, I
32
PARTISAN REVIEW
we may hear in this conference, the view that Marxism, especially as
expressed in the rising civilization of the Soviet Union, is "mechanistic,"
that it worships the machine, is "anti-humanistic" and the like. The Soviet
writers here present will, of course, deal with the question themselves,
but if I may say so, I doubt if they themselves quite realize the depth of
the misconception as to the nature of Marxism, or how prevalent it is even
in sympathetic circles of Western Europe. They know well the profoundly
anti-mechanistic nature of Marxism. It is a commonplace with them that
the main polemic of dialectical materialism is directed precisely against a
mechanistic or narrowly materialistic outlook upon the world. They know
this so well that I fear they may not realize the need for emphasis of the
point here, that one way of stating the object of the industrialization of
the Soviet Union is to say that the object of the whole process is to provide
the indispensable material basis upon which the mass of the population
can alone participate in cultural life, and thus d·evelop those humanistic
values which its critics actually suppose _the U.S.S.R. to be neglecting.
But to return to Marxism as a system of ideas. It would be paradoxi–
cal, but I think it would -be true, to say that just because Marxism stands
for political and economic revolution, it is culturally conservative. Marx–
ists are convinced that it is only by a revolutionary change in the political
and economic basis of society that human culture can be conserved and, of
course, developed; but that development, as Marx, Lenin, and every other
Communist leader, has reiterated, must be on the basis of the existing
cultural heritage.
It was only after (they persistently taught) a man had mastered that
heritage that he would be able to surpass it, and add something to it.
Marxism rejects literally nothing that is vital in our cultural heritage.
Marx and Engels not only preached this view, they also most certainly
practiced it. Their erudition was formidable. But, not only were they
erudite, they cared passionately for literature in the narrower sense of
that term.
Marx was a very considerable Shakespearian scholar.
Das Kapital
is studded with Shakespearian quotations, as when he compares the intang–
ible nature of a "commodity" with Mrs. Quickly, and complains that "a
man does not know how to come to her." Again, as readers of their
correspondence will remember, Marx and Engels quite literally refused
to have anything to do with a man because he failed to appreciate Balzac's
Pere Goriot.
Engels writes, vehemently, that there can be no possible
good in such a fellow, so they had better not have any more truck with
him. Incidentally, Marx's worship (for it was nothing less) of Balzac,
the arch-conservative, Catholic monarchist is a good example of his breadth
of appreciation.
As
he said, he did not care a fig for Balzac's political
