KORSCH; MARXISM AND PHILOSOPHY
New Left Books £2
Korsch is a writer who can present severe difficulties for the reader. The major problem lies in the discontinuities and contradictions that exist in his work when considered as a body. Ideas that are merely limited at one stage are drawn out and explained later while others are flatly denounced. His writings vary from the extreme left of the ultra-left (his pro-Bordiga period) to a revisionism that could argue (in his 5th thesis on contemporary marxism in the French edition of "Marxism and Philosophy") that, "Marx is today only one among the many precursers, founders and continuers of the socialist movement of the working class. No less important are the utopian socialists, from the time of Thomas More to our own. No less important are the great rivals of Marx such as Blanqui, and his implacable enemies such as Proudhon and Bakunin". The important thing about Korsch is not that his exploration took him in contradictory directions but that he did explore and seek to solve new problems rather than ossifying the Marxist method with uncritical reiteration of classical texts. "Marxism and Philosophy" still remains an interesting essay because Korsch had to deal with a situation that has some parallels with the contemporary scene. Korsch was surrounded by the rubble and war-charred ruins of the "orthodox" Marxism of the Second International. Today we are confronted by the decaying theoretical residue of the 3rd International, that was presented for a whole period as the mainstream of Marxism. The fundamental problem that faced Korsch was that the Marxism of the Second International had shivered into antagonistic factions. This posed a series of questions about the nature of scientific socialism and its relationship to philosophy, ideology and false-consciousness in general. To pose the question in its sharpest form, (and Korsch later on in life did just that): "Can Marxism itself become an ideology?"
Korsch explored these issues by a critique of the Marxism of the Second International. Marx and Engels continually stated that scientific socialism was the supercession of all philosophy. Scientific socialism was, therefore, not a passive philosophy which masked an undeclared class interest but a non-ideological, active tool in the class struggle that was inherently biased on the side of the working class. In other words, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, it is now a question of changing it." Korsch argues that Marxists had misunderstood this view and imagined that all that was necessary was to shrug off philosophy as a fantasy. For these Marxists there are three degrees of reality: 1) the economy, which in the last instance is the only objective and non-ideological reality; 2) Law and the State, which are already less real because clad in ideology, and 3) pure ideology which is object less and totally unreal ('pure rubbish')." This led to a view that Marxism was a positive science, like chemistry or physics. Hilferding saw Marxism as a theory which was "a scientific, objective and free science, without value judgments." It need not be related to socialism and could be conviently divorced from a revolutionary practice. Korsch condemns the concept of Marxism as a positive science; a view that orginated in Engel's "Dialectics of Nature", infected "Materialism and Empirico-criticism" and bloomed again in 'Dialectical and Historical Materialism" when Uncle Jo converted the dialectic into something remarkably like the three card trick. Marx, in his marginal notes to Bakunin on the State, even went so far as to disclaim "scientific" socialism, as only having any meaning when contrasted with Utopian socialism. It is only later, in his masterpiece "Karl Marx", that Korsch positively identifies Marxism as a critical science. Why did the Marxism of the Second International degenerate? When Korsch posed this question, he was opening new ground for Marxist theory. He was attempting a Marxist i.e. scientific and materialist, analysis of Marxism. The spread of Marxism in the late 19th century was accompanied by relative social calm. Marxism had no practical revolutionary task to accomplish but merely expressed in a political form the reformist and economic struggles of the working class. Scientific socialism lost its function as a guide for the proletarian revolution. Since this Marxism was an abstract theory with no practical consequences, it was unable to deal with the relationship between the State and revolution and philosophy and Marxism. Korsch, therefore, saw that Lenin's "State and Revolution" "was an early indication that the internal connection of theory and practice within revolutionary Marxism had been consciously re-established." What is the relationship between Marxism and philosophy? As mentioned before, Korsch attacks those who argue that philosophy is an unreal superstition preserved by the ruling class, that will disappear like a puff of smoke when capitalism is overthrown. It was true that scientific socialism was to abolish philosophy, but questions remained: "should this abolition of philosophy be regarded as accomplished so to speak once and for all by a single intellectual deed of Marx and Engels? Should it be regarded as accomplished only for the Marxists, or for the whole proletariat, or for the whole of humanity? Or should we see it (like the abolition of the State) as a very long and arduous revolutionary process which unfolds through the most diverse phases?" The existence of the degenerated worker's states and the quasi-ideology of Stalinism force us to accept the view of Korsch that a conscious struggle against the idealist component of bourgeois society and all of its forms of consciousness is necessary. To do this Marxism has to be a counter-critique of capitalism in its totality and not merely its "real" (economic) aspects. Korsch argues that such an attack on philosophy is a prerequisite for a successful revolutionary struggle. It seems at times as if Korsch attempts to elevate, in the "Gramscian" manner, this aspect above the Leninist vanguard party. But this is not at all convincing once it is grasped that central to Leninism is the role of the party as the agency of totalisation and the generator of socialist consciousness. In spite of the weaknesses, Korsch provides insights that are essential for us if we wish to re-establish today the connection of revolutionary theory with revolutionary practice.