The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1933-01-07
capitalism" ellis enphasis.)

capitalism. (Hls emphasls)
WHY this declaration that Marx
w ism is not a theory of social
ism? These "Marxists" who have
suddenly awakened from their Rip
Van Wrinkle slunber, are brave
indeed now in this period of crisis,
to declare that capitalism is break
ing down. But as for socialism
that they do not see. The workers,
however, want to know how to abol-
isll capitalism and how to build
a classics socialist society. AS to
the proletarian revolution, as to
the dictatorship of the proletariat,
that is not found in their MARKHAM
theory! The question of the pro-
Ietarian revolution and the build
ing of classics socialist society
has no place for the new theoret-
icians of Msrxism. A Marxism
without proletarian revolution,
without the dictatorship of the pro-
Ietariat. without the teachiugs of
Marx, Eneels and Lenin on the role
Of the state-a most convenient and
useful "MarXisrn" for the ruling
classi 1t is the very essence of the
cleft" theories CT social-fascisml
Although Mr. Boudin writes his
article ostensibly to attack Nor
man Thomas from the cleft, his
Marxism is in perfect accord with
that Of Thomas, who, in his book,
Americas Way OUT, says:
Nov insofar as the inverted
Hegelianism of Marx found ex-
preston in the materialist con-
ception Of history or economic
determinisn, it gave men a use
full principle for understanding
past history and less sure
means of predicting the future.
1t enables man to explain far
better what has been than to
foretell what will be in the fu-
ture." (Our emphasis)
Here Boudin and Thomas are
in perfect agreement. Yes, they
say, Marxism has helped us I'M
derstand how capitalism developed,
but it is ''less sure means" of tel
ling the workers how to abolish
capitalism, how to build a class
less social society. According to
these MARKHAM" theoreticians who
speak Of Marxism as only theory
of capitalism, the statement Of
Marx through the dictatorship of
the proletariat to clsss'ess social
list society,"; and that of Engels, "the
proletarian revolution-solution of
the contradictions" is not an in
tegral part of Marxism. Certainly
the "Marxisn" of Boudin and
Thomas are very useful and con-
venient for the capitalist system
in its dying daysl Such a<"Marx-
ism" is the surest guarantee for a
non-revolutionary working classl
CHIPS OF THE SAME BLOCK.
The January issue of The Com
munist has a very instructive, mil
liant po1emic against American
revisionism of Marxism, taking up
specifically the writings of Sidney
Hook We urge all workers to read
it. We will deal here only with
few of Hooks statements. There
is an attempt, for instance, to fall
sify Marxism by such thesis as:
1.-THE revolutionary philosophy
of the Communist Manifesto in
which the labor theory Of value
is not even mentioned" (Our
emphaSis)
To say this is to deny the revolu-
tionary historical significance of
the Communist Manifesto. Our
learned scholar, of course. COM
pletely missed this important state
ment in the Communist Manifesto
wherein the labor theory of value,
basic to the law of surplus value,
is clearly presented:
Hence the cost of production
of workman is restricted almost
entirely to the means of sub
sistence that he requires for his
maintenance and for the propa-
CATION of his race"
1t is important to expose this at
tempt of Hook to rob Marxism of
the very essence of the revolution
airy struggle Of the working class
against capitalist exploitation. OF
course to Hook who separates
Engels from Marx. and Lenin from
Marx and Engels, the statement
OF Lenin that "the doctrines of