>>> Roger Odisio <rodisio at igc.org> 01/25 3:30 PM >>>
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.
>__________
Roger to 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. _______
Charles to Roger: I don't know if you saw the whole exchange, but class struggle has not always existed. Class society arose about 5000 years ago. Before that there was no class exploitation. Then , class struggle has existed in different modes of production, slavery, feudalism, capitalism. These are like species of a genus in analogy to biology. The genus is class society and the three are like different species but all in the same genus. So, like species of the same genus, they have some things in common and some things different. What they have in common is class oppression and class struggle. But they also have distinct types of class oppression and class struggle. So, class struggle is a transhistorical category in some sense. That was my point. My point does not contradict what you say above. __________ Roger: 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. _____
Charles: See above and previous posts that are the context for the comment you comment on. ________
Roger: 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? ______
Charles: Well "more serious" was just sort of within the narrow dialogue between Angela and me at that moment. She had said The Manifesto is storytelling, so I was looking for a word in opposition to that. But on your other point, I would recall the First, Second, and Eleventh Theses on Feuerbach, which emphasize that for Marx the test of theory is practice. This does not negate thinking and theory, but places theory as a servant of practice. I would say the hard part for intellectuals, as most are on this list, has been practice. They can usually understand the contradictions or interpret them, but the changing the world part is the toughest. The Manifesto, which founds the Party, is a stark unity of theory and practice. ________ Roger: 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.
_________ Charles Brown