It is a fine gesture by Charles to commemorate the anniversary of Marx's
birth, to reprint the second and third part of "The Three Sources and Three
Component Parts of Marxism".
This must have been the introduction of tens of millions to marxism.
Rather than just take it as a worthy historical relic I will venture a
couple of points.
It was written in 1913 under conditions of Tsarist censorship, and before
Lenin embraced the dialectics of Hegels Philosophical notebooks. It has a
clarity and a simplicity about the way it expresses complex theories which
can be a trap for idolators.
About the historical inevitability of socialism, Lenin argues in general
terms with which we could not disagree, about the contradiction between the
social nature of production and private ownership of production. (This has
been demonstrated only yesterday by the rapid transmission of viruses, as a
social disease, through the computerised network of the world.)
However it provides no answer in terms of the political process under
conditions of bourgeois democracy, by which "the proletariat" can avoid
being continually fragmented and divided. Lenin of course did not take the
parliamentary route as an absolute strategy, but used it when appropriate.
(I wrote yesterday on LBO-talk and Thaxis about the results of the UK
elections.)
Some of Lenin's words lend hostages to fortune for future generations: like
that Marx has a "labour theory of value". In fact Lenin carefully
attributes this to the classical economists but a quick reading will allow
novices in the marxist movement to be impressed by the experts into
thinking that this is the marxist dogma.
In fact in the introduction Lenin has the most incautious assertion:
"The Marxian doctrine is omnipotent because it is true." This sounds like
Stalin's simplifications of Lenin.
In terms of the "economic doctrine" I have a reservation about saying
> The doctrine of surplus-value is the corner-stone of Marx's economic
> theory.
This was one of Marx's specific additions to classical economics, but the
fact that capitalists make profit is not unknown to the mass of the working
population.
What I think we must emphasise more is
1) the Marxian law of value
2) dialectical materialism
These two superordinate features of marxism remain relevant for the total
critique of the present capitalist mode of production. They do not produce
simple dogmatic solutions but they are indispensible for a profound
analysis of the movement going on before our very eyes.
Many people on the marxist-leaning lists keep at arms length from these two
features, and some criticise them directly in order to sanitise marxism for
more rational discourse.
However they are indispensible to the *method* of marxism. Charles, to the
best of my reading ability, has been steadfast in arguing their ideological
relevance.
That struggle must go on.
2018 will be the 200th anniversary of Marx's birth.
Chris Burford
London
