"Broadly speaking, all the elements in Marx’s philosophy which are derived from Hegel are unscientific, in the sense that there is no reason whatever to suppose them true."  (Bertrand Russel, `History of Western Philosophy', George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1961 edition, page 754).

Basic Marxist writings by Marx, Engels and Lenin, which expound what contemporary specialists refer to as `orthodox Marxist theory', in fact comprise   not one theory but several, which present, or  attempt to present, a comprehensive and integrated system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views.  This monolithic world outlook is what, in the final analysis, gives Marxist theory its totalitarian nature.  Such an interconnection is the direct outcome of Hegel's dialectics, which reached Karl Marx by way of the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, leader of the left-wing Young Hegelians who turned away from Hegel to form the school of dialectical materialism.

 This interconnection between all the aspects of Marxist ideology not only gave Marxist intellectuals their totalitarian view, it is also the reason behind the present crisis of Marxism.  A large part of the world began to apply a system entirely derived from this totalitarian and many-faceted ideology, which deals not only with the economic aspect of life but with all other aspects as well, soon after the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia some sixty years ago. Practical application proved that some of the fundamental and major aspects of orthodox Marxist theory did not follow the course they were theoretically supposed to.

The failure of socialist experiences to fulfill many expectations at all  levels, along with other reasons to be mentioned further, led to the emergence of what has come to be known as Eurocommunism.  This movement, which started within the communist parties of western Europe then moved on to other communist parties in various countries around the world, rejected a number of orthodox Marxist premises and moved away from what had hitherto been the main objective of all communist parties, viz, to follow the Soviet model of building socialism.

Some Marxists are desperately trying to interpret the trend as being a natural evolution of the theory, as adjustments of non-essential aspects of Marxist thought, imposed by reality and experience in different parts of the world.  Is it, however, really so?  In fact, the adjustments were not limited to secondary concepts but touched on the very essence of Marxist thought. The theories challenged by the eurocommunists are an integral part of the logical continuum of Marxist thought: a change in any of these theories necessarily calls into question the validity of those on which it is predicated as well as those for which it serves as a basis.

The collapse of those fundamental premises of Marxist ideology caused cracks in the very foundations of the theory and signalled the beginning of its end.  Like many other positivist theories in man's history, it would eventually end up on history's shelves and in the museum of ideas⁷⁶ , having affected men's lives here and there, without being, in any way, the definitive, comprehensive and exclusive theory for human life!

This chapter presents the Arab reader with a critique of orthodox Marxist ideas which have been proved false both empirically and through critical analysis.  The failure of these ideas in application led Communist movements in several countries to abandon them, rejecting tenets which for orthodox or traditional marxists are pillars on which the entire theory rests.  This position constitutes a break in the totality of the ideology, whose exponents have always considered a `package deal', as it were, to be adopted or rejected in toto. Events and experience have proved that history does not accept a positivist ideology in its entirety: for those segments of humanity who apply such an ideology, the experience does not last for more than a few years, almost a speck in the archives of man's history.

The present work offers an analytical presentation of the most important ideas and aspects of the Marxist theory that have been relegated, or which are in the process of being relegated, to the museum of human ideas.  One of the first signs of its fall, as previously mentioned, was the emergence of eurocommunism, which is diametrically opposed to the Marxist theory as expounded by the traditional Marxists, headed by Marx, Engels and Lenin.

Communist parties in industrially developed democratic countries have taken several steps towards moderation and, at long last, separation from the orthodox Marxist theory.  The French youth who launched the 1968 student revolution in France saw their leaders turn away from Marxism.  These leaders had been raised under the wing of dialectical materialist thought, particularly Marxism. After 1968, they gradually distanced themselves from Marxist thought, having acquired some experience and having come to intellectual maturity.  Less than one decade after the May 1968 movement, they came to form the anti-Marxist current dubbed by European intellectuals `the New Philosophers'.

Even though the New Philosophers do not, in fact, represent one single trend but several, yet they all agree that a totalitarian theory which presents a world view encompassing all phenomena and all aspects of life, of which Marxism is the most striking example, must be rejected.  Their rejection is based on a profound knowledge of Marxism, since it is within its fold that they were formed.  The most renowned of the New Philosophers are Bernard Henri Levi, author of "Barbarity with a Human Face", Andre Glucksman, author of "The Cook and the Cannibals"⁷⁷ and "The Masters of Thought" in which he criticizes the major German philosophers, and Jean-Marie Benoit, author of "Marx is Dead".  The fame of these New Philosophers spread widely in French cultural circles and beyond.

The Italian Communist Party, one of the most active communist parties in Europe and in all non-communist countries, also announced its rejection of some fundamental concepts of Marxism-Leninism.  In fact, Lucio Lombardo, one of the outstanding intellectuals and theoreticians of the I.P.C., openly urged his party to totally abandon its support for Marxism-Leninism.  In an interview to La Stampa, he says: "The term `Marxism-Leninism' disappeared naturally from the Party's lexicon without being officially banned; the same is true of the term `dictatorship of the proletariat'."

In 1964, the Japanese Communist Party declared it was severing all ties with the Soviet Communist Party.  Three years later, the Central Committee agreed in the course of its annual meeting to delete from the Party's charter the provision ruling that the objective of the Party was to achieve the Soviet model of dictatorship of the proletariat.  The term `Marxism-Leninism' was replaced by `Scientific Socialism' and the idea of Proletarian Internationalism abandoned.

In Spain, the Secretary General of the Spanish Communist Party, Santiago Carillo, publicly called for a brand of independent democratic socialism in Europe.  The legendary President of the Party, Dolores Ibarruri, better known as La Passionaria, who had spent more than thirty years in the Soviet Union, declared openly that she did not want to see a repetition in her country of the Soviet experience she had come to know so well.

In India, large sections of the Communist Party call for adherence to a socialist policy independent of Moscow, one that would not follow in the footsteps of the Soviet experience.

In France, we are once again witnessing signs of a break in the coalition of the Left between the Communists, the Socialists and the Radicals, which occurred before power became accessible.

In Portugal, the left is losing power and popularity daily, and the possibility of their participation in a government coalition has become a dream.

In Britain, the Communist Party declared on November 14, 1977, that it had definitely abandoned the idea of `dictatorship of the proletariat'. 

The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that,   for the developed countries, Marxist ideology has been stripped of its mystique.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Third World countries, where poor economic prospects coupled with low standards of general education provide an ideal breeding ground for ideas that have been discredited in the rest of the world. Those who succumb to the siren song of seasoned Marxist propagandists are usually students and young people and not the workers who are supposed to form the backbone of communist organizations.  Because of their lack of experience, their poor cultural and scientific formation and their youth, these converts become mindless mouthpieces for a theory which, as far as the developed world is concerned, is merely a set of ideas put forward in the nineteenth century, no different from the scores of theories and ideas which that century produced, the only difference being that Marxism found a state where it was applied.⁷⁸

The key word here is youth.  The generation gap separating the young from their parents and grandparents is a phenomenon that dates back to the dawn of time.  However, until recently, the gap took the form of aspirations by the rising generations to liberate themselves from the constraints placed on them by the older generation.  In other words, the young rebelled against the way of life of their elders without a definite view of what was to replace it. And, before too long, they came to discover that the rebellion was no more than an expression of the physical and psychological malaise of puberty and adolescence.

That does not mean to say that everything old  should be consecrated, but it is a fact that the   refusal of the old by the young throughout the ages was a purely emotional refusal, lacking experience and understanding.  Never in the history of mankind had the old been changed under the pressure of and in response to the wishes of the young. ⁷⁹Change always occurs under the pressure of generations with more knowledge and experience. Such was the situation before the appearance of Marxist ideology.  Since that ideology was essentially a revolution against existing conditions, it became, for large numbers of young people, a philosophical framework for the perennial anxiety of the young and their age-old revolt against all that is established.

Thus the balance tipped in favour of Marxism - as a framework for the revolt and rejection of the young  - because its call for radical change responded to  aspirations held by the young since time immemorial. Moreover, Marxism's undisguised call for sexual freedom and for the abolition of the bourgeois family structure and its promise of sexual communism when the highest stage of communist society would be attained made it even more attractive to young people in all parts of the world.

In fact, the main response to Marxism, which set itself up as the theoretical expression of the fundamental interests of the working class, came not from that class but from educated youth.  Clearly, this phenomenon is not a point in its favour.  Quite the reverse, for the response was without substance as most of these young people had no real scientific knowledge of Marxism.  Both as a student and, later, as a university lecturer, I had the opportunity to frequent many communist youth in several countries and to ascertain at first hand that, for the most part, their knowledge of the scientific bases of Marxism was woefully  inadequate and that very few had read the basic literature that is vital to an understanding of this theory. For them, Marxism was no more than an intellectual and philosophical framework for their deep-rooted anti-Establishment feelings, not to mention the fact that it justified much of what it pleased them to see justified.

Thus, most of those who respond to the Marxist call are young people with little knowledge and less experience, whose ideas rapidly change as they mature and learn the realities of life through personal experience. If, for the sake of argument,  we apply a Marxist approach, we could say that Marxism in the world spread among groups, mainly student groups, whose future class loyalties would inevitably and gradually draw them away from Marxist ideas.  The spread of Marxist ideas within student circles is thus not to the credit of Marxism.  For an ideology whose recruits are usually too young to know any better and who will, inevitably, turn away when they have gained some experience from life, cannot claim to be a successful, let alone a universal, ideology.  There are, of course, exceptions, but exceptions, as we all know, confirm the rule.

An additional factor that helped the spread of Marxist ideas among students was the intellectual stagnation and dogmatism of other ideological systems which could have offered viable alternatives to Marxism. Alienated by reactionary and old-fashioned ideas that could not keep up with the developments of the age,  young people turned  to Marxism.⁸⁰

But while Marxism has come to be regarded in the developed states as no more than a set of ideas born in the nineteenth century, many of which have been proved wrong by experience, some of these ideas helped arouse interest in specific economic and social aspects and led many of these states to seek, albeit through completely different means, to provide for their needy classes to a degree not found in a single one of the states which have raised the red banner of Communism.

Such major upheavals in the foundations of Marxist ideology have also led to the appearance of leftist movements, particularly in European communist parties. These movements too revise the basic postulates of orthodox Marxist theory.  Actually, challenges to Marxism are not new. They accompanied and directly followed Marx and Engels, but the Bolshevik takeover in Russia suppressed such opposition from within the communist movement itself, for it seemed to some that the theory was about to become reality.  But when time passed and experience proved that many of that theory's fundamental premises were invalid, intellectuals began to defect in droves.

The early revolts against Marxist ideas are well known.  One of the most famous came from Eduard Bernstein (1850-1912), the German social democrat who was held in high regard by both Marx and Engels when he was editor of a well-known publication under Bismark.  Later, under the influence of British socialism, Bernstein gradually abandoned most of his Marxist ideas and criticized them sharply in his book, "Theoretical Socialism and Practical Socialism", where he said that he had set for himself the task of purging Marxism of all ideas based on illusions.  On another occasion, Bernstein called upon the party to "have the courage to rid itself of ideas that have been overtaken by events". ⁸¹ 

In these chapters we will be presenting those Marxist ideas as expounded by the fathers of that theory, now bankrupt in our opinion.  We will lay them bare of all proof and argument, and show that they cannot survive objective analysis based on logic, nor the practical experience of everyday life.