TRANSLATOR'S NOTE
By Jorge Aliaga Cacho
The Peruvian writer José Carlos Mariátegui (1896-1930) came to Europe in 1919. In France he had his first contact with the 'conscious proletariat' of whom some were survivors of the Paris Commune. It was an emotional experience that he would always remember. In Paris he met the author of "The Inferno", Henri Barbusse. Barbusse, like Mariategui, had also evolved ideologically, from being a supporter of 'rational republican socialism' to becoming affiliated to the Third International. Mariategui was searching for new influences. In France many other intellectuals influenced him: Roman Rolland, who also influenced Haya de la Torre, Jean Jaures and particularly Georges Sorel. In Italy he met Bendetto Croce, one of the most prominent Italian intellectuals, and was familiar with the communist group in Turin and its leaders Antonio Gramsci and Terracini. In Rome, Florence and Genoa, Mariategui had personal contacts with men of letters like Papini and Martinetti, and with political theoreticians like Guglielmo Ferrero.
In Germany he was impressed by the drawings of George Grosz. Mariategui's experience in Germany in the early 1920's was similar to the experience of the young George Luckas, whose work was also influenced early on by Sorel's revolutionary syndicalism, Rosa Luxemburg, and the period of social expectation in Germany in 1922 when Sorel completed his "History and Class Consciousness". Like the German, the Peruvian was influenced by the Russian revolution. Particularly in Italy, Mariategui became very interested in Lenin's ideas. In Berlin Mariategui interviewed Maxim Gorki whose work 'Lenin et le payssan russe' he had read in French.
The present translation of Jose Carlos Mariategui's work consists of two chapters of his book "Defensa del Marxismo" written originally as inde-pendent articles between 1928 and 1929 in the Limenan magazines "Mundial" and "Variedades". "Defensa del Marxismo" was partially published in Santiago de Chile in 1934. In 1959, in Lima, the definitive version was published, which consists of a first part, reviewed and edited by Mariategui himself and a second part consisting of some of his selected articles.
I present to Scottish readers the translation of the two first chapters of the fourth edition of "Defensa del Marxismo" published in Lima in 1969 by Amauta.
1.
(Glasgow, Winter 1994)
HENRI DE MAN AND THE 'CRISIS' OF MARXISM
In a book that perhaps aims at the same effect and publicity as Spengler's two volumes "La Decadencia de Occidente", (The Decline of the West'), Henri de Man proposes-overtaking Eduardo Bernstein's initiative of a quarter of a century ago- not only the "revision" but the "liquidation" of Marxism.
This intention, with out a doubt, is not original. Marxism has suffered since the end of the XIX century -before the start of the reaction against the characteristics of that rationalist century in which it is catalogued- the criticisms, more or less documented or instinctive, by university lectures, heirs of official science's ran-cour against Marx and Engels, and heterodox militants, angered by the formalism of the party's doctrine. Professor Charles Andler predicted, in 1897, the 'dissolution' of Marxism and entertained his audience in the classroom, with his erudite musings on the topic. Professor Masaryk, now President of Czechoslova-kia, diagnosed, in 1898, the 'crisis' of Marxism, and this phrase, less extreme and more academic than Andler's. had better for-tune. Masaryk collected, later, in six hundred pages of Gothic lettering, his learned arguments of sociologist and philosopher on historic materialism, without his pedantic criticism, as was soon proved by various commentators, grasping the sense of Marx's doctrine, undermining minimally its foundations. And Eduardo Bernstein, distinguished student of economy, of the social-demo-cratic school, in the same period formulated his revisionist thesis, elaborated with facts on capitalist development which did not agree with Marx's forecasts regarding capital accumulation and the impoverishment of the proletariat. Because of its economic character, Bernstein's thesis found an echo in those of professors Andler and Masaryk; but neither Bernstein nor other 'revision-ists' from his school, managed take by storm the citadel of Marxism. Bernstein, who did not seek to launch a secessionist current, but to claim the consideration of circumstances not anticipated by Marx, remained part of the German social-democ-racy, more influenced at that time, on the other hand by the more reformist spirit of Lasalle than the revolutionary thought of Capital's author.
It is not worthwhile to list other minor attacks, directed against Marxism through identical or analogous arguments which con-fronted it one or other science, for instance the law. Heresy is necessary to prove a dogma's validity. Some have served to stimulate the intellectual activity of socialism, fulfilling the ap-propriate function of opposition. Others, purely individuals, have deserved the implacable justice of time.
The true revision of Marxism, in the sense of renovation and continuation of Marx's work, has been produced, in theory and practice, by another category of revolutionary intellectuals. George Sorel, in studies, which separate and distinguish what in Marx is essential and substantive, from that which is formal and contin-gent, represented in the two first decades of the present century, more perhaps than the reaction of the classist sentiments of the trade unions, against the evolutionary and parliamentary degen-eration of socialism, the return of the dynamic and revolutionary conception of Marx and its insertion into the new intellectual and organic reality. Through Sorel, Marxism acquired the elements and substantial contributions from philosophical currents after Marx. Overcoming the rationalist and positivist bases of his contemporary socialism, Sorel finds in Bergson and the prag-matic ideas which invigorate socialist thought, restoring it to the revolutionary mission from which it had been gradually re-moved by the intellectual and spiritual bourgeoisisation of the political parties and their parliamentarians, who were philo-sophically satisfied, with the most elementary historicism and the most graceless evolutionism. The theory of the revolutionary myths, which applies to the socialist movement the experience of the religious movements, establishes the basic philosophy of revolution, deeply impregnated by psychological and sociologi-cal realism, anticipating, at the same time, the conclusions of contemporary relativism, like that of Henri de Man. The trade unions vindication, as a primordial factor of a genuine socialist
NEXT PAG 5
tricity peculiar to his mentality, prompted him to identify the judgment of history with his experience.
De Man has therefore written, we might say deliberately, a defeatist and negative book. The most important aspect of "Mas Alla del Marxismo" is undoubtedly his criticism of reformist politics. The surroundings in which he found himself, for his analysis of the motives and impulses of the proletariat, are the mediocre and passive surroundings in which he has struggled: that of Belgian trade union and Belgian social-democracy. This is not, at any time, the heroic atmosphere of the Revolution which, during the post-war agitation, was not exclusive to Russia, as can be proved by any reader of these lines in the rigorous historical pages, journalistics -although the author mixes a light novelistic element in this matter- of 'La Senda Roja' by Alvarez de Vayo. De Man ignores and evades the emotion, the revolutionary 'pathos'. The purpose of liquidating and overcoming Marxism, has led him to detailed criticism of a trade union and political medium which is not absolutely, in our day, the Marxist medium. The most severe and rigorous scholars of the socialist movement state that effective driving force of German social-democracy, to which de Man feels so closely linked, was not Marx but Lasalle. The Lasallian reformism was in harmony with the motives and praxis employed by social-democracy in the process of its devel-opment much more than the revolutionary Marxism. All the incongruencies, all the distances which de Man observes between the theory and practice of Teutonic social democracy, are not, for this reason, strictly attributable to Marxism, but rather in the manner that one might call something 'Marxism' which has not been so since its origin. The active Marxism, living, today, has little in common with the bleak arguments of Henri de Man which must rather concern Vandervelde and other Belgian social-democratic politicians, to whom, as it appears, his book has made such a profound impression
THE REVISIONIST ATTEMPT OF "BEYOND MARXISM"
There has always been a peculiar tendency among intellectuals like Henri de Man to apply, to political or economic analysis, the most fashionable scientific principles. Until recently bio-logical conclusions were imposed on sociological and histori-cal speculations with an impertinent and irritating vigour. In our tropical America, so prone to such contagions, that ten-dency has claimed many victims. The Cuban writer Lamar Schweyer, author of a "Biologia de la Democracia", who at-tempts to understand and explain the phenomena of Latin-America democracy without the help of the science of economics, may be counted among these victims. It must be remembered that this adaptation of a scientific technique to themes outside its scope constitute a sign of intellectual dilettantism. Every science has its own method and the social sciences count themselves among those which claim a right to this autonomy with most reason.
Henri de Man represents, in socialist criticism, the fashion of psychology and psychoanalysis. The most potent reason for which Marxism appears to him to be a backward-looking, eighteenth century conception resides, without doubt, in his disgust at feeling it anterior and foreign to the discoveries of Freud, Jung, Adler, Ferenczi etc. His individual experience also appears in this inclination. The process of his anti-Marxist reaction is, above all, a psychological process. It would be easy to explain the whole genesis of "Beyond Marxism" psycho-analytically. Therefore there is no need to go deeply into the last stages of the author's biography. It is sufficient to follow, step by step, his own analysis, in which his disenchantment with reformist praxis and his recalcitrant and hasty lack of acceptance of the revolutionary conception are invariably found in conflict, not withstanding the logic of his conclusions on the degeneration of its motives. A complex resides in the subcon-scious of "Beyond Marxism". On the other hand, it would be
not possible to explain the dramatically contradictory, convo-luted and arbitrary line of his thought.
This is no reason for the study of the psychic elements of workers' politics not to form the most positive and original part of the book which contains, in this respect, very wise and acute observations. Henri de Man fortunately employs the science of psychology in this terrain, although he very much exagger-ates the results of his investigations, when he encounters the principal source of the anti-capitalist struggle in 'a social inferiority complex'. Contrary to what Man supposes, his psychoanalysis does not reach any clarification contrary to the essential premises of Marxism. As for example, when he states that 'resentment against the bourgeoisie responds to their wealth more than their power, he says nothing which con-tradicts Marxist praxis, which precisely proposes the conquest of political power as a basis for the socialization of wealth. The mistake which is attributed to Marx, that of extracting a political thesis from his social and economic arguments-and Henri de Man is counted among those who use this argu-ment- absolutely does not exist. Marx put the capture of power at the top of his programme, not because he under-estimated trade union action, but because he considered victory over the bourgeoisie a political act. Equally innocuous is this other assertion: "What pushed the workers from the factory to defensive struggle was not so much the shrinking of wages as social independence, of happiness in the work, of security of living: it was a growing tension between rapidly multiplying necessities and a salary which grew very slowly and it was, in the end, the feeling of a contradiction between the moral and legal bases of the new system of work and the traditions of the old". None of these arguments diminishes the validity of a Marxist method which seeks "in the last analysis" and economic cause, and this is what those who arbitrarily reduce Marxism to a purely economic explanation of phenomena have never been able to understand.
De Man is completely in the right when he claims a major importance for the psychic factors of work. It is an incontest-able truth which is summed up in these propositions: "Al-though we dedicate ourselves to useful work, our original disposition which prompts as to seek pleasure in work, ex-pressing in it those psychic values which are most personal to us, has not changed"; "Man can find contentment not only because of work, but also in work"; "Today the major part of the population of all industrial countries finds itself con-demned to live by means of work which, although creating more useful goods than before, apportions less pleasure than ever to those who work"; "capitalism has separated the pro-ducer from the process of production: the worker, from the goods he produces". But none of these concepts was discov-ered by the author of "Beyond Marxism", nor is a revisionist attempt in any form justified. These are expressed not only in the criticism of Taylorism and other consequences of indus-trial civilization but, above all, in the vast work of Sorel, who gave careful attention to the spiritual elements of work. Sorel felt, perhaps better than any other socialist theoretician, not withstanding his purely materialist affiliation-with the sense which this term has of being the opposite of idealist- the spiritual imbalance to which the capitalist order condemns the worker. The spiritual world of the worker, his moral person-ality, preoccupied the author of "Reflecciones sobre la Violencia" ("Reflections on Violence") as much as his economic assertions. At this level, his investigation continues that of Le Play and Proudhon, so frequently cited in some of his works, among them that which outlines the bases of a theory of pain, which testifies to his having the sure and certain penetration of a psychologist. Long before the spread of Freudism, Sorel asserted all the worth of the following thought of Renan: "It is surprising that science and philosophy, adopting the people of the world's frivolous game of treating the mysterious cause par excellence as a simple joke, have not made love the chief object of their observations and speculations. It is the most
8.
extraordinary and thought provoking matter in the universe for a hypocrisy which does not speak of it or one adopts a few ingenious vulgarities regarding it. One does not wish to realize that one is before the crux of things, before the most profound secret of the world". Sorel, deepening, as he himself says, this opinion of Renan, feels himself moved "to think that men manifest in their sexual life all which is most essential in his psychology; if this psycho-erotic law has been so neglected by practicing psychologists, it has been, on the contrary, almost taken seriously by novelists and playwrights".
For Henri de Man the decadence of Marxism is evident in the lack of curiosity which, according to him, his themes are now arousing in the intellectual world, where the topics of psychology, religion, theosophy etc. on the other hand, meet with extraordinary favour. They may be here another reaction of the most specifically psychologically intellectual type. Henri de Man probably feels nostalgia for times like the Dreyfus affair, in which a vaporous and abstract socialism, administered in innocuous doses to the neurosis of a bland and lymphatic bourgeoisie, or of a snobbish aristocracy, arrived at the most impressive mundane victories. The enthusiasm for Jean Jaures, which colours his Lassalianism with a delicate Gallic line -and not Marxist- social democratic education, depends with-out doubt on an excessive and tout a fait intellectual esti-mation of suffrage gained, in the grand world of his epoch, by the humanist idealism of the grand tribune. And the observation itself, which prompts these nostalgias, is not precise. There is no doubt that the fascist reaction firstly, and the democratic capitalist establishment later, have made remarkable ruins in the political mood of writers and scholars. But the Russian revolution, which is the ultimate expression of theoretical and practical Marxism, preserves its interests for scholars intact. The books of Duhamel and Durtain, received and commented on by the public with the same interest as those of H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell were in the first years of the Soviet experiment, prove this. The most restless and valiant vanguard falange of French Iterature-supra to be spontaneously pushed to solicita concept of resuscition from Marxism, which the sense of its protest clarifies prillitically and historically. And the same tendency appears anther artists and intellectuals of the vanguard, in Europe as much as America. In Japan the universities have given birth to the study of Marxism: this phenomenon is repeated in China le means little that socialism does not attract the same clientele which in a fickle public seeks spiritualism, metaphysics and Rudolph Valentino.
The psychological Investigation of Henri de Man, on the other hand, as with his doctrinal indignation, has held reformism as Its subject. The symptomatic framework which he offers we in his book of the emotional state of the industrial worker come sponds to his own individual experience in the Belgian trade Unions. Henri de Man knows the field of reformu he does not know the field of Revolution. His disenchantment has morking to do with this. It may be said that in the work of this distiller sioned reformist can be recognised, in general, the petit bourgeois spirit of a trapped country, prisoner of a capitallee Europe, whose borders prohibited all autonomy of honortical movement. There are here another complex and anothыт repression to be clarified. But it will not be Henri de Man who clarifies them.
