The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1933-01-26
A Falsifier of Marxism Who
Has Blessings of Our Enemies
Caveron Ably Exposed Article in JAM New Masses


Hook: "Dialectic materialiSm must
take its cues from the scientific
pragmatiSm of Dewey" Hook COM
plains bitterly that Comrade Jer-
ONE in his article in the January
Communist has misinterpreted,
misquoted and misunderstood his
writings. In a recent statement
where Hook takes issue with Com
rade Jerome, by no means inciden-
tally, in a scholarly manner, he not
only reiterateS his revisionism, but
enlargeS on it. Just to take one
fundamental statement. Hook tells
us in that statement that, Il have
just sketched theory of percep-
ton which was indicated by Marx
in his critical gloss on Feurbach
(first glossary on Feurbach). John
Dewey on independent psyche
logical grounds developed this
theory into a complete doctrine"
(my emphasiS-S.D) Once again
We are told by Hook that Dewey,
Independently of Marx, arrived at
Marxism and, even in a more COM
plete form. So we have it from
Hook himself that Dewey was a
more mature and complete Marx
list than Marx himself! On read
ing the article on CalVerton in the
New Masses the defenders of
Hooks "MarXiSm" must not be
shocked" to see such points of
contact between the two. Calyer-
ton takes issue with the theory of
knowledge as developed by Lenin
in his Empirio-Criticism. So does
Hook. The article in the New Mas
ses quotes from Hooks review Of
Empirio- Criticism and shows how
Calverton plagiarized Hook. OF
course, it Is not merely case of
plagiarism; 1t is rather a case where
Calverton is being inspired by
Hook.
IL IS not accidental that those who
! revise Marx deny the objectivity
and the scientific nature of Marx
lSm-Leninism. To deny the scien-
tific nature Of Marxism -Leninism
is to open wide the doors for bour-
geois interpretations OF Marxism-
Leninism. Here, too, we have
complete point of contact between
Calverton's statement that objec-
tivity is impossible in the social
sciences and Hooks that "the new
philosophy will triumph, not be-
cause it presents objective truth,
but because it fills the needs of
human beings and the social con-
dltions which generate these
needs"
Comrades Ramsey and Calmer, in
refuting this reviSionism, correctly
point out the objective scientific
nature of Marxism- Leninism. They
correctly state: 1T is to the inter
est OF the proletariat, the only
revolutionary class of capitalist So
ciety to have objective knowledge"
And in the following statement we
have a refutation Of pragmatism
and its denial OF the objective ma
ture Of MarxiGm-Leninisn "In
Mar3iSln the Proletariat
has forged i'll action q science of
revolution and society which en-
abled it to predict the last i'm
perialist war; to carry through
successful revolution in the Soviet
Union, to engage in building OF
socialist society there, and to pre-
pare for the new epoch of imperial
list wars and proletarian revolu-
tons. If Marxism- Leninism were
but frame of mind, or a subjec-
i've Interpretation Of events, in
what way would it differ from re-
hgion, which also claims to give a
picture Of reality?"
In treating various philosophers
and revisionists of Marxism, we
must show their common class
source. The root of all revision
ism is the same, however different
its branches and leaves may ap-
pear. We must state, however
that a weakness of the otherwise
good article on Calyerton is the
fact that it does not relate CAL
vertcn sufficiently TO his brothers
in-arms.
Space does not permit us to com
ment here on the exposure con-
tanned in the article of Calvertons
fascist theology, his denial of the
leading role of the proletsriat in
the revolution and his assigning
q,