The Theoretical System of Karl Marx

This is the title of a recommended book from the Better Read than Red list. Louis Boudin's work, which is available online, was reviewed in The Western Socialist No. 3 - 1968.

The reprint of this book, sans introduction and hence free of possible reader misdirection, should be warmly received by all students of Marxism not having the good fortune to possess a long out-of-print copy. For verily this book may be deemed a Marxist classic, and belongs in the library of every socialist desiring a unifying understanding of Marx. It is indispensable reading for students of socialist fundamentais.

Its primary role is that of serving as a somewhat advanced but lucid introduction to the study of the Marxian system with its "accent on the system, that is the relation of its different parts to each other and the unity of the whole." And this structural wholeness, this interdependency of its different parts cannot be overemphasized for one seeking a fuller grasp of Marxism.

Written in the first decade of this century by a Marxist of exceptional originality and deeply penetrating perception, this invaluable book consists of "an exposition of the teachings of Marx" in their systematic relatedness and wholeness and a depth analysis of the various criticisms pertinent to the specific subject matter under chapter discussion (Materialist Conception of History and Class Struggle, Value and Surplus Value, Economic Contradictions, and the Passing of Capitalism, etc.) - which blossomed following the deaths of Marx and Engels and which, then as now, manifestly attest to the eminent position of Marxism and the nascent apprehensions of the bourgeois.

"The Theoretical System of Karl Marx" is a book to be read and reread and certain parts reread again; and then conveniently shelfed next to Capital to be referred to frequently in the face of present day anti-Marxists.

The reader will note at the outset that there is one factor held in common by most, if not all, critics of Marxism, and that is that none

"openly defend the theories which Marxism has supplanted. Almost everyone admits expressly the justifiability of Marx's criticism of the theories which predominated before his advent, and that Marx's theories were correct at the time they were first stated and a proper generalization of the data then at hand. What they claim is, that latter developments have shown that they were based on insufficient data and that aur present knowledge requires the revision of some of his tenets . . . Hence, the name Revisionists, under which most of newer Marx critics are known, and the term Revisonism applied to their writings and teachings."

The Revisionists, exemplified by their don, Eduard Bernstein, a leading theoretician of the German Soeial Democratic Party and one time intimate acquaintance of Engels, but who for reasons examined in Boudin's book was moved to a critical frame of mind, criticized the Hegelian background, the labor theory of value, "the exploitation theory," the doctrine of inereasing misery, etc.

As will beeome clear to the attentive reader, the Revisionists skimped on their homework. For they not only fail to prove their general criticisms but fail to prove the particulars in their particular indictment of Marxisrn. Since the "problems" raised by the Revisionists were vague and poorly formulated in their own minds, they were unable to get below the surface of the problems. Being vague as to what the problems actually were, being victimized by compartmentalized reasoning, as it were, their vision allowed them only glanees at discon nected facts here and there and they lost the large and enveloplng scene altogether. Because of this reliance on isolated statements or expressions and their disregard of the interconnected and inseparable interrelattons of the Marxian system as a whole, they tail to get to the crux of the issues raised and consequently their satisfactory resolvment but rambles on in an aura of uncertainty and perplexity.

There definitely was a problem - the problem of harmonizing a new factor which had entered the picture (that of corporate methods of doing business) which, on the surface, tended to vitiate the Marxian prognosis. Clearly and thoroughly formulating the issues raised by the Revisionists and others, Boudin provides within the framework of Marxism the needed harmony.

In addition to the Revisionists, there is dealt with an anti-Marxist group who, in the opinion of Boudin, an opinion, it is safe to assert, shared by all scientific socialists, "conclusively establishes not only the preeminent position occupied... by Marxism as the recognized doctrine, but also the fact that there is no doctrine capable of competing with it for establishment or even dividing honors with it ... " This group holds

"that the whole system must be thrown overboard as unscientific ... These ...critics of Marx do not dare accept in its entirety any other system, wholly or partly original with its authors, which would be capable of taking the place of Marxism as an explanation of social phenomena, They almost all, therefore, fall into what may well be termed Nihilism, that is to say, they are led to deny the existence, nay, even the possibility, of any social science. In other words: Marxism is so much the scientific doctrine in its sphere (which covers all the life of humanity in organized society, including all its social and intellectual manifestations) that you cannot destroy it without at the same time destroying all scientific knowledge of the subject."

Carried to its utmost extreme, Nihilism explains the underlying cause of much contemporary hitstorico-philosophic writings of obfuscation, pessimism, mysticism, and the seemingly complete abandonment of reason on the part of its practitioners. Forsaking "the scientific doctrine," denying or refusing to recognize its existence and valldity, and devoid of any substantial substitute, these despairing representatives of the capitalist class, who would infuse in the working class the failure and hopelessness of the capitalist class to further promote social advancement and progress, who in their desperation deny any social science and hence any hope for mankind, perforce wander up and down the corridors of darkness, confusion, and negativism.

Boudin groups the critics of Marx according to their treatment of him, though this grouping is by no means rigid. Disregarding the overlapping of the groups, they are:

"First, the philosophers, who dwell principally on Marx's philosophic system; secondly, the economists, who examine his economic theories; and thirdly, the sociologists, that is to say those who concern themselves chiefty with Marx's theories of laws which govern the development of the capitalist system."

As the reader will soon discover, these critics for the most part are prone to suffer an ailment diagnosed by Boudin as "Confusion of Terms and Ideas." This mentally retarding and truth-concealing ailment lead Marxist critics, those of today as well as those treated by Boudin, to substitute their own terminology for that of Marx's, and to ascribe to Marx (and his disciples) all sorts of things which he did not say or, having said, in a larger context conveying an entirely different meaning than his critics would have their readers believe. Not only does this ailment afHict those relatively ignorant of Marxism, but less understandably, infects those who otherwise allow no doubt of their knowledge of Marxism. Were it possible overnight to cure this apparently contagious malady with some miracle drug, there would immediately follow a vast lessening of anti-Marxism, and that remaining, legittmately raised and clearly marked, could be satisfactorily disabused.

The book contains several amusing criticisms of Marx. For example: Was Marx a philosopher and is Marxism a philosophy? Grave and profound dissertations were written on this, for it was considered of revealing import by certain critics of the time. It apparently never occurred to them, as it does not occur to many present day critics, to examine the works of Marx and Engels to ascertain what they had to say on the subiect in conjunction, of course, with the teachings of the system as a whole. Had they done so they would have found Marx and Engels expounding the opinion that philosophy had reached its zenith and demise with Hegel, "that henceforth the place of philosophy is taken by science." Quoting Engeis, Boudin writes: "This conception (the materialist conception of history) puts an end to philosophy on the historical field, just as the dialectic conception of nature makes all natural philosophy unnatural and impossible." No, in the words of Boudin, "Marxism is no abstract philosophy. It is just the reverse, it is concrete science, and therefore the heir and successor of all philosophy."

Another amusing criticism of Marx was occasioned by the supposed contradiction between the first and third volumes of Capital - and this despite the fact that "most of the third volume, and particularly those portions of it which are supposed to modify the first volume, were actually written down by Marx in its present form before the pubiicatum of the first volume!"

One Russian Marxist of some prominence was so moved by his inability to reconcile the seemingly opposing doctrines laid down in the first and third volumes that he questioned the latter volume's genuineness and practically labeled it a fraud - and this he did notwithstanding Engels preface to the third volume which leaves no doubt as to its authenttcity. It seems that even friends of Marxism can contribute to its misunderstanding for reason of their personal inadequacies.

The supposed contradiction in the first and third volumes took its classic form in Bohm-Bowerk's "Karl Marx and the Close of his System." It was a favorite theme of the Revisionist, who held that

"Marx's theoretical ideas had passed through an evolutionary process, the main tendency of which was from 'unscientific,' hard and fast monistic dogmas, at the outset, to mild and loose eclectic 'science' at the conclusion. This they applied equally, and with equal justification, to the whole Marxian theoretical system, to his historicophilosophic and his economic theories alike."

Had the Revisionists been content to limit their criticism to Marx's historico-philosophic ideas they might have stood a fair outside chance of getting away with it (despite its absurdity in face of the written order of Capital), since these views of Marx are not codified in any treatise, but "are strewn over the whole mass of his wrrtings in a more or less fragmentary condition, and it requires an intrmate acquaintance with his theories to see the improbability of this claim ."

But the Revisionists were not content or were inherently unable to limit their criticisms of the supposed contradiction to Marx's historico-philosophic views, but included as well his economic views. This lack of discrimination was their undoing, for the economic views of Marx ring loud and elear in most all his writings. On this issue, Boudin could not let the matter go unexamined and unchallenged, for, he writes, "if there really is such a contradiction, and if the doctrine of the third volume is virtuai abandonrnent of the labor theory of value, it makes, of course, very little difference when the different portions of Marx's book were written, or what he thought of one portion when writing the other, except, of course, as an interesting study of a great aberration of an extraordinary mind." Hence, Boudin undertakes a tightly reasoned analysis of this bugaboo of the Revisionists and other critics and completely vanquishes it.

Boudin's book in its relatively intense brevity (286 pages) is of immense scope and rich in historical interest. Notwithstanding the death thrust and burial given the anti-Marxist arguments by Boudin, their topicality is still very much with us as evidenced by the not infrequent sallying forth of contemporary anti-Marxists with pretty rnuch the same opposing arguments as their long dead progenitors.

REN