^^^^^^^^^ > V4: Certainly Marx and Engels take the unity of theory and practice very seriously, but no manifesto need represent the entire theoretical program to
be consistent with practice. In fact, the very reverse is true, the object of social political work, like any other form of labour is designed for a practical objective and that practical objective is always a synthetic product of theory and the conditions of its realization. There notmuch point in discussion on the material conditions of historical development when the object of the writer is to mobilize the working classes to take control of the means of production (such as in the interesting current situation in the Argentine). In selecting the appropriate theoretical elements relative to a particular situation, in this case the mobilization of a class (a function of the relations of production or economics) to move to physically change the current state of the relations of production and the legal system that enables the mobilization of social force to perpetuate it (a function of the legal/governmental superstructure engendered by the capitalist mode of production) one does just what the workman does when he selects a pair of adjustables to tighten a bolt rather than a hammer even though both are to be found in his tool box. ^^^^^^^ CB: The Manifesto is longer than the Preface to the Contribution to the Critique, no ? More of the theory is there than in the Preface. I got to go , but I think the penultimate Chapter of _Capital_ vol. on which I sent here the other day, has a better formulation of the Preface to the Contribution's, or as good. I'll analyze that later. Good point below, good research point on Engels article on the Preface to the Contribution. But Engels statement is shorter than the Manifesto, and consistent with it. The notion that the goal is abolition of private property doesn't conflict with the fundamental idea Engels states. Plus Engels says in what you quote "The essential foundation of this German political economy is the materialist conception of history whose principal features are briefly outlined in the "Preface" to the above-named work." "Briefly outlined". It is more briefly outlined than in the Manifesto. So, on your point of the Manifesto being too short for a theoretical statement of historical materialism, the Preface to the Contribution is even briefer. later >------------------------- > "Prefaces to critiques of political economy are casual while political > manifestos are serious analytical statements?" >-------------------------- > CB: Yes, definitely. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ V4: I see. How does this view compare to Engel's review of the Critique? Note Engels critical comparison of the purely political economic analyses of the relations of production of bourgeois economists and the Marxian system. Note particularly the last sentence of this selection. "While in this way in Germany the bourgeoisie, the schoolmasters and the bureaucrats were still making great exertions to learn by rote, and in some measure to understand, the first elements of Anglo-French political economy, which they regarded as incontestable dogmas, the German proletarian party appeared on the scene. Its theoretical aspect was wholly based on a study of political economy, and German political economy as an independent science dates also from the emergence of this party. The essential foundation of this German political economy is the materialist conception of history whose principal features are briefly outlined in the "Preface" to the above-named work. Since the "Preface" has in the main already been published in Das Volk, we refer to it. The proposition that "the process of social, political and intellectual life is altogether necessitated by the mode of production of material life"; that all social and political relations, all religious and legal systems, all theoretical conceptions which arise in the course of history can only be understood if the material conditions of life obtaining during the relevant epoch have been understood and the former are traced back to these material conditions, was a revolutionary discovery not only for economics but also for all historical sciences - and all branches of science which are not natural sciences are historical. (Engels, F. 1859, Review of "A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy" paragraph 2) Anyway remember that the manifesto was written in 1848 while the Critique, written in 1959, became a part of the Grundrisse which was in turn the raw material of Capital. ------------------------ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
