p There was probably not one major university in Western Europe and America and not one large-scale demonstration of the radical Left at which appeals to focus attention on Marx were not heard. When students at Harvard, that respectable "school of prophets" hung out a poster during their April revolt in 1969 which read: "The plilosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it", they were merely echoing what had happened in other universities in Europe and America, when students and sympathetic sections of the intelligentsia had come out against the establishment.

p The interest shown by the rank and file of the New Left in Marxism was directly linked not, of course, with their awareness of the revolutionary role of the working class as a material force whose practical experience is reflected in Marxist theory, nor with their awareness of the revolutionary role of Marxism as the working class’s spiritual weapon, but with something quite different.

p In so far as the New Left saw bourgeois social and political theory openly opposed to Marxism as an apologia for the institutions and values they rejected, Marxism presented itself as a counter-theory. It was precisely for that reason that the New Left concentrated its attention on that aspect of Marxism which provides a contrast with the vindication of the establishment inherent in bourgeois ideology, namely the negation and destruction element.

p A witness of the unrest at Harvard University recalls the following conversation with one of the students:

p “What is it that attracts you in Marx? ..." I asked a youth in a conversation....

p “Honesty, consistency, hate," the lad answered without giving the matter particular thought.

p “Hate?" I queried.

p “Yes, hate for the system. It was not for nothing that he demanded it be destroyed to its foundations. The ’Power Structure’ that’s the real enemy. Nowadays the need for reform is acknowledged—reform of race relations, production relations, reform of education, to be brief—reform of the system. All this is sick fraud. The system has got to be destroyed, not reformed.”

p “Bui; what are you going to build up in its place? Indeed have you learnt to build at all yet?”

p “We haven’t got that far yet," the student answered, pointing to the volume of Capital he was holding and planting his finger at the half-way mark.”

p This dialogue is interesting above all because it singles out the special features characteristic of the New Left’s overall attitude to Marxism. For the rank and file of that movement Marxism is the theory of the overthrow of the Power Structure, providing the moral justification for revolt. The positive and constructive side of Marxism is overlooked by the radical in revolt, because it comes outside the scope of his immediate practical experience, and because the “positive” side of Marxism is identified, by the radical rebel working in terms of contrasts, with the “positive” approach found in bourgeois apologetic theories.

p This interest is no more than a passing preoccupation with Marxism heralding a sharp change in the consciousness of the present younger generation (in particular the students) and the intelligentsia and emphasising the crisis in traditional consciousness. Yet this preoccupation goes hand in hand with an ambivalent, contradictory approach to Marxist theory: the rank-and-file radical is not in a position to approach Marxism as an all-embracing, historically evolving teaching; he selects from it that which answers his own radical-critical mood, while criticising or rejecting everything which cannot be fit in with his a priori scheme of things.

p This ambivalent approach to Marxism is also to be found in the writings of the New Left ideologists. On the one hand many declare themselves to be sympathisers or even “ neoMarxists”, using in their analysis of modern society both Marx’s conceptual apparatus and many basic Marxist tenets, and declaring Marxism to be the only viable philosophy of the twentieth century. On the other hand, they reject a number of its basic principles, draw conclusions which are in blatant contradiction with the principles from which they start out, and demand a reappraisal of Marxism.

p In his Critique of Dialectical Reason Jean-Paul Sartre writes that Marxism was and "remains the philosophy of our times: it cannot be surpassed because the circumstances which gave birth to it have not yet been surpassed. Our thoughts whatever kind they may be, can only develop on that soil—-"  [44•*  Sartre goes on to point out that "any wouldbe surpassing of Marxism can at worst be no more than a return to pre-Marxist thought, and at best a rediscovery of thought already contained in the philosophy believed to have been surpassed... .”  [44•**  Yet at the same time Sartre declares Marxism to be an “inadequate” philosophy which requires supplementing with a measure of existentialism.

p Herbert Marcuse referred on various occasions to his Marxist orientation, but he, like Sartre, is one of the most active critics of Marxism among the radicals, presuming that Marxist theory requires a “reappraisal”.  [44•*** 

p G. Wright Mills, Regis Debray and various other ideologists of the radical Left refer to Marx and Lenin as they elaborate certain of their theoretical principles.

p The contradictory nature of the radicals’ approach to Marxism reflects the contradictory nature of their own position within modern capitalist society and that of the social strata they represent, and their contradictory attitude to the working class. It is the theoretical reflection of the existential gulf between their actual existence within the system of capitalist social production and their apprehension of that existence. Finally it reflects the contradiction implicit in the 45 involvement of non-proletarian strata subject to capitalist exploitation in the international revolutionary-liberation movement headed by the working class.

p One of the characteristic manifestations of the intellectual crisis modern bourgeois philosophy and sociology are now going through is the shattering impact Marxism is producing on the latter to an ever greater degree. "When the class in the ascendant achieves self-awareness, this influences the intellectuals from a distance and disrupts the ideas in their minds," acknowledged Sartre.  [45•*  This impact of Marxism on the bourgeois intelligentsia, or at least on those who are trying to grasp the logic of human history and understand the meaning of events taking place in the world, stems, above all, from the implementation of Marxist principles, with the consolidation in modern society (in the capitalist world as well) of the position of those social forces for which Marxism provides the vital intellectual weapon.

p When recalling the revolt staged by a sector of the student body back in the twenties Sartre sees one of its causes in the impact of Marxism directly linked with the struggle of the proletariat in the capitalist countries. Sartre considers that Marxism as practical experience embodied in the activity of the working class exerted a tremendous, although indirect, influence on the evolution of the students’ world outlook at that time. He writes that Marxist philosophy "when it appeared as a real determination of the proletariat, as the profound significance—for the proletariat and in itself—of its actions, without us realising it, held an irresistible attraction for us reshaping the whole of our culture already assimilated. I repeat: it was not the idea which overwhelmed us: nor was it the conditions of the workers, of which we had only an abstract awareness but no experience. But no—it was the one linked to the other, it was—to use that idealist jargon of ours designed io reject idealism in those days,—the proletariat as the incarnation and vehicle of an idea.”  [45•** 

p This type of impact produced by Marxism, embodied in the revolutionary practice of the proletariat, on the students 46 and intellectuals of the capitalist countries is characteristic of present-day Western Europe as well, with however one substantial difference, namely, that the activities of the international proletariat are being conducted on a much wider scale than before. This means that among the eminent figures in the world of bourgeois culture the once absent tendency to acknowledge Marxism as a legitimate component of universal—or at least Western culture,—is coming increasingly to the fore.

p This recognition undeniably reflects the objective influence of Marxism on modern bourgeois philosophy and sociology, an influence which assumes different forms, the main one being the modification of the conceptual content of bourgeois philosophy and sociology stemming from the change in the social function of those forces which base their ideas on Marxism.

p In the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth century Marxism was above all an ideological force with which bourgeois philosophers and sociologists could reckon or not as they thought fit. However the situation changed radically when Marxism became a tangible force as a result of far-reaching social change (the completion of socialist construction in the USSR, the formation of the world socialist system, the declaration on the part of many newly liberated Third World countries that they intend to orientate their policies on "scientific socialism").

p In these conditions the problem of “criticism” or “ overcoming” Marxism has become a political problem for the bourgeoisie, which it can only attempt to solve through direct confrontation with Marxism, through debate on its own ground, i.e. by analysing the very problems which Marxism solves, by examining those very social forces, whose structures and functions are analysed in Marxist theory. Yet this could only be achieved by putting forward alternatives to the solutions Marxism proffers, or even showing initiative by posing new theoretical problems on which, logically speaking, Marxist analysis should concentrate.

p This interest in Marxism as a form of unavoidable selfcriticism on the part of bourgeois social scientists cannot help but influence the theoretical orientation of the mass consumers of their output, above all the sections of the 47 intelligentsia and student body, with anti-bourgeois leanings.

p Yet it should be borne in mind that this attempt on the part of bourgeois philosophers to bring Marxism “back” into the haven of "Western culture" and create the impression that Marx’s theories are a continuation of the ideas of Locke, Rousseau or Kant is far from convincing. While calling attention to the actual logic of the emergence of Marxism (in so far as the latter did not arise "away from the high road of the development of world civilisation" and "furnished answers to questions already raised by the foremost minds of mankind"  [47•* ), this trend at the same time obscures the extremely important fact that the revolution which Marxism produced in social sciences signified that it was not merely a continuation of earlier philosophical traditions but also represented a fundamental break with the latter, a break that makes it quite justifiable to consider Marx and his followers quite different from Locke, Rousseau and Kant.

p Failure to appreciate this difference often gives rise to the idea among critically minded members of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intelligentsia and the student body, who have no first-hand knowledge of Marxism, that it possesses a certain mechanical discreteness making possible its creative development thanks to an artificial combination of its elements of Marxism with those of various theories and conceptions that have grown up outside its scope.

p These tendencies exert substantial influence on the positions adopted by the ideologists of the radical Left in relation to Marxism and on the nature of the “reappraisal” of Marxism which they attempt to carry out. What is more, among the spiritual mentors of the New Left there are philosophers and sociologists who have in recent years played a far from insignificant role in the formation of West European philosophical fashions.

p Attempts at such a “reappraisal” usually come under one of the following three headings:

p —“Complementing” Marxism with philosophical and sociological theories evolved by bourgeois social scientists in 48 the twentieth century (in particular elements of Freudianism and existentialism).

p —Breaking down Marx’s integral teaching and then contrasting certain of its aspects with others: “economism” with “humanism”, “early” Marx with “late” Marx, etc.

p —Drawing false distinctions between Marx and Lenin, Engels and Marx, etc.

It is important to remember that the founders of Marxism never regarded their theory as something eternal that reflected the point of view of all social groups and parties, as a self-contained doctrine. However they upheld and defended it as an integral theory. The integrity of Marxism stems from its socio-practical monism excluding the possibility of its development based on the combination of ideological elements taken from generalisations of the experience of various classes—it stems from the unity of Marxist theory and practice making it impossible to amplify Marxism with the addition of any “pure” speculation; from the orientation of Marxism, as a spiritual force materialised in activity, to a definite source of social reference, the proletariat; from the functional interlinking and interdependence of all elements of Marxist doctrine. The development of Marxism is not only possible but necessary, though not on the basis of any “synthesis” with elements of bourgeois theories, but on the basis of analysis and generalisation of contemporary social and scientific reality (including the fruits of intellectual activity engaged in by various classes), through the prism of the overall social experience of the proletariat.  [48•*