90
PARTISAN REVIEW
stantly recreated to keep step with the ever-changing world of politics
and culture. And at any given time, the question of what is living and
what is dead in Marxism is not an abstract one, for it can be deter–
mined only by applying the old theories to new ideas and situations.
Considered in all its aspects, Marxism is a way of life: a way of
acting, thinking, and feeling. For in addition to being a theory of class
action, it also reflects the moral needs of the proletariat. The writing
of leading Marxists constantly stresses those qualities of solidarity,
mili–
tancy, and intransigence which are to be found in the most conscious
section of the working class, as against the smugness and corruption
which is bred by the other
cl~
of society. And Marx, himself, after
stating that his theory declares
m~n
to be the supreme program of
mankind, never tired of pointing out the growing self-alienation,
in
capitalist society, which smothers man's creative impulses.
Unlike any other philosophy, therefore, the prestige of Marxism
depends to a great extent on the relative strength of the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie. The value of Kant's system, for example, is hardly a
live issue outside of the classroom; whereas Marxism is debated in the
streets, gaining new supporters when the working class is flushed with
victories, and losing them after defeats. In times of reaction, like the
present, with the working class everywhere in retreat, labor organiza–
tions sprout revisions of Marxism, while an increasing number of intel–
·lectuals hasten to refute its basic ideas, and to assert once more their
freedom from all "dogmas."
Yet what do they offer in its place? Have they some other method
of bringing socialism? Or, at the very least, some better way of ex–
plaining political events? Surely, it has been sufficiently demonstrated
that even the recent defeats of the working class, consummated in the
Munich conference, can be understood only through a Marxist analy·
sis of class relations. Have they refuted such an analysis? On the con–
trary, they have sunk back into a near-sighted empiricism, forswearing
the radical implications of Marxism, yet apparently indifferent to the
conservative implications of their own position. "Experience," San–
tayana once wrote, "seems to most of us to lead to conclusions, but
empiricism has sworn never to draw-them."
