The first conception is lifeless, poor and dry. The second is vital. The second alone furnishes the key to the "self-movement" of everything in existence; it alone furnishes the key to the "leaps," to the "break in continuity," to the "transformation into the opposite," to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.21

Nowadays, the idea of development, of evolution, has penetrated the social consciousness almost in its entirety, but by different ways, not by way of the Hegelian philosophy. But as formulated by Marx and Engels on the basis of Hegel, this idea is far more comprehensive, far richer in content than the current idea of evolution. A development that seemingly repeats the stages already passed, but repeats them otherwise, on a higher basis ("negation of negation"), a development, so to speak, in spirals, not in a straight line; a development by leaps, catastrophes, revolutions;“breaks in continuity”;—the transformation of quantity into quality;—the inner impulses to development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given society;-the interdependence and the closest, indissoluble connection of all sides of every phenomenon (while history constantly discloses ever new sides), a connection that provides a uniform, law-governed, universal process of motion-such are some of the features of dialectics as a richer (than the ordinary) doctrine of development.22

Of the two component parts, materialism carries more evolutionary overtones, while the dialectic emphasizes the sudden, revolutionary change, the struggle of opposites. Lenin's stress on dialectic thus has profound influence on the character of communism.

The materialistic component of the philosophy is, however, all-important in the following respect: Matter, being inanimate, can be observed and known by man, while ideas are creative and unpredictable. If history is a dialectic movement of material elements rather than of ideas, history can be known as much as material evolution can be known. One of the most important points in Communist ideology is the assertion that as history moves forward according to the laws of "matter," the laws of history can be known, and that Marxism-Leninism is the key to their knowledge.

Marx's philosophy is finished philosophical materialism, which has provided humanity, and especially the working class, with powerful instruments of knowledge.23

. . . Marxism pointed the way to an all-embracing and comprehensive study of the process of rise, development, and decline of social-economic for

"V. I. Lenin, "On Dialectics" (1915), Selected Works (London: Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, p. 82.

"Lenin, "Karl Marx" (July-November, 1914), Selected Works (London: Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, pp. 17 and 18.

"Lenin, "The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism” (March 1913), Selected Works (London: Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, p. 5.

mations. People make their own history. But what determines the motives of people, of the mass of people; that is: what gives rise to the clash. of conflicting ideas and strivings; what is the ensemble of all these clashes of the whole mass of human societies; what are the objective conditions of production of material life that form the basis of all historical activity of man; what is the law of development of these conditions-to all this Marx drew attention and pointed out the way to a scientific study of history as a uniform and law-governed process in all its immense variety and contradictoriness.24

It is on this pretension of the knowability of history that the claim of the Communist Party to leadership is based, as we shall see. In Leninism, the "laws of history" and their knowledge become more and more the key to revolutionary and organizational policy. While Marx would say that the full development of capitalist society was the prerequisite for revolution, Lenin would claim that the existence of a group of people having the "consciousness" of the laws of history is the decisive factor.

5. "Scientific" Socialism

The principle that history follows certain laws which, thanks to Marxism can now be known, is what Communists claim to be their mark of distinction from the so-called "utopian" socialists. Utopian socialists, in Communist definition, are those who dream of an ideal society, a regime of justice and equality, and in whose eyes "Future history resolves itself . . . into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans. In other words, they are people who envisage a socialist society and believe that they can bring it into being by a direct action of their will.

"25

"Utopian" socialism rejected

Communists consider this a childish attitude, because it leaves out of consideration the "laws of history". Utopian socialists, they say, care for "the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them".26 The correct attitude, according to Communists, would be to regard the proletariat not merely as the most suffering, but as the "most advanced,” the “only really revolutionary" class, in other words, the class which is destined to bring about the fulfillment of history's scheme. What distinguishes communism from utopian socialism is that the latter is motivated by feelings of compassion and the will to realize justice, whereas the former is motivated by historical analysis and the will to help

"Lenin, "Karl Marx" (July-November, 1914) Selected Works (London: Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd., 1939), vol. XI, p. 20.

Marx and Engels, "The Manifesto of the Communist Party" (December 1847January 1848), Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. I, p. 62.

the movement of history. Since knowledge of history's laws is considered possible on the basis of the "science" of Marxism-Leninism, the historymotivated Communist calls himself a "scientific" socialist.

... To all these Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. . . . And as each one's special kind of absolute truth, reason, and justice is again conditioned by his subjective understanding, his conditions of existence, the measure of his knowledge and his intellectual training, there is no other ending possible in this conflict of absolute truths than that they shall be mutually exclusive one of the other. Hence, from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the Socialist workers in France and England. Hence, a mish-mash allowing of the most manifold shades of opinion; a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition; a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed the more the definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook.

To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.27 What is the "real basis" of the "science of socialism"? The analysis of history with the help of Hegelian dialectic applied to the developing material conditions of society.

Hegel had freed history from metaphysics-he had made it dialectic; but his conception of history was essentially idealistic. But now idealism was driven from its last refuge, the philosophy of history; now a materialistic treatment of history was propounded, and a method found of explaining man's "knowing" by his "being," instead of, as heretofore, his "being" by his "knowing."

From that time forward Socialism was no longer an accidental discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle between two historically developed classes—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Its task was no longer to manufacture a system of society as perfect as possible, but to examine the historico-economic succession of events from which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung.

28

These two great discoveries, the materialistic conception of history and the revelation of the secret of capitalistic production through surplus-value, we owe to Marx. With these discoveries Socialism became a science.29

Attention focused on the laws of change rather than the goal The term "scientific," as applied to Communist ideology, is in itself a jargon term connoting Communist insistence on the difference between their revolutionary cause, which is based on the alleged "laws of history,"

"Engels, 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" (1877), Marx and Engels Selected Works (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955), vol. II, p. 128. 2 Ibid., p. 135.

"Ibid., p. 136.

and other revolutionary causes based on ideas of justice, social order, etc. In terms of what is generally known as science, Communist ideology can of course not be called scientific. It is not scientific insofar as it indiscriminately mixes social analysis with prophesy, ignores facts that could refute its tenets, and prohibits critical examination of its basic propositions.

A "scientific" socialist refuses to fix his mind on the conditions of an ideal society. Instead, he keeps his eyes on the class struggle and its historical development. He firmly believes that the class struggle, if energetically pursued, will lead to the victory of a social force whose ascendancy will emancipate all mankind. Ultimate freedom is not a direct product of the human will but of historical development: the development of the political class struggle and of the forces of production. It is a mistake to say that communism is a blueprint for future society. It is rather the pretense of a foreknowledge of history, a trust in a beneficent outcome of a ruthless struggle for revolutionary power.

Chapter II. The Communist View of the Present Society

1. The Communist World View

The Communist world view stakes everything on its pretended knowledge of the ultimate destination of history. This orientation toward the future raises for Communists the problem of what to think of the "present-day society," and how to act in it. Marx's chief work, Capital, was an analysis of "present-day society," which he called "bourgeois society." The significance of Marx's analysis may be summarized as follows: (a) Marx left for his followers his explanation that the present society is ruled by the capitalist class that "owns the factories;” (b) Marx morally judged the present social system and concluded that it deserved to be destroyed in its totality; (c) Marx taught that the capitalist society had laws of development which would inevitably lead to its collapse and set up the proletarian revolution. In other words, Marx, in his study of the present society, supplied communism with a target (the ruling class and the foundations of its power), a moral ground for irreconcilable hatred of today's society, and "scientific” prediction of that society's coming collapse.

The substance of Marx's teachings on these matters has been replaced by new doctrines propounded by Lenin. But Lenin, while often changing Marx's analysis into its very opposite, did not depart from Marx's general scheme. Like Marx, he pointed out to Communists the target at which they should shoot, a reason for total condemnation of the present society, and the forces moving irresistably toward victory of "the Revolution." Both Marx's and Lenin's ideas about present society will be presented below.

Two incompatible approaches

A note about the development of Marxist ideas may be in order here. The Communists think about "present-day society" both in terms of moral judgment and necessary historical development. These two ideas mutually exclude each other. Moral judgment makes sense only if there is free choice, and free choice is barred by inescapable historical necessity. An inexorable succession of historical phases, on the other hand, would imply that everything that exists is necessary as a preparation of the next phase, and so would render moral judgment superfluous.

The inner conflict between these two Marxist ideas became the root of a split of Marx's followers into two main movements: the social