Transcribed online for the first time here, this major essay from a young Sidney Hook appeared in American Socialist Quarterly and provides a good summation of Hook’s critical, Korsch-influenced revolutionary Marxism of the mid-30s.

The Scope of Marxian Theory’ by Sidney Hook from American Socialist Quarterly. Vol. 5 No. 7. October, 1936.

IN a recent book an English critic refers to Marxism as the opium of the socialist orthodox. If one examines what Marxism means to most socialist and communist parties throughout the world to-day, i.e., to those which profess themselves Marxist, it will be found that the characterization is quite apt. For a variety of reasons, “orthodox” Marxists, and particularly communists, have turned Marxism into a philosophy of the universe relevant to every domain of knowledge and every field of human activity. From the movement of planets and electrons in their orbits, to the action of classes and parties no question has ever arisen upon which orthodox Marxists have not felt competent to speak. For after all, are not the laws of dialectic universal? Indeed, the analogy drawn in many quarters between orthodox Marxism and religion is unfair to religion, for most contemporary religions, in their ideology at least, restrict themselves to half-hearted affirmations of ethical ideals. One must go back to the great traditional religions to find anything which matches orthodox Marxism in the pretension of its claims, and in the intensity with which a monistic world-view is asserted.

It is easy to deny that Marxism is a systematic doctrine of the universe, society and man, and not very difficult to show that such interpretations rest upon a neglect of the context and intent of Marx’s own writings. It is not so easy, however, to define adequately the scope of Marxian theory and to distinguish iton the one hand, from a cosmic religious opiate, and on the other, from the narrow view that Marxism is nothing but a set of economic doctrines. I shall try to sketch briefly what I regard the legitimate province of Marxism to be without at this time discussing or evaluating any of Marx’s specific doctrines or conclusions.

If a man’s life has any connection with his thought, then Marx’s revolutionary activity should provide the clue to the central purpose of his thinking. Whatever Marxism may mean to the disciples, there can be no question but that to Marx it meant the theory and practice of the proletarian revolution. Every one of his doctrines was a generalization of an historic experience in the class struggle or a proposed solution of some problem in that struggle. I propose frankly to take the defining purpose of Marx’s life and thought as the point of departure for determining the scope of Marxian theory. Without such a point of departure we have no way of determining what is directly relevant, what is peripheral, and what is irrelevant to Marxism and run the danger of talking ins Blau hineinor narrowing Marxism to some special doctrine.

If Marxism is the theory and practice of social revolution in capitalist society, then its first consideration must be a persistent and critical survey of all the social and political factors which affect the possibilities of successful political action. Obstacles to the achievement of our ends are always experienced as the most relevant and pressing factors, and the chief obstacle to the realization of the proletarian revolution, it is obvious, is the existence of the state power and apparatus. Consequently one of the prime concerns of Marxism is the theory and practice of the state, its overt and hidden role in the class struggle, the social and economic factors which influence at different times its form, expression and ideology. Historically it is interesting to know that in his critical reaction against Hegel’s philosophy of law, it was the Hegelian theory of the state which Marx overthrew first. The initial impulse to question the Hegelian theory was derived from first hand observations of the way in which the state functioned in relation to the German problems of freedom of education, freedom of press, provision for the poor, and, later, in the weavers’ revolts. (In passing, we must note that the traditional German social democratic emasculation of Marx-now shared by the Communist Party-lies precisely in its unrealistic approach to the question of state power.) If the state is, as Marx held, the executive committee of the ruling class-and this must always be shown by an analysis of legislative practices, the use of executive power, judicial decisions, etc. then no working-class party can share the existing political power, or once establish as a government, tolerate the existence of the old state machinery without abandoning the standpoint of the class struggle, or rather the class struggle from the point of view of proletarian interests and the proletarian revolution.

Now although the nature of the state structure and function is always important, it becomes focally important only in a period when the question of the conquest of power is on the order of the day. The precise instrumentalities to be employed, peaceful or not, are functions of the concrete historical situation and depend just as much upon what opponents of Marxism do as upon the intelligence of Marxists. But antecedent to the attempted conquest of power, one must develop a working conception of the social conditions under which such an attempt can be made, and conditions under which such an attempt can succeed. It is the failure to do this which distinguished Blanquism from Marxism. For Blanquism a social revolution is a live possibility at any time and place; for Marxism the revolution is the critical point in a social process which must first be understood before the final action which actualizes it can be launched. Here again Marx’s own experience is vitally reflected in the development of Marx’s thought. After the defeat of the revolution of 1848 Marx devoted himself to the great task of discovering the laws and tendencies of capitalist production in order to determine not only the reasons for the failure of the revolution but the perspectives of future political action. The economic doctrines of Marx in their specific Marxian form were projected as integral parts of the central problems of the coming social revolution and not merely as the formal equations of doom of capitalist society. They indicated the nature and periodic rhythms of capitalist decline, how the objective conditions of the new social order are generated by the imminent processes of the old, and why the working class must be the base of the socialist revolution and not some other class. This knowledge, scorned by the impatient revolutionists of the Blanquist stripe, became essential to realistic political action. Indeed the kind of economics in which the Marxist is interested, why and what he selects out of the infinite complexity of available data, can only be explained in terms of a contemplated program of action which he checks and modifies in its light. Whether Marx’s economic predictions have been realized, and whether if they have been realized the logical analysis by which he arrived at them is valid, are questions which do not concern us in this context.

But now it must be observed that knowledge of economic tendencies although essential to revolutionary action is not sufficient. If the economic factors were the only ones that counted, the social revolution in the western world would have occurred long ago. So long as history is made by men, their sentiments, passions, traditions and religious allegiances-conditioned as they may be by economic causes-have an influence on social development which cannot be reduced to, or intelligibly explained in, economic terms. The economic analysis may show that some things are impossible: by itself, however, it cannot establish the fact that any thing must be. From the point of view of the revolutionary process and the revolutionary act, the Marxist must take into account all those-to use one synoptic term- “psychological” factors which bear upon the conquest of political power.

Theoretically and practically, the most serious failures of Marxism have arisen from inability to evaluate properly extra-economic factors which bear upon the problems of political power. Indeed, out of a self-imposed intellectual terror most Marxists have feared to introduce and interpret other factors, for fear of falling into revisionism. Instead they have either denied the efficacy of these factors or have sought to reduce them to economic terms. After all, economic facts are more or less measurable while traditions, national and religious feelings are not. And a mistaken theory of science which has held that only what is measurable can be scientifically treated has been even more confused by a mistaken philosophy which holds that only what can be scientifically treated exists. But nationalism and fascism indicate that it is possible to measure poverty, and yet not be able to measure its political effects; that it is possible to establish statistically the decline of capitalism and yet be unable to predict on that data alone the quality, expression and direction of the resentment which the decline generates.

The view that economic realities alone are the guide to understanding and action is not Marxian and leads to a vulgarization of Marx’s theory of historical materialism. All ideals are viewed as a form of self-interest and it is presupposed that every one knows what his real interests are. Such a theory of motivation, however, is patently inadequate to the facts of the class-struggle and especially to the activity, heroism and sacrifice of the most revolutionary elements within it. The simple truth which Marx stressed against the Utopians that ideals and values cannot be pursued for long by men who have no bread has been converted into the proposition that all ideals and values are merely the instruments by which bread is secured. An adequate statement of Marxism must reassert those larger ideals which were so much a part of the socialist movement of his time that Marx did not regard it as necessary to make them explicit. It is all the more necessary to do this in view of the newer movements which have arisen which seek to catch men’s enthusiasm for causes that threaten the very existence of civilization.

The whole question becomes clearer if we go back to our starting point to complete the definition of Marxism as the theory and practice of proletarian revolution. It is clear that the proletarian revolution or the conquest of power is not an end in itself. It is the use to which political power is to be put which constitutes its justification. It is the conception of a society in which the assurance of material plenty makes possible the greatest realization of those ideal goods which the seers, prophets and philosophers have taught to be the constituents of the good life and the good society-intelligence, courage, humanity and creative activity. Of course these are terms which the Marxian analysis has shown to be differently interpreted in different times by different classes. But they have an unchanging nucleus of meaning to which the nature of man in society, especially in conflict, always responds. There is nothing incompatible with Marxism in coupling together these larger ideals with specific economic interests and motivations, the multitude of short time levers by which the revolutionary movement advances. Without these larger ideals it is unlikely that people will stake their lives and fortunes in struggle; without these ideals the argument that in liberating itself, the working class liberates the whole of society, cannot be plausibly sustained. That is why Marxism is something more than a matter of social engineering, something more than a cut and dried method by which a group of intellectuals calling themselves social-engineers puts the revolution over by using the working class as so much material or so much energy in an engineering construction. Those whose Marxist consciences are uneasy and who ask for the sacred texts on this point can be supplied with them. But it is not a question of texts; it is a question of what is implied in the recognition that a revolution, as Marx understood it, is not an end in itself but a means of achieving Socialism; it is a question of what the Marxists must oppose to the Nazi hosts whose unctuous idealism, compounded of passionate lies, illusions and mythology as it may be, is demagogically effective because it is based on the insight that man cannot live and be moved by negations alone.

Another point which must be stressed today is the essentially democratic character of Socialism as Marx conceived it. By the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” (used only twice in print) Marx understood a workers’ democracy, administered by representative councils of all producers, functioning repressively against minority groups only when the latter are guilty of overt action. Marx emphatically did not mean by the “dictatorship of the proletariat” a dictatorship of a minority political party enjoying a monopoly of political power, and permitting only that degree of freedom to citizen-producers which insures the perpetuation of its own hegemony.

We now come to the problem of Marxism and culture. The Marxian attitude to any given culture complex is twofold. On the one hand, the Marxist seeks evidence for the hypothesis that the fundamental social relations of production influence the character, extent and development of cultural activity: on the other, he seeks to reveal and oppose the manifold ways in which different tendencies in culture create the psychological blockages,-emotional attitudes and intellectual habits-that stand in the way of revolutionizing the masses. His attitude to existing culture is, therefore, essentially critical. He is always asking: whom does this serve? What are the social consequences of this cultural pattern or text? In what way does this method of interpreting life and experience bear upon working class activity? In making inquiries of this kind it is not the function of the Marxist under capitalism to create a culture de novo. This does not of course deny that the movement produces a characteristic culture of revolt in song, literature and social thought. But this is something quite different from the attitude taken by orthodox dialectical materialists in Russia and the official Communist Parties of the world who try to apply some mythical party line in evaluating the validity of doctrine and technical achievement in all fields. Such an attitude presupposes that every aspect of culture from the theory of numbers to the science of philology is equally relevant to the class-struggle; something which only a cultural barbarian could assert. To be sure, the Marxist critically examines the findings of modern science, not to lay down the mumbojumbo formulae or laws of the “yesno” dialectical logic to the scientist, but merely to expose and oppose the illegitimate excursions of the doctrines of the physical sciences into social affairs. He shows, for example, that, although the biological premises of Conklin, Osborn and other geneticists with reactionary political penchants, may be true, their social views, presumably based upon these premises, are elaborate non-sequiturs. He lays bare the peculiar mystical philosophy and obscurantism which leads Eddington and Jeans into claiming that the jump of electrons from one atomic orbit to another establishes the existence of free will: he does not, as some orthodox dialectical materialists have done, maintain that these electronic jumps furnish an additional argument for social revolution as against continuous social evolution.

The dangers of trying to determine what the correct point of view in all fields of culture must be on the basis of correct political lines are best illustrated in the intellectual debacle of orthodox Marxism in the field of anthropology. Here orthodox Marxists still cling to Morgan’s anthropology almost every one of whose leading ideas has been decisively rejected by the scientific field workers. Indeed, had Marxists familiarized themselves with, and disseminated, the critical findings of the American school of anthropologists on the nature of race, with half the zealousness with which they propagated Morgan’s outworn views, the Nazi mythology of race would not have taken hold so easily in Germany and elsewhere.

The Marxist tries to show how social conditions under capitalism, whatever the benefits of their initial impulse may have been, now exercise a distorting effect upon most cultural activity. He uses as an additional argument for the classless society, the freedom which the physicist, mathematician or musician can enjoy to work out his own problems undisturbed by the impact of irrelevant economic obstacles or difficulties. That is to say, the intellectual and artist can work either in conjunction with those who are active in the organization of production or pursue his own theoretical bent once his competence is established. But in either case voluntarily. From this point of view, the Marxist can contend that he is interested in preserving all genuine culture and in providing the social milieu in which a new culture-class or classless -so long as it be rich in meaning and diversified in form, can flourish.

It follows from the foregoing that Marxism is not a complete system of sociology and certainly not exclusively an economic doctrine. All of its propositions have a specific historic context and presupposition. That is why both Marx and Engels always insisted upon the historical character of their leading principles, viz: the class struggle, historical materialism and theory of value. Their abstract generalizations once divorced from the concrete situations of social life today are either meaningless or quite definitely false. This account of the meaning of Marxian theory makes intelligible the role which Marx assigned to the political party in educating, organizing and leading the masses, and in supplying a principle of continuity in the vicissitudes of struggle. It also makes intelligible why the Marxian theory itself can function as an historical force. In other words, it recognizes that knowledge and intelligence make a difference -which is indeed no more than a direct, but sadly overlooked implication, of the doctrine of the unity between theory and practice. This is a far cry from the customary fatalism read into Marxist theory by most of its friends and foes. If knowledge and intelligence make a difference, then any form of dogma whether it be expressed as a priori rationalism or voluntaristic irrationalism must be ruled out as foreign to the spirit of Marxian theory. And to those who feel that this account lacks the simplicity and assurance of certainty necessary to bring people into motion, it can easily be demonstrated that a recognition of the complexity of the social and historical process and the tentative character of the conclusions reached is not at all incompatible with resolute action in behalf of goals chosen after reflection.

Socialist Review began as American Socialist Quarterly in 1934. The name changed to Socialist Review in September 1937. The journal reflected Norman Thomas’ supporters “Militant” tendency of the ‘center’ leadership. Beginning in 1936, there were also Fourth Internationalists lead by James P. Cannon as well as the right-wing tendency around the New Leader magazine also contributing. The articles reflect these ideological divisions, and for a time, the journal hosted important debates. The magazine continued as the SP official organ through the 1940s.

For a PDF of the full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/socialist-review/v05-n07-oct-1936-soc-rev.pdf