>I know all this. But the issue is the relevance of any comparison of
>Marx and Nader. If Marx had only been an activist, we wouldn't have
>any idea who he was; his legacy is as a political philosopher. Nader
>isn't much of a writer, and will be remembered mainly, if at all, as
>an organizer and activist. Nader's source of funding is directly
>relevant to evaluating who and what he is; Marx's source of funding
>is irrelevant.
>
>Doug
I don't want to belabor this, but Marx's main legacy was as founder of the
socialist movement. Furthermore, it does not really do this movement
justice to speak of it in terms of "activism" versus "political
philosophy". Nearly everything that Marx wrote following Capital was geared
to political action. It is wrong to neglect works dealing with the problems
of the French or German revolution. One of my big complaints, that I've
voiced here before, is that if you leave out this latter body of work, you
really have no way of explaining his subsequent career. Frankfurters like
Erich Fromm would dump everything following the early "humanist" works
while others might be tempted to disregard the works dealing with
revolutionary strategy.
===
Dear Bracke,
When you have read the following critical marginal notes on the Unity
Programme, would you be so good as to send them on to Geib and Auer, Bebel
and Liebknecht for examination. I am exceedingly busy and have to overstep
by far the limit of work allowed me by the doctors. Hence it was anything
but a "pleasure" to write such a lengthy creed. It was, however, necessary
so that the steps to b taken by me later on would not be misinterpreted by
our friend sin the Party for whom this communication is intended.
After the Unity Congress has been held, Engels and I will publish a short
statement to the effect that our position is altogether remote form the
said programme of principle and that we have nothing to do with it.
This is indispensable because the opinion - the entirely erroneous opinion
- is held abroad and assiduously nurtured by enemies of the Party that we
secretly guide from here the movement of the so-called Eisenach Party [
German Social-Democratic Workers Party ]. In a Russian book [ Statism and
Anarchy ] that has recently appeared, Bakunin still makes me responsible,
for example, not only for all the programmes, etc., of that party but even
for every step taken by Liebknecht from the day of his cooperation with the
People's Party.
Apart from this, it is my duty not to give recognition, even by diplomatic
silence, to what in my opinion is a thoroughly objectionable programme that
demoralises the Party.
EVERY STEP OF REAL MOVEMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A DOZEN PROGRAMMES. If,
therefore, it was not possible - and the conditions of the item did not
permit it - to go beyond the Eisenach programme, one should simply have
concluded an agreement for action against the common enemy. But by drawing
up a programme of principles (instead of postponing this until it has been
prepared for by a considerable period of common activity) one sets up
before the whole world landmarks by which it measures the level of the
Party movement.
The Lassallean leaders came because circumstances forced them to. If they
had been told in advance that there would be haggling about principles,
they would have had to be content with a programme of action or a plan of
organisation for common action. Instead of this, one permits them to arrive
armed with mandates, recognises these mandates on one's part as binding,
and thus surrenders unconditionally to those who are themselves in need of
help. To crown the whole business, they are holding a congress before the
Congress of Compromise, while one's own party is holding its congress post
festum. One had obviously had a desire to stifle all criticism and to give
one's own party no opportunity for reflection. One knows that the mere fact
of unification is satisfying to the workers, but it is a mistake to believe
that this momentary success is not bought too dearly.
For the rest, the programme is no good, even apart from its sanctification
of the Lassallean articles of faith.
I shall be sending you in the near future the last parts of the French
edition of Capital. The printing was held up for a considerable time by a
ban of the French Government. The thing will be ready this week or the
beginning of next week. Have you received the previous six parts? Please
let me have the address of Bernhard Becker, to whom I must also send the
final parts.
The bookshop of the Volksstaat has peculiar ways of doing things. Up to
this moment, for example, I have not been sent a single copy of the Cologne
Communist Trial.
With best regards,
Yours,
Karl Marx
Louis Proyect
The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
