one side by means of the theory of myths. The different terms which Marx uses to describe the preparation for the decisive combat are not to be taken literally as statements of fact about a determined future; it is the description in its entirety which should engage our attention, and taken in this way it is perfectly clear: Marx wishes us to understand that the whole preparation of the proletariat depends solely on the organisation of a stubborn, increasing, and passionate resistance to the present order of things.
This argument is of supreme importance if we are to have a sound conception of Marxism; but it is often contested, if not in theory, at least in practice; the proletariat, it has been held, should prepare for the part it is to play in the future by other ways than those of revolutionary Syndicalism. Thus the exponents of co-operation hold that a prominent place in the work of enfranchisement must be given to their own particular remedy; the democrats say that it is essential to abolish all the prejudices arising from the old Catholic influence, etc. Many revolutionaries believe that, however useful Syndicalism may be, it is not, in itself, sufficient to organise a society which needs a new philosophy, a new code of laws, etc.; as the division of labour is a fundamental law of the world, Socialists should not be ashamed to apply to specialists in philosophy and law, of whom there is never any lack. Jaurès never stops repeating this kind of stuff. This expansion of Socialism is contrary to the Marxian theory, as also to the conception of the general strike; but it is evident that the conception of the general strike makes a much more striking appeal to the mind than any formula.
(2) I have already called attention to the danger for the future of civilisation presented by revolutions which take place in a period of economic decadence; many Marxists do not seem to have formed a clear idea of Marx's
