Page Twelve PERSPECTI VES I - r l Y a ii i I V V BOOKS IN SEASON 'emark4 dr e tarx (Continued from Page Eleven) Marx rejected Hegel's divine spiri- tualization of the world and the his- toric process; he declared the funda- mental reality to be solid, stubborn, unconscious, and unconsoling matter. And then he proceeded to read into that matter the very essence of the Divine Spirit as ithad been conceived in Hegel' consoling system, its self- active motion by an inherent logical necessity, the necessity with which in a debating mind the conclusion follows from the premise, toward an ideal end. The end was different, and so were the actions and emotions of one who participated in the process, but the conception of the universe was essentially the same. Nevertheless Eastman does not alto- gether reject Marxism for he points out that in both Marx and Lenin there was enough of the scientific temper, or at least enough hard-headedness, to enable them to see the world as it is and to think and act realistically. Given the problem, namely, how to achieve the emancipation of the proletariat, Marx saw that it would be necessary first to describe accurately existing society, i.e., to discover the laws of motion of capi- talist economy, and then to determine the direction of that motion. Marx dem- onstrated that while production is co- operative, ownership is concentrated in the hands of a small class which must be expropriated to enable the masses to en- oy the fruits of their labor. To effect a change, it was necessary that control be shifted into" .. . the hands of the producers collectively organized." This was Marx's contribution to the theory of revolution; it remained for Lenin to put the theory into practice, to work out the technique of revolution. With Eastman's account of the per- nicious influence of the dialectical meth- od on Marxism, there can be, I think, no quarrel. The inability of Marxists to distinguish between dialectics as a meth- od of investigation on the one hand and as the conclusions reached as the result of the application of the same method on the other hand eventuated in the failure of Marxism to make any signifi- cant contributions to the physical sciences to date. Moreover, modern Marxists have failed to rid themselves of the misconceptions which Engels took over from nineteenth century science and incorporated in the dialectics; En- gels' Dialectic and Nature is still con- sidered as the foundation upon which the Marxist approach to the sciences rests, yet so far as the most recent studies in physics, mathematics, genetics, and logic are concerned, the work is hopelessly out of date, and any attempts to bring the new physics and mathemat- ics in line with Marxism as it is now un- derstood is to force them into the Pro- crustean bed of an a priori system. As Eastman shows, dialectics and scientific method are opposed to each other, both in aim and technique. A better case can be made out for the Marxian theory of history. Marx's eluci- dation of the relationship between the economic base and the cultural super- structure of a society must be considered as one of the seminal insights in the history of history writing, but it remains at best a guide for investigation. Once one selects a particular aspect of the relationship for intensive analysis, it soon becomes apparent that the tie-up is not as simple as the Marxian approach would have one believe, and as soon as exceptions are made and complexities added, as Engels himself was compelled to do, the Marxian theory of history loses much of its force. It is one thing to assert that Shakespeare expresses the ideology of the rising bourgeoisie; it is quite another matter to prove it, if it can be done at all. One of the greatest omissions of Marxian scholarship has been the failure to apply the Marxian method of histori- cal analysis to Marxism itself. Marx was the first to express clearly and apply systematically the theory of ideology, that is, the view which maintains that at any given period men will hold to a com- plex of related ideas which is ultimately a reflection of their class needs and his- torical position. One possible reason for this failure is not far to seek since, if Marxism is to be considered as a uni- versal aim and method, it cannot be tied down to a particular group with its necessarily historical limitations. Yet, it seems to me, it is precisely along these lines that the prestige of Marxism can be re-established. Indeed, one wonders if the greatest failure of Marxism has not been its re- fusal to emphasize its strong moral con- tent. Perhaps no contemporary move- ment has greater potentialities for the creation of the new ethic which is being demanded on all sides at present than Marxism, and it is unfortunate but not necessarily fatal that the moral bias which was implicit in Lenin should have been disregarded by Stalin. The essence of Marxism is its definition of justice. not in abstractions, but in concrete, spe- cific terms as the emancipation of indi- viduals, and the Marxian emphasis is always on the individual, from a form of society which does not permit the full- est exercise of abilities. Because the Sov- iet Union has gone the way most of us had hoped is no refutation of Marxism; it is rather a challenge to us to solve the problem of the use and abuse of pow- er. Eastman's insistence on the applica- tion of scientific method to Marxism is salutary but it is still, in the hortatory stage. What is needed is a union of the moral values of Marxism with the un- dogmatic temper of scientific method. The current. interest in the meaning of democracy and the latest attempts to democratize democracy require both the values and realistic approach of Marx- ism. All the singing of patriotic songs, all the waving of flags, all the shouting of super-nationalistic slogans will not advance the cause ofdemocracy one bit if we do not clearly define for ourselves the problems we are trying to solve and the solutions we intend to offer, and in these efforts Marxism is of the great- est help. It points out that a society which permits a few individuals to exer- cise arbitrary power over many indi- viduals cannot lay claim to the name of democracy no matter with what trim- mings it is decorated. It points out too that a society which wishes to call itself democratic must take care of the needs of all its members, and not by means of war booms either. Finally, it sug- gests that until power is actually vested in the hands of the people only a sham democracy, and hence an immoral de- mocracy or no democracy will exist, and it indicates the way that power is to be controlled. At a time when fascism seems to have the upper hand over democracy, Marxism offers no small aids to the rehabilitation of the theory of democracy, and, much more important, to. the practice of democracy. - Martin Anderson /9e1'6pectiwe-d Editor................................................... Ellen Rhea Fiction Editor ... . ........................ . ........Jay W . McCorm ick Joanne Cohen, Gilberta Rothstein, Emile Gele, Barbara Richards. Essay Editor .......................................Richard M. Ludwig John Baker, Betty Whitehead, Frances Patterson, Laurence Spingarn, M. M. Lipper, Bruce W. Forbes Poetry Editor .......................................... John Brinnin Carol Bundy, Betty Baer, Bertha Klein, Joan Clement Book Review Editor ,.............................. .....James Green Mort Jampel, Gerald Burns, Edward Burrows, Ray Ingham Art Editor............................ ........ ...Tristan Meinecke Publications Editor ....................- -.........Shirley W. Wallace Joan Siegel, Joan Doris, Jean Mullins, Will Raymond, Erath Gutekunst, Rose Ann Kornblume, Barbara DeFries Advisory Board: Arno L. Bader, Herbert Weisinger, J. L. Davis, Morris Greenhut, Allan Seager, Emil Weddige Amerika By Franz Kafka New Directions Books, $2.50 This book is not properly a novel, nor does it have anything to do with Ameri- ca. According to Klaus Mann whb writes the preface, the story is to be costeived of as a gigantic miracle pla in wich God and the Devil fight for tli posses- sion of the soul of man. The actual lo- cation of the struggle is of little im- portance, for puny man, bowed be- neath the original sin and faced by Di- vine Justice, has small chance of hap- piness whether he be in the New World or the Old. Just how such a broad, spiritual idea is worked into the pat- tern of Amerika is hard to say. Franz Kafka, an office-clerk in Prague, died in 1924 at an early age. He knew noth- ing of the United States except the writings of Whitman, Franklin and others. His hero Karl Rosman,. a young German, arrives in a mythical New York to start life anew. His uncle, a senator, takes him under his wing, introduces him to the city and teaches him English. Karl visits a country home, is deserted by his uncle, wanders for a time on the open road and is finally befriended by two tramps, a Frenchman and a German. These two itinerants alternately wallow in poverty or roll in wealth. They succeed eventually in making a slave of Karl. At this point the story breaks off and a fragmentary last chapter is appended in which Karl, escaped from his oppressors, seeks hap- piness in the "Nature Theatre of Okla- homa." The America of Franz Kafka is fan- tastic. Occasionally the broad carica- ture of a fat business man or a jiu-jit- su-practicing college girl strikes home, but the caricatures are obviously not based on observation. They are twice removed from reality. New York tene- ments are dotted with wide, European balconies. The country house is a Gothic palace. The two companions are not American workingmen; they are rogues out of Fielding. This dream country is pleasing at first, often anusing, but its fantasy soon grows wearisome, even irritating. One can picture introverted genius, cut off by circumstances from partici- pating in a full life, nourished only by literature and the conversation of a select coterie, polishing and repolish- ing his one gift, exquisite style. The world of the imagination is a profound and important one, but placed in the service of such a craftsman and unre- lieved by the realities of physical life, it becomes a bloodless shadow, it de- stroys its own worth. Franz Kafka never realized that his own life in Prague, in a country already torn be- tween fascism and revolution, his life as a struggling writer, his life as a Jew, was worth a thousand mythical Amer- icas and might have served as material for one novel alone worth endless frag- ments of soul-searching and mental play. Auden and the poets and recorders of the Age in Munich have given high praise to Kafka and his contemporary experimentors. His influence upon the style of modern English writers has been tremendous, they claim. Upon the tide of such praise Kafka has risen to popularity. But with the decline of Auden and Co. it is more than possible that this popularity will vanish. The hard facts of the Grapes of Wrath may be challenging or distatsteful, but they are the reality. Franz Kafka's picture is illusion, an adolescent's dream. Edwin G. Burrows did btujf (Continued from Page Eleven) However, In the Money\is the sequel to White Mule, in which Williams was predominantly concerned with the lives of the children of Joe and Gurlie. There- fore it is indeed regrettable that In the Money should be lacking in that direc- tion and unity that the child-theme af- forded the first book. Obviously, Wil- liams has neither the understanding nor the outlook necessary for dealing con- vincingly with the cutthroat racket side of big business. His tycoons are stock stuff. Their slang, their problems, and their methods of procedure read like something Williams himself might very well have read about, but never have known. It is further regrettable that, without the childen and the family scenes, the whole book is quite lacking in both reading interest and literary value. In the telling of how Joe Stecher gets into the money, Williams fails in everything but his knack for dialogue, which does manage to rear a promising head every so often, only to find it- self in most unpromising territory. Thus, remembering that Williams had the children all to himself in White Mule, when we discard as mediocre the story of Joe Stecher in the sequel, we leave William Carlos Williams, MD, very little excuse for having written that sequel. As a concluding note of criticism is the fact that what little action there is in the piece is left dangling at the end. One has the sneaking suspicion that someday there may be a Stecher trilogy, perhaps just as soon as the good doctor can find a few minutes away from the clinic. Now we know that every book, whether a novel or a sustained diary, has a beginning. And we know that every book, and especially one which lays claim to being a novel, should have a definite, logical point of termination. In the Money does not. It may be quite interesting to note what the kids art up to in the next one. - Ray Ingham