The Devil
Theory
of the Dialectic
(A Reply to Edmund Wilson)
William Phillips
As
against those who would mummify Marxism into a system of
eternal truths, one can only welcome the irreverent and civilized ap–
proach of Edmund Wilson. Even if one disagrees, as I do, with Mr.
Wilson's conclusions, the necessity of reexamining the ideas of Marx
in the light of modern science and philosophy cannot be denied. The
failure of most orthodox materialists to do so lends color to the popular
conception that Marxism is a variety of religious experience.
Mr. Wilson, however, is not concerned with bringing Marxism
up to date; on the contrary, he has set out to prove that Marxism
is
alien to modern thought and he all but urges that it be deported back
to its home in the nineteenth century. Arguing that Marxism has its
roots in the dialectic, and that the dialectic, itself, is a variety of un–
scientific hocus-pocus, Mr. Wilson dismisses the Marxist philosophy as
an old-fashioned mixture of German mythology and mysticism. Put
Wotan, Machievelli and Moses together, and you come close to the
portrait Mr. Wilson draws of the mind of Marx.
Strangely enough, however, Mr. Wilson is evidently impressed
with the vista of socialism which Marx held out, and he closes
his
essay
with a very sympathetic summary of the humanist aims underlying
Marx's philosophy. But, since Marx's writing is an exposition of the
necessity as well as the possibility of building a truly human society,
Wilson is placed in the dilemma of accepting the
end
of Marxism
while rejecting its
means.
Thus Mr. Wilson reduces Marxism to a
colossal
poenr
about history: visionary, aggressive, shocklng, irrespon–
sible-and utterly Utopian.
Mr. Wilson disposes of the actual body of Marxism, by assuming
what he has to prove. For his argument that the discovery of a flaw
(the Dialectic) brings the rest of the Marxist philosophy toppling to
the ground, rests on the assumption that Marxism is a monolithic
structure, built for once and all, which must be accepted or rejected
in
its entirety. Yet it is
this
very question of the nature and purpose of
Marxism, that is the central issue in Mr. Wilson's discussion of the
subject. Is Marxism a static philosophy, like that of any other system–
atic thinker in the past, parts of which may still be valid to-day, but
82
