>> I think that, today, we've come to a turning point in history. People are re-discovering Marx because he provides reserves of critical thought that are still pertinent to the problems of our times, but, of course, that is not enough. The Marxist tradition has not said much on the problems of nations, of the State, of ideology, of the function of symbols in social relations. To that has to be added the problem of ethnic fragmentation "the problem of the unheard-of violence that develops within societies. And it is also necessary to develop a response to the challenge constituted by all these anthropological transformations, which tend to turn the popular masses into disconnected consumerist masses, subject to victimization by every demagogy imaginable. Marx could not think of everything or foresee everything! << Comment All kinds of doctrines of thought are associated with the Marxist tradition, and this tradition is defined differently, ranging from Gramsci to Mao; from the doctrine of "people’s war" to Lenin’s conception of a "party of a new type," to the latest declaration by the Dali Lama declaring himself favorable to Marxism. What is the revolutionary essence or heart of Karl Marx approach, method and what some refer to as the science of society? Old schools Leninist will swear that the heart of Marxism is the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the transition from industrial capitalism to new economic and political system post bourgeois property. Political and ideological Trotskyism will declare than a concept of permanent revolution is fundamental to understanding Marx. Interestingly, Marx never wrote anything to suggest his approach, method and teachings could be reduced to or measured based on adherence to a political form of the state called the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Trotskyite proposition is unworthy of serious consideration as fundamental to anything Marx wrote. Marx and Engels wrote voluminously outlining their new approach, method and summations. Nowhere in the writings of Marx and Engles will one find anything suggesting they considered the dictatorship of the proletariat a litmus test, or point of departure for their approach, method and historical summation. Although I personally accept as a "given" the period of transition between industrial capitalism and economic communism to presuppose a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, On the contrary Marx actually writes about his approach, method and summation as a revolutionary way of summarizing the economic and political foundation of society as it passes from one mode of production to the next. Marx and Engles in fact coined new conceptual frameworks to understand the society progression: "mode of production," "productive forces," "means of production," "social relations of production," "political superstructure," this political doctrine of action is not the essence and heart of the approach, method and summation bearing Marx name. There is no need to guess and postulate concerning the essence of Marx theory. Marx summarizes his new thinking in the 1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. "At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – (this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms ) with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated up until then. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution." (1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy) _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm _ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)
In standard American English the above is understood to mean: Social revolution comes about as a result of qualitative development of the means of production. An antagonism develops between the new emerging material relations connected to and interactive with the qualitatively new means of production and the old static social organization of labor and property forms expressed as the political relations within the superstructure. Below is presented the entirety of the heart and soul of Marx approach, method and summation by which he created the first general laws establishing a new science: the science of society. Numbering has been added for easy of reading. (Quote) 1). "In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. 2). The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. 3). The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. 4). It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. 5). At a certain stage of their development, 6). the material productive forces of society 7). come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – (this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms ) with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated up until then. 8). From forms of development of the productive forces 9). these relations turn into their fetters. 10). Then begins an epoch of social revolution.. 11). The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. 12). In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. 13). Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient,] feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation. (end quote) (1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy) WL. _______________________________________________ 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
