*How can you use the pieces of the Communist Manifesto represented in the film Manifestoon to better understand the pieces you read for today?

Transcription

1 Class 1: Reading and Discussion Questions *How can you use the pieces of the Communist Manifesto represented in the film Manifestoon to better understand the pieces you read for today? *Based on what you've read and what you've just heard about his life and influence, why do you think Marx became such a polarizing figure? What does Lenin identify as the component parts of Marxism? How are they related to each other? Have you heard of these ideas before? If so, what do you know about them? Given the different struggles in which W.E.B. DuBois, Leila Khaled, Ho Chi Minh, and Albert Einstein engaged what common elements brought them to Marx's ideas? What was different for each? According to Einstein, why is it difficult for people to make good use of their political rights under capitalism? How does Einstein characterize a socialist economy? Why does he favor it? What social benefits does he see attached to a socialist economic system? Discuss this statement from DuBois: "Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to selfdestruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all." The four readings show how four very different people have been influenced by Marxism: the foremost scientist of the 20th century, an incredibly influential Black theorist of the US, the leader of the Vietnamese revolution, and a dedicated militant in the Palestinian struggle. 1. In Einstein's article, why does he say a planned economy is not yet socialism? 2. What was the most important issue for Ho Chi Minh when he was becoming a socialist and why? 3. Clearly, communism is not now "marching triumphantly on" as DuBois states in his article. But how can struggling for the aims he outlines at the end of his article relate to Marx's ideas about socialism succeeding capitalism? 4. Who in Leila Khaled's article are the major forces in the Palestinian revolution? 5. What were Einstein's main critiques of capitalism? 6. WEB DuBois took a long time in becoming a communist, what were his reasons? 7. What do you think of Leila Khaled's observations of Western radicals? 8. What were Marx's main contributions to understanding society and the struggle for liberation?

2 Class 1 Terms and Definitions Definitions taken from Merriam-Webster Online and original texts from Marx, Engles and Lenin. Marxism: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society. Marxism is the basis for Scientific Socialism (as opposed to non-marxist Socialism, which is called Utopian Socialism). Communism is the logical conclusion of Scientific Socialism, as they are both based in Marxism. Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production are largely in private hands and the main incentive for economic activity is the accumulation of profits. Labor Theory of Value is that labor creates all wealth in a society, and we laborers should be entitled (yes, ENTITLED!) to benefit from the fruits of our labor to the fullest extent. Dialectical Materialism: the study of change (dialectics) in the real world (materialism). The "study of change" means analyzing life from theory that nothing remains the same for long (the only thing that doesn't change is change itself). In "the real world" means only what is scientifically provable through "thesis, antithesis and synthesis." What it is not is idealism, metaphysics or pseudo-sciences. Class Struggle: the fact that there are two classes: the working class and the owning class, and their interests are in opposition; hence they are constantly struggling. Bourgeoisie: The class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor. Proletariat: Marxist-Leninists define the proletariat or working class as "...that class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live." In modern society, "... the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class...so that, in producing the proletariat, the bourgeoisie produces... its own gravediggers". Petit Bourgeoisie: Between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, stands the petty bourgeoisie: Marxist-Leninists define the petty bourgeoisie as a class which owns or rents small means of production which it operates largely without employing wage labour, but often with the assistance of members of their families. They are sometimes owners of the means of production and sometimes aligned with the proletariat. This also applies to a section of employed persons -- those who are involved in superintendence and the lower levels of management -- e.g., foremen, charge-hands, departmental managers, etc. These employees have a supervisory function, a function is to ensure that the workers produce a maximum of surplus value for the employer. On the one hand, such persons are exploited workers, with interests in common with the proletariat (from

3 which they largely spring); on the other hand, their position as agents of the management in supervising the efficient exploitation of their fellow employees gives them interests in common with the bourgeoisie: Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the idea that the proletariat (the working class) should alone run society during the transitional stage of Socialism. This is often misinterpreted to be thought of as one dictator runs everything. But what it means is that instead of democracy for all (including the class enemies), it is only democracy for the working class, which is why it is by definition a "dictatorship." Socialism: An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in organizing the process of production. Classless Society is when there are no longer classes in opposition of one another (e.g., the owning class and working class), which is brought about through the implementation of Socialism via the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Communism: an economic theory or system based on the ownership of all property by the community as a whole; the final stage of socialism as formulated by Marx, Engels, Lenin and others characterized by a classless and stateless society and the equal distribution of economic goods; achieved by revolutionary means.

4 W.E.B. DuBois On this first day of October 1961, I am applying for admission to membership in the Communist Party of the United States. I have been long and slow in coming to this conclusion, but a last my mind is settled. In college I heard the name of Karl Marx, abut read none of his works, nor heard them explained. At the University of Berlin, I heard much of those thinkers who had definitively answered the theories of Marx but again we did not study what Marx himself had said. Nevertheless, I attended meetings of the Socialist Party and considered myself a Socialist. On my return to America, I taught and studied for sixteen years. I explored the theory of Socialism and studied the organized social life to American Negroes; but still I neither read or heard much of Marxism. Then I came to New York as an official of the new NAACP and editor of ìthe Crisisî Magazine. The NAACP was capitalist oriented and expected support from rich philanthropists. But it had a strong Socialist element in its leadership in persons like Mary Ovington, William English Walling and Charles Edward Russell. Following their advice, I joined the Socialist Party in I knew then nothing of practical socialist politics and in the campaign of 1912, I found myself unwilling to vote the Socialist ticket, but advised Negroes to vote for [Woodrow] Wilson. This was contrary to Socialist Party rules and consequently I resigned from the Socialist Party. For the next twenty years I tried to develop a political way of life for myself and my people. I attacked the democrats and Republicans for monopoly and disfranchisement; I attacked the Socialist for trying to segregate Southern Negro members; I praised the racial attitudes of the Communists, but opposed their tactics in the case of the Scottsboro boys and their advocacy of a Negro state. At the same time, I began to study Karl Marx and the communists; I read ìdas Kapitalî and other Communist literature; I hailed the Russian Revolution of 1917, but was puzzled at the contradictory news from Russia. Finally in 1926, I began a new effort: I visited Communist lands. I went to the Soviet Union in 1926, 1936, 1949 and 1959; I saw the nation develop. I visited East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland. I spent ten weeks in China, traveling all over the land. Then this summer, I rested a month in Rumania. I was earl convinced that Socialism was an excellent way of life, but I thought it might be reached by various methods. Fro Russia I was convinced she had chosen the only way open to her at the time. I saw Scandinavia choosing a different method, half-way between Socialism and Capitalism. In the United States I saw Consumers Cooperation as a path from Capitalism to Socialism, while England, France and Germany developed in the same direction in their own way. After the [1929 Great] depression and the Second World War, I was disillusioned. The Progressive movement in the United States failed. The Cold War started. Capitalism called Communism a crime. 1

5 Today I have reached a firm conclusion. Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good to all. Communism - the effort to give all men what they need and to ask of each the best they can contribute this is the only hope of human life. It is a difficult and hard end to reach - it has and will make mistakes, but today it marches triumphantly on in education and science, in home and food, with increasing freedom of thought and deliverance from dogma. In the end Communism will triumph. I want to help bring that day. The path of the American Communist Party is clear: It will provide the United States with a real Third Party and thus restore democracy to the land It will call for: 1. Public ownership of natural resources and all of capital. 2. Public control of transportation and communication. 3. Abolition of poverty and limitation of personal income. 4. No exploitation of labor 5. Social medicine with hospitalization and care of the old. 6. Free education for all. 7. Training for jobs and jobs for all. 8. Discipline for growth and reforms. 9. Freedom under law. 10. No dogmatic religion. These aims are not crimes. They are practiced increasingly over the world. No nation can call itself free which does not allow its citizens to work for these ends. 2

6 From My People Shall Live, the Autobiography of a Revolutionary Leila Khaled In this excerpt from her autobiography, Chapter 4 titled The Road to Haifa, Palestinian revolutionary Leila Khaled outlines the program of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and describes her training as a guerrilla fighter in The National Front and the forces that constitute the revolution: 1. We consider Palestinian national unity as essential in the mobilization of all the forces of the revolution to resist the enemy camp. On this basis we should adopt a definite stand in this direction. 2. The form of national unity is the creation of a front in which all the classes of the revolution---workers, peasants and petit bourgeoisie should be represented. 3. We should attend actively to the mobilization of workers and peasants in one revolutionary political organization armed with the ideology of scientific socialism. On this basis we should actively attempt to unify all the left-wing Palestinian organizations which, through dialogue between them and through their experience, can commit themselves to such an analysis. 4. The petit bourgeoisie will not join an organization committed to scientific socialism and strong political organization. Thus it will join those Palestinian organizations which raise general liberal slogans, avoid clarity in thinking and analysis of class structure, and exist in an organizational form that does not require of the petit bourgeoisie more than its capacity. In other words, the petit bourgeoisie will fill, in the first place, the ranks of EL- Fateh and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). 5. On this basis, and on the basis of our understanding of the basic conflict, the nature of the present phase and the necessity of national unity to assemble all the forces of revolution to resist Israel, we should work oft the establishment of a national front with El-Fateh and the PLO which can offer the war of liberation the necessary class alliance on the one hand, and protect the right of each class to view the war and plan for it in accordance with its class vision on the other.....before we embarked on a mission to test our endurance, the head of the military school, comrade Hassan, gave us a final briefing in which he distinguished between mere political agitation and fund-raising and politico-military work. He concluded his speech by saying, This phase of our work is harsh and severe. Once you start it you can t withdraw until the objective is accomplished. Therefore, he continued, examine your consciences, comrades, and see if you re really up to it, if not please depart in peace. Startled, we each looked around and wondered whether we should proceed or withdraw. A three-hour struggle session followed. The arguments centered around whether our training was going to be used or whether we were just training for contingencies. We also argued about individuality, the role of women in the Movement and the kind of relationship we were going to have with parents, boy friends or husbands. If a woman decided to commit herself to this phase of the revolution it meant the final break with her past and relegating her private life and desires to a secondary position. If she was unable to accept these terms, then she could make a partial 3

7 commitment to become a supporter of a friend of the resistance rather than train to become a professional revolutionary. At camp I did my utmost to prove that I was fit to be a good guerrilla fighter. I carried out orders conscientiously. My instructors offered no criticism, expressed no admiration, and had no particular plan for me. I knew that the PFLP leadership would take my personal desires into consideration, but would decide what missions I was to undertake on the basis of my potential and performances. The training schedule was exacting, but occasionally left us time for a little fun. We were entertaining a group of foreign students and trying to lead a Bedouin kind of life in order to politicize our Bedouin population. The students had been attending an international solidarity meeting in Amman [Jordan] held under the auspices of the General Union of Palestinian Students. Most were graduates of the 1968 university upheavals in the West. We found it very amusing that they honestly believed they were making a ìrevolutionî if they undressed in public, seized a university building, or shouted an obscenity at bureaucrats. I was initially opposed and refused to talk to them, even though some believed in violent revolution, because I didnít want to be another experimental ìguinea-pigî to Westerners. I finally relented and I am glad I did. I hadnít met Western revolutionaries before. It turned out they represented an unfamiliar cultural rather than a political phenomenon. Some seemed to have read the historic political literature of the left, but most regarded the Marxist-Leninist leaders disdainfully, with the exception of the Young Marx, who held some sort of fascination for a few of them Though we were impressed by their moral integrity and personal dedication, we felt their ideology and strategy had little to do with the making of revolution. Some Americans were quite serious and believed in the historic mission of the working class and were making plans to integrate themselves with the masses. What astonished us most about this group was that they were opposed to nationalism, a doctrine we hold dearly as a colonized and dissipated people. Some believed in violence for the hell of it and in students as revolutionary agents of history. But the majority were inclined towards guerrilla theater as a means of making revolution. They performed a little for us. As they were departing I was rather struck by a French anarchist student who proclaimed, Let chaos reign and by a German who echoed the same sentiment. I exclaimed that the Palestinian people were an example of a society in chaos without authority and leadership, which as a result, was left at the mercy of the Zionist oppressor. 4

8 From Why Socialism (1949) Albert Einstein I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not view dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his makeup are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor--not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production--that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods--may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production--although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most 5

9 cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism. Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult sociopolitical problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? 6

10 The Path Which Led Me to Leninism (1960) Ho Chi Minh After World War One, I made my living in Paris, at one time as an employee at a photographer's, at another as painter of "Chinese antiques" (turned out by a French shop). I often distributed leaflets denouncing the crimes committed by the French colonialists in Vietnam. At that time, I supported the October Revolution only spontaneously. I did not yet grasp all its historic importance. I loved and respected Lenin because he was a great patriot who had liberated his fellow-countrymen; until then, I had read none of his books. The reason for my joining the French Socialist Party was because those "ladies and gentlemen" - so I called my comrades in those days - had shown their sympathy with me, with the struggle of the oppressed people. But I had no understanding as yet of what a party, a trade-union socialism and communism, were. Heated discussions were then taking place in the cells of the Socialist Party, about whether one should remain in the Second International, found a "Second-and-a-half" International or join Lenin's Third International? I attended the meetings regularly, two or three times a week and attentively listened to the speakers. At first, I did not understand everything. Why should the discussion be so heated? Whether with the Second, Second and-a-half or Third International, the revolution could be waged. Why squabble? And what about the First International? What had become of it? What I wanted most to know - and what was not debated in the meetings - was: which International sided with the peoples of the colonial countries? I raised this question - the must important for me - at a meeting. Some comrades answered: it was the Third, not the Second International. One gave me to read Lenin's "Theses on the national and colonial questions" printed in l'humanity. In those Theses, there were political terms that were difficult to understand. But by reading them again and again finally I was able to grasp the essential part. What emotion, enthusiasm, enlightenment and confidence they communicated to me! I wept for joy. Sitting by myself in my room, I would shout as if I were addressing large crowds: "Dear martyr compatriots! This is what we need, this is our path to liberation!" Since then, I had entire confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Formerly, during the cell meetings, I had only listened to the discussions. I had a vague feeling that what each speaker was saying had some logic in it, and I was not able to make out who were right and who were wrong. But from then on, I also plunged into the debates and participated with fervor in the discussions. Though my French was still too weak to express all my thoughts, I hit hard at the allegations attacking Lenin and the Third International. My only argument was: "If you do not condemn colonialism, if you do not side with the colonial peoples, what kind of revolution are you then waging?" 7

11 Not only did I take part in the meetings of my own cell, I also went to other Party cells to defend "my" position. Here I must again say that comrades Marcel Cachin, Vaillant-Couturier, Monmousseau and many others helped me to broaden my knowledge. Eventually, at the Tours Congress, I voted with them for our joining the Third International. At first, it was patriotism, not yet communism which led me to have confidence in Lenin, in the Third International. Step by step, during the course of the struggle, by studying Marxism- Leninism while engaging in practical activities, I gradually understood that only socialism and communism can liberate the oppressed nations and the working people throughout the world from slavery. There is a legend, in our country as well as in China, about the magic "Brocade Bag". When facing great difficulties, one opens it and finds a way out. For us Vietnamese revolutionaries and people, Leninism is not only a miraculous "Brocade Bag", a compass, but also a radiant sun. illuminating our path to final victory, to socialism and communism. 8

12 Frederick Engels Speech at the Grave of Karl Marx Highgate Cemetery, London. March 17, 1883 On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep -- but for ever. An immeasurable loss has been sustained both by the militant proletariat of Europe and America, and by historical science, in the death of this man. The gap that has been left by the departure of this mighty spirit will soon enough make itself felt. Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case. But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark. Two such discoveries would be enough for one lifetime. Happy the man to whom it is granted to make even one such discovery. But in every single field which Marx investigated -- and he investigated very many fields, none of them superficially -- in every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries. Such was the man of science. But this was not even half the man. Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in historical development in general. For example, he followed closely the development of the discoveries made in the field of electricity and recently those of Marcel Deprez. For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival. His work on the first Rheinische Zeitung (1842), the Paris Vorwarts 9

13 (1844), the Deutsche Brusseler Zeitung (1847), the Neue Rheinische Zeitung ( ), the New York Tribune ( ), and, in addition to these, a host of militant pamphlets, work in organizations in Paris, Brussels and London, and finally, crowning all, the formation of the great International Working Men's Association -- this was indeed an achievement of which its founder might well have been proud even if he had done nothing else. And, consequently, Marx was the best hated and most calumniated man of his time. Governments, both absolutist and republican, deported him from their territories. Bourgeois, whether conservative or ultra-democratic, vied with one another in heaping slanders upon him. All this he brushed aside as though it were a cobweb, ignoring it, answering only when extreme necessity compelled him. And he died beloved, revered and mourned by millions of revolutionary fellow workers -- from the mines of Siberia to California, in all parts of Europe and America -- and I make bold to say that, though he may have had many opponents, he had hardly one personal enemy. His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work. 10

14 Vladimir Ilyich Lenin The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism Published: Prosveshcheniye No 3., March Signed: V. I.. Published according to the Prosveshcheniye text. Source: Lenin s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1977, Moscow, Volume 19, pages Translated: The Late George Hanna Original Transcription: Lee Joon Koo and Marc Luzietti Re-Marked up by: K. Goins (2008) Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (1996). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit Marxists Internet Archive as your source. This article was published in 1913 in Prosveshcheniye No. 3, dedicated to the Thirtieth Anniversary of Marx s death. Prosveshcheniye (Enlightenment) was a Bolshevik social, political and literary monthly published legally in St. Petersburg from December 1911 onwards. Its inauguration was proposed by Lenin to replace the Bolshevik journal Mysl (Thought), a Moscow publication banned by the tsarist government. Lenin directed the work of the journal from abroad and wrote the following articles for it: Fundamental Problems of the Election Campaign, Results of the Election, Critical Remarks on the National Question, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, and others. The journal was suppressed by the tsarist government in June 1914, on the eve of the First World War. Publication was resumed in the autumn of 1917 but only one double number appeared; this number contained two articles by Lenin: Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? and A Review of the Party Programme. Throughout the civilised world the teachings of Marx evoke the utmost hostility and hatred of all bourgeois science (both official and liberal), which regards Marxism as a kind of pernicious sect. And no other attitude is to be expected, for there can be no impartial social science in a society based on class struggle. In one way or another, all official and liberal science defends wage-slavery, whereas Marxism has declared relentless war on that slavery. To expect science to be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital. But this is not all. The history of philosophy and the history of social science show with perfect clarity that there is nothing resembling sectarianism in Marxism, in the sense of its being a hidebound, petrified doctrine, a doctrine which arose away from the high road of the development of world civilisation. On the contrary, the genius of Marx consists precisely in his having furnished answers to questions already raised by the foremost minds of mankind. His doctrine emerged as the direct and immediate continuation of the teachings of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy and socialism. The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of

15 bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism. It is these three sources of Marxism, which are also its component parts that we shall outline in brief. I The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the eighteenth century in France, where a resolute struggle was conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism has proved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, true to all the teachings of natural science and hostile to superstition, cant and so forth. The enemies of democracy have, therefore, always exerted all their efforts to refute, under mine and defame materialism, and have advocated various forms of philosophical idealism, which always, in one way or another, amounts to the defence or support of religion. Marx and Engels defended philosophical materialism in the most determined manner and repeatedly explained how profoundly erroneous is every deviation from this basis. Their views are most clearly and fully expounded in the works of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Dühring, which, like the Communist Manifesto, are handbooks for every class-conscious worker. But Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism: he developed philosophy to a higher level, he enriched it with the achievements of German classical philosophy, especially of Hegel s system, which in its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural science radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements have been a remarkable confirmation of Marx s dialectical materialism despite the teachings of the bourgeois philosophers with their new reversions to old and decadent idealism. Marx deepened and developed philosophical materialism to the full, and extended the cognition of nature to include the cognition of human society. His historical materialism was a great achievement in scientific thinking. The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics were replaced by a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism. Just as man s knowledge reflects nature (i.e., developing matter), which exists independently of him, so man s social knowledge (i.e., his various views and doctrines philosophical, religious, political and so forth) reflects the economic system of society. Political institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundation. We see, for example, that the various political forms of the modern European states serve to strengthen the domination of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. Marx s philosophy is a consummate philosophical materialism which has provided mankind, and especially the working class, with powerful instruments of knowledge. II Having recognised that the economic system is the foundation on which the political superstructure is erected, Marx devoted his greatest attention to the study of this economic system. Marx s principal work, Capital, is devoted to a study of the economic system of modern, i.e., capitalist, society. Classical political economy, before Marx, evolved in England, the most developed of the capitalist countries. Adam Smith and David Ricardo, by their investigations of the economic system, laid the

16 foundations of the labour theory of value. Marx continued their work; he provided a proof of the theory and developed it consistently. He showed that the value of every commodity is determined by the quantity of socially necessary labour time spent on its production. Where the bourgeois economists saw a relation between things (the exchange of one commodity for another) Marx revealed a relation between people. The exchange of commodities expresses the connection between individual producers through the market. Money signifies that the connection is becoming closer and closer, inseparably uniting the entire economic life of the individual producers into one whole. Capital signifies a further development of this connection: man s labour-power becomes a commodity. The wageworker sells his labour-power to the owner of land, factories and instruments of labour. The worker spends one part of the day covering the cost of maintaining himself and his family (wages), while the other part of the day he works without remuneration, creating for the capitalist surplus-value, the source of profit, the source of the wealth of the capitalist class. The doctrine of surplus-value is the corner-stone of Marx s economic theory. Capital, created by the labour of the worker, crushes the worker, ruining small proprietors and creating an army of unemployed. In industry, the victory of large-scale production is immediately apparent, but the same phenomenon is also to be observed in agriculture, where the superiority of large-scale capitalist agriculture is enhanced, the use of machinery increases and the peasant economy, trapped by moneycapital, declines and falls into ruin under the burden of its backward technique. The decline of small-scale production assumes different forms in agriculture, but the decline itself is an indisputable fact. By destroying small-scale production, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labour and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists. Production itself becomes more and more social hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism but the product of this collective labour is appropriated by a handful of capitalists. Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the population are intensified. By increasing the dependence of the workers on capital, the capitalist system creates the great power of united labour. Marx traced the development of capitalism from embryonic commodity economy, from simple exchange, to its highest forms, to large-scale production. And the experience of all capitalist countries, old and new, year by year demonstrates clearly the truth of this Marxian doctrine to increasing numbers of workers. Capitalism has triumphed all over the world, but this triumph is only the prelude to the triumph of labour over capital. III When feudalism was overthrown and free capitalist society appeared in the world, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people. Various socialist doctrines immediately emerged as a reflection of and protest against this oppression. Early socialism, however, was utopian socialism. It criticised capitalist society, it condemned and damned it, it dreamed of its destruction, it had visions of a better order and endeavoured to convince the rich of the immorality of exploitation.

17 But utopian socialism could not indicate the real solution. It could not explain the real nature of wageslavery under capitalism, it could not reveal the laws of capitalist development, or show what social force is capable of becoming the creator of a new society. Meanwhile, the stormy revolutions which everywhere in Europe, and especially in France, accompanied the fall of feudalism, of serfdom, more and more clearly revealed the struggle of classes as the basis and the driving force of all development. Not a single victory of political freedom over the feudal class was won except against desperate resistance. Not a single capitalist country evolved on a more or less free and democratic basis except by a life-anddeath struggle between the various classes of capitalist society. The genius of Marx lies in his having been the first to deduce from this the lesson world history teaches and to apply that lesson consistently. The deduction he made is the doctrine of the class struggle. People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. Champions of reforms and improvements will always be fooled by the defenders of the old order until they realise that every old institution, how ever barbarous and rotten it may appear to be, is kept going by the forces of certain ruling classes. And there is only one way of smashing the resistance of those classes, and that is to find, in the very society which surrounds us, the forces which can and, owing to their social position, must constitute the power capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new, and to enlighten and organise those forces for the struggle. Marx s philosophical materialism alone has shown the proletariat the way out of the spiritual slavery in which all oppressed classes have hitherto languished. Marx s economic theory alone has explained the true position of the proletariat in the general system of capitalism. Independent organisations of the proletariat are multi plying all over the world, from America to Japan and from Sweden to South Africa. The proletariat is becoming enlightened and educated by waging its class struggle; it is ridding itself of the prejudices of bourgeois society; it is rallying its ranks ever more closely and is learning to gauge the measure of its successes; it is steeling its forces and is growing irresistibly. Works Index Volume 19 Collected Works L.I.A. Index < backward forward >

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48