[OPE-L:6324] Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation (fwd)

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Wed Jan 16 2002 - 08:03:25 EST

Re Rakesh's [6321]:

Previously I wrote:

>A historical note: Marx was a dedicated revolutionary who believed
>in the revolutionary role of the working class -- from a materialist
>'scientific socialist' perspective -- long before he developed his
>critique of political economy.

Rakesh asked:
> Please elaborate on significance of this important point.

Marx was a revolutionary decades before he developed his critique
of political economy and M&E's  historical materialist explanation of 
the revolutionary role of the proletariat was presented in the
_Manifesto of the Communist Party_ (1848).  This is not to suggest
that his later critique of political economy and attempt to lay bare
the 'economic law of motion of modern society' did not _add_
something to that understanding -- but it was there long before.

Let us consider your point further:  you argued that the 'labor
theory of value' and the FROP are required to develop the
'Marxist'  perspective on the revolutionary role of the working class.  
If  that were the case -- given the historical detail suggested above
-- then we would have to conclude by your standards that Marx
was not a Marxist _until_ he developed his critique of political
economy.  Thus, you would arrive at a very curious result:  you
would be asserting with the Althusserians that there is a 'Young
Marx' and an 'Old Marx'.   This is a very unusual source of
agreement that you would have with a perspective that does not
share your view on the centrality of the law of value.  Have you
become a 'reverse Althusserian'?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST