Early Marx-Engels manuscripts
Oct 15 2008
I'm doing some research on the early development of the critique of political economy. In particular, I'm interested in the role of Marx'sA Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, Engels' Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy and Marx's early notes from reading political economy (Comments on James Mill and other conspectuses -- Smith, Ricardo, etc.). Does anyone know about relevant articles with a detailed discussion of these (in English or German)? (Especially the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right, which I find quite difficult to read.) I like Simon Clarke's presentation of it in Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology, but wish to dig deeper. Thanks.
Oct 16 2008
#2
Thanks, I'll try to get to Draper and Colletti. I've read the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right and know that it is not much about economics (though there's an obvious link between Hegel's theory of state and classical political economy), but I'm basically trying to reconstruct Marx's transit to political economy and his methodological evolution. In the well-known preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy Marx suggests that the practical issues in Rhineland (discussions on wood theft etc.) was what turned him to the critique of Hegel, and subsequently to studying the "anatomy of civil society", ie. political economy, so that's why I'm looking into this.
I think Engels' Outline is quite interesting, and underrated, unlike for example to the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts which spawned an entire industry of interpretation...
Oct 16 2008
#3
jura wrote:
Does anyone know about relevant articles with a detailed discussion of these (in English or German)?
In English:
(not very detailed, but still a good overview)
the first chapter ("from the critique of private property to the critique of capitalism") of Ernest Mandel's _The Formation of the Economic Thought of Karl Marx_. The version I have is a Monthly Review paperback, I think the used market is probably flooded with copies.
In German:
Chapter 3 ("Anthropologie als Kritik: Die theoretische Konzeption des jungen Marx") of Michael Heinrich's _Die Wissenschaft vom Wert: Die Marxsche Kritik der politischen Ökonomie zwischen wissenschaftlicher Revolution und klassischer Tradition_. Available in a somewhat pricey but nonetheless sturdy revised paperback edition from Dampfboot Verlag: http://www.dampfboot-verlag.de/buecher/454-5.html
Oct 17 2008
#4
jura wrote:
In the well-known preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy Marx suggests that the practical issues in Rhineland (discussions on wood theft etc.) was what turned him to the critique of Hegel, and subsequently to studying the "anatomy of civil society", ie. political economy, so that's why I'm looking into this.
Hal Draper would probably be very helpful to you then. His discussion of Marx's transition to practical economic issues is the best that I've come across. He actually deals with the social/political issues of the time and their influence on Marx in a detailed way as opposed the (at best) cursory overview that prevails in most accounts of Marx's early development.
jura wrote:
I think Engels' Outline is quite interesting, and underrated, unlike for example to the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts which spawned an entire industry of interpretation...
I still haven't read it. Draper does talk about it quite a bit, though, and emphasizes Engels' influence on Marx in this time period.
Oct 17 2008
#5
Quote:
But I think you won't find a lot of Marx's critique of political economy in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. It is a confrontation with Hegel's political thought, not with economics.
But to understand Marx critique of Hegel you must take into account that Marx considers that Hegel is taking the standpoint of political economy.
Cyril Smith wrote interesting things about it, you can find it on the MIA. also from Istvan Meszaros, for example the beginning of Beyond Capital.
Oct 17 2008
#6
piter wrote:
Quote:
But I think you won't find a lot of Marx's critique of political economy in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. It is a confrontation with Hegel's political thought, not with economics.But to understand Marx critique of Hegel you must take into account that Marx considers that Hegel is taking the standpoint of political economy.
Cyril Smith wrote interesting things about it, you can find it on the MIA. also from Istvan Meszaros, for example the beginning of Beyond Capital.
I think you are using "political economy" in a different sense than myself. I'm just saying that Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right is generally not concerned with economics. Marx came to the conclusion around this time that the real basis of civil society was to be found in the theories of the political economists, which is why he mostly abandoned his work on Hegel over the next couple of years.
Oct 17 2008
#7
Quote:
I'm just saying that Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right is generally not concerned with economics. Marx came to the conclusion around this time that the real basis of civil society was to be found in the theories of the political economists, which is why he mostly abandoned his work on Hegel over the next couple of years.
yes, sure, but you understand better the evolution of Marx if you see how he links Hegel and political economy, if you see that when he wrote on economics he is still pursuing in a way his critique of Hegel.
Oct 17 2008
#8
mikus wrote:
Hal Draper would probably be very helpful to you then. His discussion of Marx's transition to practical economic issues is the best that I've come across.
Boah, Hal Draper's 4-volume book irritates me greatly (as for the issue of the transition, Althusser, Mandel, Heinrich, and many others have all given accounts, I don't see why Drapers necessarily stands out).
For one thing, Draper's book is the perfect example of a writer taking as many different quotations as possible from the most diverse of Marx's writings, and presenting it as *the* Marxist position. That's not to say he doesn't take note of modifications in Marx's thought in the long run, just that he tends to regard it as a sort of tweaking of an otherwise smooth, continuous "Marxism". So the notion, say, that there are formulations in the Communist Manifesto which are ultimately incompatible with the account of capitalist society outlined in _Capital_, just doesn't occur to Draper.
And true to his Trotskyist-Schachtmanite heritage, for Draper it is inconceivable that communism (or socialism as its lowest stage) implies the negation of value, the commodity, money, the working-class, and the state. No, Draper is a partisan of "socialism as the political rule of the working-class", i.e. socialism as the preservation of capitalist forms under new management. To the point where he makes statements like this:
Quote:
It is insufficiently appreciated that, from early on, Marx and Engels habitually stated their political aim not in terms of a desired change in social system (socialism) but in terms of a change of class power (proletarian rule)
Well there you have it! Proletarian rule as the defining criterion of Marxism!
Loren Goldner, in his review of Max Elbaum's _Revolution in the Air_, remarks about his experience with the American Schachtmanites and what anti-theoretical, workerist poseurs they were. None of them had any interest in reading _Capital_, so he left.
Oct 17 2008
#9
Angelus Novus: But isn't Mandel's interpretation of Marx that you suggested also somewhat objectionable? (I've never read anything by Mandel, but I noticed he usually appears among the examples of "traditional", "orthodox" and "objectivist" -- and perhaps also Weltanschauung? -- marxism.)
Oct 17 2008
#10
Who in their right minds would want to read ‘Mandel’, the man was an idiot, who did not understand the ‘immanent theory of value’ either for that matter.
The Theory of “State Capitalism”, (June 1951)
Last footnote
Quote:
When Lenin and Trotsky were in power in Russia they never prevented, to our knowledge, the ultra-left communists from defending orally and in writing the theory of state capitalism
.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1951/06/statecap.htm
V. I. Lenin, “Left-Wing” Childishness, Part III APRIL 1918
Quote:
“If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made by the “Left Communists” will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the “Bolshevik deviation to the right” the Soviet Republic is threatened with “evolution towards state capitalism”. They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these “Left Communists” repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .
It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country. “
Oct 17 2008
#11
From the WSM list;
Paul Foot on Tony Cliff. British SWP- Trots
Quote:
"This achievement was due largely to Cliff's most striking qualities;
his immense intellectual power and his ability to explain his
libertarian Marxism in simple language. His unique intellectual
contribution was to describe, in the late 1940s, the Soviet Union as
state capitalist, and therefore imperialist – a proposition as
shocking to most socialists of the time as it was inspiring to those
of us who were convinced by it."
http://www.marxists.de/intsoctend/foot/tonycliff.htm
"In his autobiography Cliff says that he thought about the question for two months and then "One early morning I jumped out of bed" and told his wife `Russia is not a workers' state but state capitalist'."
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/235_tcliff.htm
Should have read his Maxilmliien Lenin;
Quote:
1) If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following
discovery made by the "Left Communists" will provoke nothing short of
Homeric laughter. According to them, under the "Bolshevik deviation
to the right" the Soviet Republic is threatened with "evolution
towards state capitalism". They have really frightened us this time!
And with what gusto these "Left Communists" repeat this threatening
revelation in their theses and articles. . . .2) It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step
forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet
Republic. If in approximately six months' time state capitalism
became established in our Republic, this would be a great success3) I can imagine with what noble indignation a "Left Communist" will
recoil from these words, and what "devastating criticism" he will
make to the workers against the "Bolshevik deviation to the right".
What! Transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic
would be a step forward?. . . Isn't this the betrayal of socialism?
Here we come to the root of the economic mistake of the "Left
Communists".4) Thirdly, in making a bugbear of "state capitalism", they betray
their failure to understand that the Soviet state differs from the
bourgeois state economically.5) The shell of our state capitalism (grain monopoly, state
controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators)6) It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism,
7) while in deeds they help only the petty bourgeoisie, serve only
this section of the population and express only its point of view by
fighting—in April 1918!!—against . . . "state capitalism". They are
wide of the mark!8) This simple illustration in figures, which I have deliberately
simplified to the utmost in order to make it absolutely clear,
explains the present correlation of state capitalism and socialism9) State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward
10) In the first place, economically, state capitalism is
immeasurably superior to our present economic system11) our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to
spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting
dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to
hasten this copying even more than Peter hastened the copying of
Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not hesitate to use
barbarous methods i12) and it is one and the same road that leads from it to both large-
scale state capitalism and to socialism,13) the economic situation now existing here without traversing the
ground which is common to state capitalism and to socialism14) that the attempt to frighten others as well as themselves
with "evolution towards state capitalism" (Kommunist No. 1, p. 8,
col. 1) is utter theoretical nonsense.15) In order to convince the reader that this is not the first time I
have given this "high" appreciation of state capitalism and that I
gave it before the Bolsheviks seized power I take the liberty of
quoting the following passage from my pamphlet The Impending
Catastrophe and How to Combat It , written in September 1917.16) ". . . Try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the
landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a
state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does
not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way.
You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state,
state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step,
and more than one step, towards socialism!17) ". . . For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-
capitalist monopoly.
". . . State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation
for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of
history between which and the rung called socialism there are no
intermediate rungs " (pages 27 and 28)18) the less ought we to fear "state capitalism"?
19) From whatever side we approach the question, only one conclusion
can be drawn: the argument of the "Left Communists" about the "state
capitalism" which is alleged to be threatening us is an utter mistake
in economics and is evident proof that they are complete slaves of
petty-bourgeois ideology.20) On the other hand, we must use the method of compromise, or of
buying off the cultured capitalists who agree to "state capitalism",
who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the
proletariat as intelligent and experienced organisers of the largest
types of enterprises, which actually supply products to tens of
millions of people.21) but are behind the most backward West-European country as regards
organising a good state capitalism,22) The workers are not petty bourgeois. They are not afraid of large-
scale "state capitalism", they prize it as their proletarian weapon
which their Soviet power like Chief Leather Committee and Central
Textile Committee take their place by the side of the capitalists,
learn from them, establish trusts, establish "state capitalism",
which under Soviet power represents the threshold of socialism, the
condition of its firm victory.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm
And from the great Ernest Mandel, trot theoretician extrordinaire;
Quote:
"The prevailing ideas of what exists in Russia today are those
of "state capitalism" and "Soviet imperialism." These are the
conceptions of the ruling bourgeois class which tries to attribute to
the Soviet bureaucracy all of its own sins – without the saving grace
of "democracy." At the same time, they provide the principal pretext
for petty bourgeois intellectuals not to "take sides" in the gigantic
class struggle developing on a world scale – when and if these ideas
don't serve the purpose of going over bag and baggage into the
bourgeois camp. The theory of state capitalism is defended not only
by the Social Democracy, whose theoreticians no one takes seriously,
and by insignificant ultra-leftist groups………."
And from the last footnote;
Quote:
"When Lenin and Trotsky were in power in Russia they never prevented,
to our knowledge, the ultra-left communists from defending orally and
in writing the theory of state capitalism. It is true that their
state was not withering away ..."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1951/06/statecap.htm
Could it all be a dream!
Oct 17 2008
#12
jura wrote:
Angelus Novus: But isn't Mandel's interpretation of Marx that you suggested also somewhat objectionable?
Yes, to the extent that Mandel, like all traditional Marxists, simply regards Marx as the "better" economist, rather than as having performed a categorical critique of political economy.
I certainly don't agree with Mandel on many theoretical questions, I was just offering you some suggestions as far as historical accounts of the early "anthropological" Marx and his relationship to the later "critique of political economy" Marx.
But I will say for Mandel: in his book on bureaucracy, _Power and Money_, he at least tries to defend his untenable ortho-Trot theories on the nature of Soviet society by explaining it in terms of categories like commodity, value, etc. Mandel makes the weak argument that post-capitalist society will retain the commodity form in its initial stages, but will attempt to suppress the operation of the "law of value" through planning.
Draper isn't even interested in such questions, since he has a purely political conception of socialism. So presumably there could be pogroms against Jews and the dropping of nuclear bombs on other countries in socialism, since Draper's only meaningful criteria is the working-class holding political power.
That's not to cast aspersions on the Marxological aspects of Draper's work as far as his quotation-mining, which I suppose is useful to a certain extent, but he marshals his research in support of his thesis that Marx's political writings are his essential contribution to the socialist movement.
Quote:
(I've never read anything by Mandel, but I noticed he usually appears among the examples of "traditional", "orthodox" and "objectivist" -- and perhaps also Weltanschauung? -- marxism.)
All of the above, although curiously enough, many present-day Mandelistas -- Daniel Bensaid, Enzo Traverso, Gilbert Achcar, Michael Löwy -- are far less orthodox thinkers, having digested and integrated the contributions of thinkers as diverse as Walter Benjamin, Adorno, Bataille, Deleuze, Kracauer, and Foucault. Then again, they are French professors, so it is probably obligatory that their range of intellectual interests would extend beyond the ortho-Trot pantheon. In fact, Bensaid's _Marx For Our Times_ at times seems to stake a claim for Marx as sort of the original post-modernist thinker. 
There is a group in Berlin, jour fixe initiative berlin, which is a split from the journal Bahamas (they were the "post-structuralist" faction of Bahamas), that regularly invites the above-named LCR heavyweights to seminars. The world is a strange place.
Oct 18 2008
#13
Angelus Novus wrote:
mikus wrote:
Hal Draper would probably be very helpful to you then. His discussion of Marx's transition to practical economic issues is the best that I've come across.Boah, Hal Draper's 4-volume book irritates me greatly (as for the issue of the transition, Althusser, Mandel, Heinrich, and many others have all given accounts, I don't see why Drapers necessarily stands out).
I haven't seen anyone else give the detail on the transition that Draper does in the first volume of Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution (KMTR).
Althusser is a a joke, I'd never recommend that anyone read him, even if only to see what he's babbling about. "For Marx" is one of the worst Marxist texts I've ever read. If I wanted to read bad philosophy I'd stick with Engels.
It's funny that you dislike Draper's singling out of a "the" Marxist position, while you seem to approve (more or less) of Althusser, given that Althusser is one of those types who gives "the" Marxist position by finding quoting Engels, Lenin, or Mao!
Angelus Novus wrote:
For one thing, Draper's book is the perfect example of a writer taking as many different quotations as possible from the most diverse of Marx's writings, and presenting it as *the* Marxist position.
As far as the issue concerned go (the transition from Marx's pre-communist writings to his communist writings), that's simply not true. He's quite aware that Marx's made a transition to understanding the economic basis of society.
Angelus Novus wrote:
That's not to say he doesn't take note of modifications in Marx's thought in the long run, just that he tends to regard it as a sort of tweaking of an otherwise smooth, continuous "Marxism". So the notion, say, that there are formulations in the Communist Manifesto which are ultimately incompatible with the account of capitalist society outlined in _Capital_, just doesn't occur to Draper.
He isn't primarily concerned with Marx's account of capitalist society. He's primarily concerned with the transition to socialism and the working class seizure of power.
I didn't say that Jura should consult Draper for his account of Capital. I said he should consult it (or at least the first half of the first volume) for his account of Marx's transition from his pre-communist writings to his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right to the period just beginning his analysis of political economy.
Angelus Novus wrote:
And true to his Trotskyist-Schachtmanite heritage, for Draper it is inconceivable that communism (or socialism as its lowest stage) implies the negation of value, the commodity, money, the working-class, and the state. No, Draper is a partisan of "socialism as the political rule of the working-class", i.e. socialism as the preservation of capitalist forms under new management.
You must be speaking of a different Hal Draper. He explicitly says that communism would involve the abolition of the state.
Anyway, the point of his book was not to give a picture of communist society, nor was the point of this thread to ask who gives the best picture of a communist society. It was about information pertaining to Marx's early political/economic development.
Angelus Novus wrote:
To the point where he makes statements like this:Quote:
It is insufficiently appreciated that, from early on, Marx and Engels habitually stated their political aim not in terms of a desired change in social system (socialism) but in terms of a change of class power (proletarian rule)Well there you have it! Proletarian rule as the defining criterion of Marxism!
Are you denying that Marx and Engels habitually sated their political aim in terms of a change in class power? If not, then I don't see your point.
Draper wrote:
Loren Goldner, in his review of Max Elbaum's _Revolution in the Air_, remarks about his experience with the American Schachtmanites and what anti-theoretical, workerist poseurs they were. None of them had any interest in reading _Capital_, so he left.
Again, I don't know what your point is. So what Draper wasn't a Capital expert? It doesn't have any bearing (unless you show otherwise) on his analysis of Marx's politics (which was his primary concern) nor with the point of this thread.
Oct 18 2008
#14
What does a question about what works to consult for information on Marx's early transition to the political economy have to do with Mandel's opinion on state-capitalism, or with whether or not the Schachttmanites (sp?) were familiar enough with Capital?
Oct 18 2008
#15
on marx's "comments on james mill's Éléments D’économie Politique", read this: Gesetzt, wir hätten als Menschen produziert:“ from the MXKS site. the links opens/downloads the pdf - it's in german. it's a discussion of the last couple of paragraphs where marx discusses communist (he says:human) production. it's quite interesting, and a rarity in the marxian corpus.
Oct 18 2008
#16
Sotev: Thanks. Haven't read it yet, but it looks kind of like what I've been looking for. It's interesting, given the immense dimensions of the "Marxist" tradition and the amount of books published on Marx and Marxism, that some of the early texts rarely ever get discussed. (So far, I wasn't able to find a satisfactory account of the quarrels in Rhineland -- ie. wood theft and wine workers -- that would tell me more than I already know from reading Marx's articles in Rheinische Zeitung. Even the pre-1989 Soviet literature that I've looked at doesn't say much. But I'm pretty sure that the commentaries in the corresponding MEGA volume would be interesting.)
Mikus & Angelus Novus: I'm not too much concerned about the author's politics when reading an interpretation of the "young Marx" (and especially not when it's mostly a historical matter) , but it's kind of good to know beforehand. I'll try to get to both Draper and Mandel, although Mandel will probably be easier to get to from Slovakia. (You can't imagine how useless our libraries are, there's almost nothing on Marx published in the West and newer than 1968).
Oh, and if any articles in Historical Materialism or Capital & Class and other academic journals come to your mind, that would be nice, because it's much easier to get them.
Oct 18 2008
#17
np jura. yes, what you say is valid. another text of interest would be his comments on the silesia uprising - "Critical Notes on the Article "The King of Prussia and Social Reform." . available in marxists.org and in mlwerke.de in german.
If I recall correctly, both texts - on j. mills and silesia, include the fundamental phrase "Human nature is the true community of men" - Das menschliche Wesen ist das wahre Gemeinwesen der Menschen. I think this is as deep as marx went throughout his life, as far as what i like to call "theory of the offensive" -that is, communist theory- goes.
another interesting book is Takahisa Oishi's "The unknown Marx", which you can get from here (megaupload)
Oct 18 2008
#18
Sotev: I've only skimmed over "The King of Prussia..." as of yet, but will take a look at it. I've read Oishi's book about a year ago, and it is interesting. Japanese Marxist scholarship seems to be pretty hard-core 
. (Digressing now, but did anyone get their hands on the multi-volume dictionary by Samezo Kuruma?)
Oct 18 2008
#19
Jura, Hal Draper does talk about the wood thefts a bit. I don't know if it's more detail than what you've already seen, but it's certainly more detail than I had seen at the time.
Oct 20 2008
#20
mikus wrote:
Althusser is a a joke, I'd never recommend that anyone read him, even if only to see what he's babbling about. "For Marx" is one of the worst Marxist texts I've ever read. If I wanted to read bad philosophy I'd stick with Engels.
I'm sorry you didn't get anything out of your reading of Althusser. I think Althusser's main contributions are twofold:
1) Making explicit the break between the "mature" Marx and the Feuerbachian anthropology of the 1844 manuscripts.
2) In the 'Reading Capital' volume, making the argumentative structure of _Capital_ the object of intellectual inquiry (though this project would not really get underway until the publication of Reichelt's _Zur logischen Struktur des Kapitalbegriffs bei Karl Marx_ and Backhaus's _Dialektik der Wertform_)
But other than that, I am not an "Althusserian", so I am not contrasting some "properly Marxist" Althusser against a "false Marxist" Draper.
Quote:
It's funny that you dislike Draper's singling out of a "the" Marxist position, while you seem to approve (more or less) of Althusser, given that Althusser is one of those types who gives "the" Marxist position by finding quoting Engels, Lenin, or Mao!
In an old article from the 70s, Martin Glaberman makes some rather trenchant criticisms of Althusser on this score. Apparently, in his later works, Althusser even regarded _Capital_ as insufficiently Marxist due to its still being infected with Hegelian traces, and upheld (if I'm remembering correctly) only the Notes on Wagner as the first "properly" Marxist work.
Quote:
As far as the issue concerned go (the transition from Marx's pre-communist writings to his communist writings), that's simply not true. He's quite aware that Marx's made a transition to understanding the economic basis of society.
It's not a matter for me of understanding the "economic basis of society" (and I'm not really sure if that's actually the point of the critique of political economy), but the fact that for Draper, what is properly "Marxist" about Marx is his alleged "political thought", as opposed to his "philosophical" or "economic" thought. Draper states this explicitly in the introduction to the first volume of his study. This separation alone into "Marx the political thinker", "Marx the economist", and "Marx the philosopher" is at the core of Draper's egregiously foreshortened understanding of Marx. And that he elevates the "political" thinker to predominance seals the deal.
Quote:
He isn't primarily concerned with Marx's account of capitalist society. He's primarily concerned with the transition to socialism and the working class seizure of power.
Yes, and not just in the 5 volumes of KTOR, but this is Draper's perspective as a whole. One has to read the shorter works in _Socialism from Below_ . There one sees that Draper's quotation-mongering in KTOR is basically intended as a foundation for his left-wing social democratic political perspectives (among other things, arguing against the perspective of the historical IWW and for the need for a labor party).
Quote:
I didn't say that Jura should consult Draper for his account of Capital.
I didn't imply that you did. I took your mention of Draper as an opportunity to riff on what an awful thinker Draper is.
Oct 22 2008
#21
Jura, I don't know why nobody has mentioned this work yet, but David Mclellen's book Marx Before Marxism http://www.amazon.com/Marx-Before-Marxism-David-McLellan/dp/B000OEI7DY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224703542&sr=8-1 has a very thorough reading of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Mclellen's discussion of Marx's development is quite astute, and he does a great job of situating the writings within a non-tautological/deterministic progression of Marx. It was a really good read.
Schlomo Avinieri's work on the the political philosophy of Hegel called Hegel's Theory of The Modern State http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b_0_24?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=hegel%27s+theory+of+the+modern+state&sprefix=Hegel%27s+theory+of+the+mo is also a very useful read. It develops a really good connection between Hegel's conceptions of the modern state and it's not that difficult to make any leaps between Hegel's conceptions and Marx's eventual development.
If I think of anything else, I'll tell you.
Mandel's quite a waste of time. I read his introduction to Capital Vol. I (Penguin edition) and just abandoned his introduction to Vol. II because it was just meandering all over the place. I think I'm just going to outright skip the one for Vol. III, which I plan on beginning in a month or two when I finish Vol. II.
Oct 25 2008
#22
Angelus Novus wrote:
It's not a matter for me of understanding the "economic basis of society" (and I'm not really sure if that's actually the point of the critique of political economy)
It certainly was the point in his early study of political economy, and he gives no evidence of having abandoned this point of view:
"My inquiry [in the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term "civil society"; that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy. The study of this, which I began in Paris, I continued in Brussels..."
Angelus Novus wrote:
Yes, and not just in the 5 volumes of KTOR, but this is Draper's perspective as a whole. One has to read the shorter works in _Socialism from Below_ . There one sees that Draper's quotation-mongering in KTOR is basically intended as a foundation for his left-wing social democratic political perspectives (among other things, arguing against the perspective of the historical IWW and for the need for a labor party).
I have read Socialism from Below (or at least the bulk of it), and I agree that Draper emphasizes working class power in his own works as well as his works on Marx. But to criticize his works on Marx, you'll have to show that his work on Marx was incorrect (which you haven't even attempted, and which I think in general you wouldn't be able to do because Draper does an excellent job in summarizing Marx's political thought, in spite of some errors), not just that you disagree with his politics.
You also completely misunderstand his point on the historic IWW. He explicitly didn't support the "boring from within" approach as the primary approach to organizing. He explicitly supported dual unionism when it was strategically advantageous. ("The fact that the IWW left the AFL doesn’t bother me a bit." Available here) This is just as incorrect as your claim that Hal Draper didn't want to abolish the state. (That said, I have disagreements with Draper's politics. But we don't get anywhere by making stuff up.)
And it's strange to me that you keep holding up the IWW as a great example of communist activity or organization or something. Are you aware that their goal was the working class seizure of power (and that according to you this is the reactionary "affirmation of the proletariat", whatever the hell that means)? Maybe you didn't get the memo.
Oct 25 2008
#23
mikus wrote:
It certainly was the point in his early study of political economy, and he gives no evidence of having abandoned this point of view:
Aggghh! The 1859 preface! Now I know you're just pushing my buttons.
Quote:
But to criticize his works on Marx, you'll have to show that his work on Marx was incorrect
I don't doubt the authenticity of Draper's quotations, if that's what you mean by "correct".
Oct 25 2008
#24
Angelus Novus wrote:
mikus wrote:
It certainly was the point in his early study of political economy, and he gives no evidence of having abandoned this point of view:Aggghh! The 1859 preface! Now I know you're just pushing my buttons.
This sounds like a personal problem.
Angelus Novus wrote:
Quote:
But to criticize his works on Marx, you'll have to show that his work on Marx was incorrectI don't doubt the authenticity of Draper's quotations, if that's what you mean by "correct".
Maybe you also missed the memo that Draper's books consist of more than just quotes.
And it's funny that a value-former would accuse others of quote mongering. Where would you guys be if you couldn't take a couple of random Marx quotes out of context and make a whole useless theory out of it?
Oct 26 2008
#25
mikus wrote:
This sounds like a personal problem.
Yes, every time I hear phrases like "real foundation" and "legal and political superstructure", I get an itchy red rash on my back.
Quote:
And it's funny that a value-former would accuse others of quote mongering.
You'll take our MEGA away when you pry it away from our cold, dead hands!
Oct 26 2008
#26
Angelus Novus wrote:
Quote:
And it's funny that a value-former would accuse others of quote mongering.You'll take our MEGA away when you pry it away from our cold, dead hands!
Only after affirming the proletariat, dropping nuclear bombs on other countries, and initiating pogroms.
The first volume of Hal Draper's "Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution" has some a good bit of info on Marx's early political development, as well as Engels' Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy. Personally I find his interpretation of Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right a bit flawed, but he says a lot of interesting things. Draper's knowledge of the general intellectual context and of Marx's other early writings on freedom of speech and democracy are very important, in my opinion.
I also think Lucio Colletti's introduction to the Penguin edition of Marx's Early Writings is a classic for his reading of Marx's Critique.
A lot of people like Shlomo Avineri's The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, but I haven't read him myself.
But I think you won't find a lot of Marx's critique of political economy in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. It is a confrontation with Hegel's political thought, not with economics. He does come to the conclusion, however, that the basis of the political state is in civil (or bourgeois) society.
I hope that helps.