surplus and other stuff

[Roger Odisio]

At 02:45 PM 1/24/1999 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
>
>Charles:
>> How do you read the first sentence of The Manifesto.
>
>Angela:
>as a pretty fine bit of story-telling.... but anyways, saying that history
is the history of antagonisms, class struggle is not the same thing as
saying that the content, form, essence of these struggles was the same.
>
>Charles: 
>I'd say for Engels and Marx, contradiction IS the substance of things. For
dialectical materialists change is substance and contradiction is the
content and essence of things, human and natural. The phrase "The history of
all hitherto existing
>society IS a history of class struggles" is serious. ( to me). That's why I
can't go with your model of Marx's theory. I think the Manifesto is serious,
not story telling. In fact, given Marx's emphasis on practice as the real
test of theory, I'd say The Manifesto  for forming the party is more serious
than some other more theoretical discussions.
>__________

Charles:  I'm trying to understand your point as a response to Angela.  Her
main point (excuse my presumptiveness, Angela) is that, while class struggle
has always existed, capitalism created a new form of class relations.  That
is, a new class was created, capitalists, that led to the unequal exchange
between capital and labor in the labor market, which forms the basis for the
new exploitation of labor by capital, as well as the contradictions inherent
in capitalism as a system. Labor sells its labor power to live (reproduce
itself); capitalists accumulate the surplus value they extract from labor.

I don't think you disagree with that.

So, is your quarrel here only with the notion that the Manifesto is more
than a mere story, but rather offers organizational value?  If so, OK.     

But I don't agree with the further point that the Manifesto is "more
serious" (more valuable?) than some of the "theorizing" in the 3 volumes (if
that's what you mean by "other more theoretical discussions").  When Mao
asked "where do ideas come from" and concluded that they come out of praxis,
he was performing the essence of Marxism as he understood it.  But the
dialectic also requires thought to inform practice.  And that has always
turned out to be the hard part, hasn't it, that part about understanding the
central contradictions under today's conditions so that actions can be
focused and make sense?  

Like no one before, Marx pieced together the practice of his day and
explained its essence--the laws of motion of capitalism.  Not discounting
his efforts to organize workers based on the conditions of his time, but
*that* was really important to the future of the class struggle.