Was this just irritation? Was it objection in principle to lawful parliamentary parties? Was it an inability to see that electoral parties have to appeal to more subjective perceptions than scientific socialism? Was it because the only good marxists are violent ones? Was it for purely theoretical reasons?
Our stance on this affects how we use marxist ideas today.
In the case of the Critique on the Gotha Program (COGP) why did it take 16 years to publish it? I suspect there was more than one reason for this.
The text itself like many of their critiques, is intricate, because you have to understand who they were arguing against and why. I suggest it is mainly used now to cite the odd point clarifying the accuracy of theory. The recent exchange has done this.
But the thrust of the first section was to criticise "hollow phrases" which "can be twisted and turned as desired", whether by populists or by anti-marxists.
I was arguing that still today the warning by Rubin is relevant:
"One may say that a large number of the misunderstandings and misinterpretations which can be found in anti-Marxist literature are based on the false impression that, according to Marx, labor is value."
and I pointed out that Andrew quoted: " When it comes to Marx's value theory, however, the myth of internal inconsistency is so ubiquitous and hegemonic that Cassidy disposes of the issue with a single comment: Marx's "model of the economy, which depended on the idea that labor is the source of all value, was riven with internal inconsistencies, and is rarely studied these days" (Cassidy 1997:252)."
Now Cassidy was lumping together use-value and exchange value (probably as an internal inconsistency), and the COGP is useful for this point.
But overall Marx criticises the thrust of the first paragraph as being there to inscribe the Lassallean catchword of the 'undiminished proceeds of labour'.
("1. Labour is the source of all wealth and all culture, and since useful labour is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labour belong undiminished with equal rights to all members of society.")
By contrast Marx's words emphasise an agenda that among other things would be seen as relevant to those with ecological concerns too.
I think we see a contrast here between a populist workerist reformism, versus a theoretically sound determination to gain political control over all the means of production, including land.
As these lists become more and more serious, I think the question arises why we shrink from structural reforms.
Chris Burford
London
At 12:27 PM 8/14/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Labour is not the source of all value, according to Marx (Critique of the
>>> Gotha Programme).
>
>Chris Burford, Tom Waters:
>Aren't you talking about the part of the Gotha program quoted as saying
>"Labor is the source of all wealth," after which Marx retorts: "Labor is
>NOT the source of all wealth!"? He was distinguishing between value and
>use value, as Tom Waters said, but I think the actual terms were value and
>wealth.
>
>Michael Brun
>
>