THE DEVIL THEORY OF THE DIALECTIC
89
in Mr. Wilson's view Marxism is so laden with mysticism and so much
of a piece, that it is difficult to see how he can with consistency pre–
serve any part of it. In this respect, Mr. Wilson's attitude is but ortho–
doxy in reverse : both regard every bit of Marxism as essential to its
being. The orthodox dialecticians would keep Marxism alive by reduc–
ing it to a corpse; Mr. Wilson has it stillborn.
These dilemmas can be avoided only by seeing Marxism as a
philosophy of social action. So did Marx and Engels regard their theo–
ries; so did their disciples: the early Kautsky, the early Plechanov,
Lenin, . Luxemburg, and Trotsky. Their politics is the state-craft of
the proletariat; and it was in the interests of the proletariat that they
laid bare the basis of class rule and the various ideologies which serve
either actively or passively to prolong it. All varieties of mysticism and
obscurantism, they discovered, had only the effect of retarding that
consciousness which would liberate man from his slavery to things.
Hence they pitted science against the fables of the spiritual: they
sought to apply science to economics, history, and philosophy. And
just as science verifies itself by its understanding and control of natural
forces, so Marxists looked for the meaning or truth of some theory in
its practical consequences. They believed that to act on the theory of
Marxism, is, in the final instance, to refute opposing theories by
realiz–
ing
your own in history. "The question whether objective truth can be
attributed to human thinking," wrote Marx in his
Theses on Feuer–
bach,
"is not a question of theory but is a practical question. In prac–
tice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this–
sidedness of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of
inking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.
. . Social life is essential
practical.
All mysteries which mislead theory
o mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the
omprehension of this practice."
Marxism, therefore, constantly intervenes in tne cultural as well
the political life of society. While its method remains constant–
dical, empirical, materialist- it is necessary, as it absorbs new dis–
overies and opposes new dogmas, for it to discard some of its original
hilosophic emphasis. So far there has been little reason to question the
onomics and politics of Marxism- nor, for that matter, its material–
account of history-but even here the appearance of both fascism
d Stalinism call for further extension of the basic concepts. Similar-
' in the domain of culture, it is not so much a question of repairing
arxism, as of carrying into our own time the type of criticism which
arx made in his. Thus Marxism would accept whatever is scientific
modern thought, branding the rest as disguised theology. In this
nse, the text of Marxism is not absolutely fixed, but must be con-
