The heart of the matter, or what must not be simplified

Abstract

I am puzzled by the fact that, with very few exceptions, critics of Marxism are inferior to Marx's intellectual scale. A tendency to reduce him either to their own level of comprehension, or to a set of popular ideological clich?s deeply rooted both in the mass and the academic consciousness, is clearly manifest. The remark is slighting but just. Its truth will be admitted by anyone whose inside knowledge of Marx's philosophic system as seen in historical context enables him to see Marx's criticisms of the accusations and biting judgments voiced in our discussion. Marx was well aware of the fact that all ideas are historically transient. He repeatedly stressed the point and never aspired to infallibility. But it hurt him to face careless criticism, and he often addressed his opponents with, "Oh, would that these people were capable of reading]" To read is to compare and to take account both of the concrete historical situations and the logical train of thoughts. Reading has nothing to do with picking quotations out of context, not supported by practice which is far more diverse and multiform than any notion or conclusion. What puzzles me about Marx's new critics is the self-assurance and impudence of their iconoclasm. Do they really believe there is one to take up their intellectual gauntlet? Challenging such thinkers as Marx and Engels, one should remember that, dead as they are, these philosophers can defend themselves with might and main ? provided that the play is fair. I would like to quote from Engels to prove that neither he nor Marx practiced self-deception as to the possible fate of their doctrines and the revolution, should one be carried out. "A lot of follies are unavoidably committed in every revolution, as they are indeed at all other times, and when at last people calm down sufficiently to be able to review events critically, they