Marx wrote a critique of political economy not an abstract tract on economics. It was a critique not just of capitalism and the views of its most conscious representatives but also of petty bourgeois views in the contemporary working class/'socialist' movement eg Proudhon. Lenin carried on in this tradition - a tradition that seems to be sadly lacking today - despite the appalling state of both the world and the left movement. Can I suggest that comrades look at Vygodski again - the Story of a Great Discovery How Karl Marx wrote 'Capital' for Marx's approach. Lenin did advance our understanding on the relation of economics to politics in a rather challenging way in his pamphlet on Imperialism, as he himself makes clear in the preface. Marxists have been attacking his position ever since on the labour aristocracy or the two trends in the working class movement. But clearly there is a growing split in the working class movement between imperialist and oppressed nations and and increasingly within the imperialist nations themselves. Why this is found to be unacceptable is beyond me. Lenin, building on the work of Marx and Engels gave us a materialist understanding of this development - a very significant advance in Marxist thought. Can I recommend Imperialism and the Split in Socialism Vol 23 p105ff. This really is in the best tradition of critique of political economy. The position needs to be developed concretely in relation to today's circumstances. I have tried to write about this topic in relation to the development of British imperialism in a series of articles in the newspaper Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! - see the FRFI section of http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk - starting with issue 161. David Yaffe At 15:46 11/02/02 +0000, glevy@pop-b.pratt.edu wrote: >Re Julian's [6548]: > > > > I'd be interested the hear the views of better-read comrades than > > myself on this -- but do others agree with me that Lenin advanced > > the *practical* *critique* of political economy to a marked degree? > >At the risk of sounding heretical, what exactly was that advancement? >Are you referring to his pamphlet on the 'latest phase' of capitalism >which he himself described as a 'popular outline'? (and which he left it >to others, e.g. Bukharin, to expand upon) Or are you referring to other >works of his on economics? In looking at his contributions to p.e. I >think it is fair to say that he was one of the earliest Marxists to use >statistical analysis -- but he was by no means the only author to do so >during this period (e.g. see Sternberg's use of statistical materials in >his book on imperialism). >As for his 'critique of political economy', I think that his engagement >was more with contemporary radical socialist and anarchist writers and >political tendencies than with classical political economy. In other >words, his critique was more of socialist and other contemporary political >movements than of p.e. as such. Perhaps there is an important 'practical' >lesson for us here about the need to engage contemporary debates by >Marxists and other radicals rather than just limiting our understanding of >'critique' to writings of an earlier time period? > >In solidarity, Jerry >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EST