation of the expropriators"
as the inevitable and ultimate result of the production of
surplus value and of the progressive concentration of
capital. Therewith, as far as theory is concerned, the essential
need of the labor movement is satisfied. The workers, being
actively engaged in the class war, have no direct interest in
the question how surplus value is distributed among the
respective groups of exploiters; or in the question how, in the
course of this distribution, competition brings about
rearrangements of production.
That is why, for socialists in general, the third volume of Capital remain an unread book.
But, in our movement, what applies to Marx's economic doctrines
applies to theoretical research in general. It is pure illusion
to suppose that the working class, in its upward striving, can
of its own accord become immeasurably creative in the
theoretical domain. True that, as Engels said, the working class
alone has today preserved an understanding of and interest in
theory. The workers' craving for knowledge is one of the most
noteworthy cultural manifestation of our day. Morally, too, the
working-class struggle denotes the cultural renovation of
society. But active participation of the workers in the march of
science is subject to fulfillment of very definite social
conditions.
In every class society, intellectual culture (science and art)
is created by the ruling class; and the aim of this culture is
in part to ensure the direct satisfaction of the needs of the
social process, and in part to satisfy the mental needs of the
members of the governing class.
In the history of earlier class struggles, aspiring classes
(like the Third Estate in recent days) could anticipate
political dominion by establishing an intellectual dominance,
inasmuch as, while they were still subjugated classes, they
could set up a new science and a new art against obsolete
culture of the decadent period.
The proletariat is in a very different position. As a
nonpossessing class, it cannot in the course of its struggle
upwards spontaneously create a mental culture of its own while
it remains in the framework of bourgeois society. Within that
society, and so long as its economic foundations persist, there
can be no other culture than a bourgeois culture. Although
certain "socialist" professors may acclaim the wearing
of neckties, the use of visiting cards, and the riding of
bicycles by proletarians as notable instances of participation
in cultural progress, the working class as such remains outside
contemporary culture. Notwithstanding the fact that the workers
create with their own hands the whole social substratum of this
culture, they are only admitted to its enjoyment insofar as such
admission is requisite to the satisfactory performance of their
functions in the economic and social process of capitalist
society.
The working class will not be in a position to create a science
and an art of its own until it has been fully emancipated from
its present class position.
The utmost it can do today is to safeguard bourgeois culture
from the vandalism of the bourgeois reaction, and create the
social conditions requisite for a free cultural
development. Even along these lines, the workers, within the
extant form of society, can only advance insofar as they can
create for themselves the intellectual weapons needed in their
struggle for liberation.
But this reservation imposes upon the working class (that is to
say, upon the workers' intellectual leaders) very narrow limits
in the field of intellectual activities. The domain of their
creative energy is confined to one specific department of
science, namely social science. For, inasmuch as "thanks to
the peculiar connection of the idea of the Fourth Estate with
our historical epoch", enlightenment concerning the laws of
social development has become essential to the workers in the
class struggle, this connection has borne good fruit in social
science, and the monument of the proletarian culture of our days
is - Marxist doctrine.
But Marx's creation, which as a scientific achievement is a
titanic whole, transcends the plain demands of the proletarian
class struggle for whose purposes it was created. Both in his
detailed and comprehensive analysis of capitalist economy, and
in his method of historical research with its immeasurable field
of application, Marx has offered much more than was directly
essential for the practical conduct of the class war.
Only in proportion as our movement progresses, and demands the
solution of new practical problems do we dip once more into the
treasury of Marx's thought, in order to extract therefrom and to
utilize new fragments of his doctrine. But since our movement,
like all the campaigns of practical life, inclines to go on
working in old ruts of thought, and to cling to principles after
they have ceased to be valid, the theoretical utilization of the
Marxist system proceed very slowly.
If, then, today we detect a stagnation in our movement as far as
these theoretical matters are concerned, this is not because the
Marxist theory upon which we are nourished is incapable of
development or has become out-of-date. On the contrary, it is
because we have not yet learned how to make an adequate use of
the most important mental weapons which we had taken out of the
Marxist arsenal on account of our urgent need for them in the
early stages of our struggle. It is not true that, as far as
practical struggle is concerned, Marx is out-of-date, that we
had superseded Marx. On the contrary, Marx, in his scientific
creation, has outstripped us as a party of practical
fighters. It is not true that Marx no longer suffices for our
needs. On the contrary, our needs are not yet adequate for the
utilization of Marx's ideas.
Thus do the social conditions of proletarian existence in
contemporary society, conditions first elucidated by Marxist
theory, take vengeance by the fate they impose upon Marxist
theory itself. Though that theory is an incomparable instrument
of intellectual culture, it remains unused because, while t is
inapplicable to bourgeois class culture, it greatly transcends
the needs of the working class in the matter of weapons for the
daily struggle. Not until the working class has been liberated
from its present conditions of existence will the Marxist method
of research be socialized in conjunction with the other means of
production, so that it can be fully utilized for the benefit of
humanity at large, and so that it can be developed to the full
measure of its functional capacity.