The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-05-23
Liberal Viewpoint
by DIR. HARRY ELMER BARNES.

IF civilization is to survive, it is obvious to all
i thoughtful and informed observers that we
must build new social and economic order
quite beyond the ken of the Chamber OF Com
MERGE of the United States and other custod1ans
of things as they are.
major issue is whether the order of
things will be nationally planned and based on
twentieth century knowledge or vigorously bound
down by the doctrines of Karl Marx.
The former would seem the more attractive
alternative. But the Marxians point to the sad
fate of gradualiSm in western Europe since 1913
and contend that the success of Soviet Russia
demonstrates the practical superiority OF Marx
ism The debate is certainly something OF more
than mere academic interest today.
The Modern Monthly publishes SYM
postum in which leading contemporary thinkers
explain why they follow or reject MARKHAM lead
ership Among these We may select the views OF
H c. Wells and Prof. Harold j. Laski. These
men are outstanding thinkers and their opinions
are entitled 20 respectful consideration.
Mr. Wells is a socially minded planner OF
UtopiaS who sails into Marx with vigor and con-
tends that we should be further along toward
decent social order if Marx had never lived
Marx was an uninventive man With, THINK
a subconsciouS knowledge of his own uninven-
tiveness He collected facts, Scrutinized them
analvzed them and drew large generalization
from them But he lacked the imaginative
power necessary to synthesize a project. His
exceptionally intense egotism insisted, there
fore on a pose of scientific necesSitarianism and
depreciation of any social inventivenesS.
TIE fostered among his associates real jeal-
l. ousy of the creative imagination, lmagl-
native dizziness masqueraded among them as
sound common sense, and making plans, 'Utop-
ianism that is, became at last one of the black
est bugbears in the long list dictated by Marx
list intolerance Any attempt to work out the de-
tails of the world contemplated under Socialism
was received by the old Marxists with contempt
uous hostility At the very best it was wasting
time, they declared on the way to that destruc-
tive revolution which would release the mechan-
ical benevoence latent in things. Then we
should see. They were all (before the Russian
revolution knocked practical sense into thenD
embittered anti-plannerS
THE faithful may try to deny this nowadays.
but their vast dull abusive literature stored away
in the British museum and elsewhere, bears 1t
heavy witness Salvation could come only by
the Glass War and the Glass War, itself newt
able was all that sufficed for salvation. And
their vehemence, their immense pretensionS to
scientific method, overawed many Socialist who
stood far outside their organization. They ster-
ilized Socialism for half century. Indeed from
the first to last the influence of Marx has been
an unqualified drag upon the progressive re-
organization of human society We should be far
nearer a Sanely organized world system today if
Karl Marx had never been born"
Prof. Laski is equally positive on the other
side He feels that Marx. and Marx alone, sup
plies a proper philosophy and guidance for the
attainment of social and economic Utopia.
"TT is a satisfactory philosophy Of history
l. That historical events mainly shaped
by the dissertations inherent in any system
of production is I think, undeniable. Marx
ism is the most adequate theory of the state
i. 1t is the only social philosophy that full
fills the need of science to predict accurately
+. With its help can understand the world
about me without it, should feel helpless
prisoner in an incomprehensible society"
Mr.. Wells, believe is little too harsh on
Marx. The latter is not so much to be crit
cised as the Narxians who renounce the spirit
of their master while Loyalty parroting his Speci-
fic dogmas Marx is entitled to high respect as
philosopher. historian economist and political
leader. But TO contend that nothing has been
added since his day is the sheerest nonsense.
On the other hand. suspect that Prof Lasld
owes less 10 Marx than he would imply. I
knew him in his pre-Marxian days and 7 am
able to detect little difference in his views then
and now. He apparently arrived at most Of
them quite Independent of Marx.
Due to his educational opportunities and his
living in the twentieth century. he has prob
ably forgotten more about history, economics
and politics that Marx ever knew.