|
You are invited to a new series of discussions
on
The major developments of our time, such as the
globalization of capitalism and the glaring inequities and injustices it is
producing, has led to renewed interest in Marx’s critique of capitalism. Marx’s
work addresses questions that are only first being widely asked today—such as
is there an alternative to both existing capitalism and the failure of what
called itself “socialism” of the past 100 years? Is it possible for humanity to
free itself from capitalist value production and alienated human relations?
These unresolved questions call for a
wide-ranging and in-depth exploration of what Marx’s thought means for today.
Few writers more directly addressed that question than Raya Dunayevskaya
(1910-1987), founder of Marxist-Humanism in the U.S. This series will explore
central issues in Marx’s thought by studying a number of her writings on Marx
that will be included in a forthcoming book. We will also read selections from
Marx as well as from other writers on Marx.
Join us for these open series of discussions.
Admission is Free, All reading material is available from
News and Letters Committees. Unless otherwise indicated, readings are by
Raya Dunayevskaya. Selected shortened web versions of her writings are
available through the links here.
Study questions are below.
For information contact the
News and Letters Committee near you.
Meeting 1
Marx vs. Post-Marx Marxism: Marx, Lenin and Luxemburg and the Search for an
Alternative to Capitalism
Our generation is the first to have access to all of Marx’s writings. We can
therefore measure to what extent Marxists after Marx lived up to his concept of
liberation. We will explore this issue by re-examining Marx’s thought in light
of the contributions of two of the most important post-Marx Marxists—V.I. Lenin
and Rosa Luxemburg.
Readings:
Rosa Luxemburg, Women’s Liberation, and Marx’s Philosophy of Revolution
(1981)
// Chapter 9, Section 1, “A Preliminary Note on the Dialectic”
// Chapter 12, Section 1, “Post-Marx Marxists...”
“The Inevitability of Socialism and the Law of Motion of Capitalist Society”
(1946)
“Theoretic Preparation for Uprooting Capitalism: Marxist-Humanist Perspectives
Thesis, 2006-2007"
Meeting 2
Capitalism’s Law of Value: What it is, What is Needed to Abolish It (I)
What is distinctive about capitalism? What explains its drive for
self-expansion and the alienated human relations produced by it? What must be
done in order to abolish capitalism? We will address these questions by focusing
on Marx’s critique of the capitalist law of value, which took on new importance
when the Stalinist rulers of the USSR announced in the 1940’s that the law of
value also applied to “socialism.”
Readings:
“A New Revision of Marxian Economics” (1944)
“Teaching of Economics in the Soviet Union,” author unknown, translated by
Dunayevskaya (1944)
Meeting 3
Capitalism’s Law of Value: What it is, What is Needed to Abolish It (II)
We will continue the discussion of what is distinctive about capitalism and
what is needed to abolish it, in light of the debates on Marx’s critique of the
law of value that have defined much of the discussion of his work over the past
several decades.
Readings:
“Revision or Reaffirmation of Marxism?” (1945)
Supplementary reading:
Essays by Oskar Lange, Leo Rogin, Paul Baran in American Economic Review,
1944-45
Meeting 4
The Despotic Plan of Capital vs. ‘New Passions and New Forces’ for
Liberation
Marx’s critique of alienated labor and the despotic plan of capital are
central to his critique of class society. His concept of the creative ability of
the oppressed to overcome conditions of alienation is just as important. We will
here explore how both themes are interwoven in Marx’s critique of capitalist
production.
Readings:
“The Revolt of the Workers and the Plan of the Intellectuals” (1951)
“Results of Immediate Process of Production,” Marx’s Capital; pp. 988-992;
pp. 1052-56
Meeting 5
Automation, Technology, and the New Society
What role does technology play in capitalism?
What role might it play in a non-capitalist society? What is the emancipatory
alternative—capital or the subjects of revolt who struggle against it? This
meeting focuses on these key issues in modern radical theory.
Readings:
Marxism and Freedom: From the Industrial Revolution to Automation" (1955)
Exchange of Letters with Herbert Marcuse on Automation (1960)
Meeting 6
Marx’s Concept of the Transcendence of Alienation
Marx’s theory of alienation was deeply indebted to Hegel’s thought. Hegel’s
thought also impacted Marx’ concept of the transcendence of alienation. This
meeting will explore how Marx’s transformation of Hegel’s revolution in
philosophy into a philosophy of revolution speaks to the quest for a humanist
alternative to capitalism today.
Readings:
“The Theory of Alienation: Marx’s Debt to Hegel” (1965)
“Marx’s Humanism Today” (1965)
Supplementary reading:
Excerpt from Louis Althusser’s For Marx, pp. 221-247
Meeting 7
Marx’s Capital and Today’s Global Crises
Capital was Marx’s greatest theoretical work. Can Capital help us comprehend
the nature of today’s capitalist globalization? In what ways has Marx’s Capital
been misunderstand by many thinkers—especially those who separated the
dialectical humanism of the “young” Marx from the “mature” Marx who wrote
Capital.
Readings:
“Today’s Epigones Who Try to Truncate Marx’s Capital” (1978)
Excerpt from Ernest Mandel’s Introduction to Capital, Vol. I, pp. 11-17
Meeting 8
Marx’s Humanism, Women’s Liberation, and non-Western Societies
Although many Marxists as well as anti-Marxists have presented Marx as a
“Eurocentric” thinker concerned only with class struggle, the writings of his
last decade (1875-83) show an intense interest in questions of gender and
non-western societies—issues that also concerned him in his earlier writings.
This meeting will explore what Marx’s writings on women and non-Western
societies mean for today.
Readings:
“Marx’s ‘New Humanism’ and the Dialectics of Women’s Liberation in
Primitive and Modern Societies” (1983)
Supplementary reading:
Excerpt from Edward Said’s Orientalism, pp. 1-9, 155-157
Meeting 9
Marx's Philosophy of 'Revolution in Permanence' in Today's Battle of Ideas
Issues of race, as well as of culture, are critically important issues in
social transformation —both in the U.S. and around the world. This meeting
takes up both in the context of what Raya Dunayevskaya called “the absolute
challenge to our age”— re-creating Marx’s multidimensional philosophy of
revolution for our era.
Readings:
Rosa Luxemburg, Women’s Liberation, and Marx’s Philosophy of Revolution
// Chapter 9, Section 4, “A 1980s View“ (1981)
“Marx and the Black World” (1983)
“Marx’s Critique of Culture” (1984)
Supplementary reading:
Excerpt from Marx’s Social Critique of Culture by Louis Dupré, pp. 43-50,
169-81
MARX FOR TODAY SERIES / STUDY QUESTIONS
Meeting 1
Marx vs. Post-Marx Marxism: Marx, Lenin and Luxemburg and the Search for an
Alternative to Capitalism
1) What specific understanding of “absolute method” does Raya Dunayevskaya
draw from Lenin’s writings of 1914-15, in her discussion in section 1 of chapter
9 of Rosa Luxemburg, Women’s Liberation, and Marx’s Philosophy of Revolution?
2) What “a priori
formulation” of Rosa Luxemburg does Dunayevskaya praise in chapter 9, section 1
of Rosa
Luxemburg, Women's Liberation and Marx's Philosophy of Revolution
as well as in her 1946 essay “The Inevitability of Socialism and the Law of
Motion of Capitalist Society.”? Why does she consider Luxemburg’s formulation to
be of great importance?
3) According to the readings for this meeting, in what way did dialectics
“impinge” on the birth and development of Marx’s philosophy of revolution?
4) According to Dunayevskaya, in what ways did the “economist mire” of the
Second International show itself in even the greatest revolutionaries of the
time? What specific contribution did Marx make on dialectics that was not
carried through by the first generations of Marxists who followed his death in
1883?
5) What theoretic insights are offered by grappling with Marx’s works as a
totality in light of the writings of his last decade (1872-75)?
6) According to the essay “The Inevitability of Socialism and the Laws of
Motion of Capitalist Society” (1946), exactly how did Marx’s concept of
socialism enable him to grasp the transitory and crisis-ridden nature of
capitalist value production? What does this have to do with developing a
philosophically grounded alternative to capitalism today?
Meeting 2
Capitalism’s Law of Value
What it is, What is Needed to Abolish It (I)
1) Dunayevskaya argues that "Teaching of Economics in the Soviet Union"
"completely identif[ies] 'distribution according to labor' with distribution
according to value" (p. 532). What evidence does she provide in support of this?
What does she regard as the difference between distribution according to labor
and distribution according to value?
2) Dunayevskaya quotes the claim in "Teaching of Economics...” that "the
measure of labor and measure of consumption in a socialist society can be
calculated only on the basis of the law of value" (p. 532; p. 522). What does
the article mean by "measure of labor and measure of consumption"? What
arguments does the article make in support of its claim?
3) In critiquing the Stalinists’ claim that the USSR was non-exploitative
society but that the law of value functioned within it (see p. 512, 518, 525),
Dunayevskaya contends that "the law of value entails the use of the concept of
alienated or exploited labor and, as a consequence, the concept of surplus
value” (p. 533). What arguments does she make to support this? What exactly does
she mean by "entails"? Since Marx sometimes discusses cases of self-employed
craftsman (e.g., tailors) who produce value but do no exploit themselves, is her
position consistent with Marx's views? Why or why not?
4) Dunayevskaya states "Teaching of Economics..." implies that “the [Soviet]
state is really 'for' the principle of paying labor according to needs, but is
forced by objective necessity to pay according to value." Why does she call this
"the core of the Marxist theory of value”? What exactly is the "objective
necessity" to which she refers?
5) Dunayevskaya approvingly quotes Engels' statement that, under socialism,
"at last the producers control their products," whereas the economic category of
value "is the most comprehensive expression of the subjection of the producers
by their own product" (p. 535). What do "control their products" and "subjection
by their own product" mean here?
6) Dunayevskaya wrote that "Teaching of Economics..." presents “an
administrative formula for minimum costs and maximum production" (p. 537). What
textual evidence from it supports her view? How is this related to the
"distribution according to labor" issue, and the controversy over the
relationship between exploitation and the law of value? Do you think
Dunayevskaya’s conclusion is correct?
Meeting 3
Capitalism’s Law of Value
What it is, What is Needed to Abolish It (II)
1) How does Baran (pp. 867-69) claim that “Teaching of Economics” (1944) was
wrong in saying the “law of value” operated in Russia? Does what he mean by “law
of value” differ from what the article means by it? Why does Dunayevskaya (p.
664) suggest this issue is not (only) “terminological”? In her view, why did the
Soviet economists not employ Baran’s strategy of definin the law of value in a
way that implies it didn’t operate in USSR?
2) Baran (pp. 869-70) suggests that Dunayevskaya was “careless [treating]
basic Marxian categories,” by identifying “inequality of incomes in Russia” with
“class differentiation.” On what basis does she (p. 663) reject this charge, and
why does she suggest that it is appropriate to infer the existence of class
differentiation from income inequality?
3) How does Lange (pp. 128-29) support his claim that Marx held that the law
of value will operate in socialism? How does Dunayevskaya (pp. 661-62) challenge
his interpretation of the passages from Marx that he quotes? What is the
significance of the fact that the passage from chapter 1 of Capital uses the
word “labor-time” rather than “value?
4. Why does Rogin (p. 138) evidently think that the theoretical (or
methodological) dispute between Dunayevskaya and the authors of “Teaching of
Economics in the Soviet Union” is a dispute over “distribution in a socialist
society”? Why does Dunayevskaya (p. 663) suggest that this is not so? What does
she mean when she writes, “The new Soviet formula for distribution is in reality
a euphemism for the realities of production”?
5) In response to Rogin, Dunayevskaya (pp. 662-63) distinguishes between
distribution according to labor-time and distribution according to value. Why,
in her view, is value (unlike labor-time) “not a quantitative relationship but a
qualitative relationship”? Is she implying that the concept of value is without
quantitative implications and/or that quantitative issues are irrelevant to
whether the law of value operated in the USSR?
6) “Teaching of Economics in the Soviet Union” proposed (pp. 507-08) that
teachers of political economy not follow the structure of Capital; in
particular, they should not begin with the concept of “commodity.” Dunayevskaya
(“A New Revision...” pp. 536-37) contends that this proposal “follows inexorably
from the break with the Marxian concept of the law of value.” What does she mean
by this? How would following the structure of Capital tend to call into question
the Stalinist revision of the law of value?
Meeting 4
The Despotic Plan of Capital vs.
‘New Passions and New Forces’ for Liberation
1) In “The Revolt of the Workers and the Plan of the Intellectuals” (1951),
Dunayevskaya argues that the relation of constant to variable capital is not
applicable to all societies but to capitalism and capitalism alone. What textual
support is found in Marx’s work to support her argument? What are the
theoretical and practical ramifications of assuming that the relation of
constant to variable capital does not only apply to capitalism?
2) In what way, according to Dunayevskaya, is “the textual axis” of Marx’s
Capital “the question of plan”? Does Marx split the category of “plan” into two
components in Capital, and if so, how does he do so? In what way does
Dunayevskaya take issue with the way the question of “plan” understand by the
theoreticians she critiqued in her 1951 essay?
3) How do the views of the Trotskyist theoreticians that Dunayevskaya takes
issue with in her 1951 essay resemble the positions advocated by Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon—a figure whom Marx repeatedly critiqued in many of his own works?
4) According to Dunayevskaya, in what way is the concept of surplus value in
Marx’s work derivative from that of the relation between constant and variable
capital?
5) Is the hierarchy inherent in capitalist value production primarily due to
who owns the means of production, or is to due to something else? How does Marx
conceive of the relation between property relations and production relations?
6) What does Marx mean by “the domination of dead over living labor”
(Capital, Vol. I, p. 990), and how does it relate to the “inversion of subject
into object”?
7) According to Marx, how does the labor process become a valorization
process? What does he mean by the valorization process? When does the
valorization process first emerge historically?
8) According to Marx, in what way is the capitalist the “personification” of
capital? What is the difference between the personifications of capital and
capital? How do these issues relate to Marx’s discussion of “reification”
(Capital, Vol. I, p. 1054)?
Meeting 5
Capital, Technology, and the New Society
1) In what way, according to Dunayevskaya’s “Marxism and Freedom: From the
Industrial Revolution to Automation,” does the alienation of the laborer “create
a striving for universality” on the part of the laborers?
2) What conclusion did classical political economists fail to draw from their
their of value, according to the readings by Dunayevskaya? How did this failure
impact their effort to grasp the nature of modern capitalist society?
3) What was Say’s Law of Markets, and what made it erroneous, according to
Dunayevskaya’s “Marxism and Freedom: From the Industrial Revolution to
Automation” (1955)? Why does this remain an especially important issue in the
21st century?
4) What two theories were produced by classical political economy that
Dunayevskaya says Marx “dialectically combined,” and what resulted from the way
Marx combined them in his theoretical work?
5) What does it mean for commodities not to sell at their equilibrium values,
and why does Dunayevskaya (in “Marxism and Freedom...”) consider this of
“crucial importance for one of the central arguments around Vol. II [of
Capital]”?
6) Why did Marx argue that “once you understand the law of surplus value, the
law of profit would present no difficulty; if you reversed the process, you
could understand neither the one nor the other”? What is the difference between
the rate of surplus value and the rate of profit, and why is their distinction
of great importance?
7) According to Dunayevskaya’s Letters to Herbert Marcuse (1960), what was
the fundamental theoretical problem with Rudolf Hilferding’s book Finance
Capital and with the work of other theorists who have been heavily influenced by
it?
8) What were the basic differences between Marcuse’s and Dunayevskaya’s view
of automation, as indicated by their letters of 1960?
Meeting 6
Marx’s Concept of the Transcendence of Alienation
1) According to Dunayevskaya, how did Hegel’s concept of the “Absolute”
differ from that of pre-Hegelian philosophy, and how did Hegel’s concept of the
“Absolute” impact Marx’s view of the freedom struggles against capitalism? Is
there an identity between Hegel’s concept of the “Absolute” and Marx’s own
views, or is there any difference between them insofar as the concept of “the
Absolute” is concerned?
2) What were the “two stages” of Marx’s “internalizing and transcending
Hegel” that Dunayevskaya discusses in “The Theory of Alienation: Marx’s Debt to
Hegel” (1965)?
3) What role did the concept of “negativity” play in Hegel’s thought, and
what importance, if any, did it hold for Marx?
4) What role does the “all-round individual” play in Marx’s work, and what
does it have to do with his concept of the transcendence of capitalist value
production?
5) In “Marx’s Humanism Today” Dunayevskaya draws a connection between Marx’s
concept of the fetishism of commodities and Hegel’s concept of the “third
attitude toward objectivity.” What is the connection according to her, and what
makes it significant?
6) Dunayevskaya argues in “Marx’s Humanism Today” that “Marx’s humanism was
neither a rejection of idealism nor an acceptance of materialism, but the unity
of both...” How does she substantiate this claim? What evidence can be found to
support her statement in Marx’s work? What does it mean to neither “reject” nor
“accept” idealism and materialism but to posit their “unity”?
7) On what grounds does Louis Althusser reject “humanism” in the excerpts
from For Marx, and what philosophic arguments does he present to defend his
position? How valid is Althusser’s contention in light of Marx’s own writings?
Why do you think that Althusser’s particular reading of Marx has been so
influential over the past few decades?
Meeting 7
Marx’s Capital and Today’s Global Crises
1) According to Dunayevskaya, what was Marx’s concept of the “absolute
general law of capitalist accumulation” and how does it relate to the problem of
unemployment in the post-World War II era and today?
2) What are “petro-recyclers,” and what role do they play in today’s world
economy? What do petro-recyclers have to do with cartels and with we now call
“globalization”?
3) On what grounds does Dunayevskaya criticize Ernest Mandel for being an
“underconsumptionist” in “Today’s Epigones Who Try to Truncate Marx’s Capital”
(1978)? How valid is her criticism of Mandel on this point in light of she says
in the essay and from Mandel’s Introduction to Marx’s Capital?
4) What is meant by “the law of motion” of capitalism, and how does it show
itself in both economic development and in the unfoldment of social crises?
5) According to Dunayevskaya, what made the world recession of 1974-75 such a
turning point in world capitalism? What were the major components of that
recession, and what impact did it have on the restructuring of world capitalism
in the 1970s and afterward?
6) Marx wrote in Vol. II of Capital, “The peculiar characteristic is not that
the commodity labor-power is saleable, but that labor-power appears in the shape
of the commodity.” What does this sentence mean? How exactly does Marx’s
statement differ from both underconsumptionist views and the views of those who
consider the existence of the “free” market as the defining principle of a
capitalist society?
7) What arguments does Dunayevskaya present in defense of the notion that the
USSR was a “state-capitalist” society in “Today’s Epigones Who Try to Truncate
Marx’s Capital” (1978), and how is it different from the approach taken by
Mandel in his Introduction to Marx’s Capital? Which position do you think is
more accurate?
Meeting 8
Marx’s Humanism, Women’s Liberation, and non-Western Societies
1) What does Dunayevskaya mean in “Marx’s ‘New Humanism’ the Dialectics of
Women’s Liberation in Primitive and Modern Societies” (1983) by calling Marx a
great empiricist? (p. 189-190, 203). Why does she place such emphasis on this
issue?
2) How does Dunayevskaya characterize Marx’s concept of human development,
and how does she relate that to his concepts of “history and its process” and
“revolution in permanence”?
3) In contrast to the view that Marx was Eurocentric, Dunayevskaya focuses on
his discussion of primitive communal forms in what three of his works? According
to her, what does Marx single out about primitive communal forms in each of
these works?
4) In contrast to the view that Marx was “phallocentric,” Dunayevskaya points
out his discussion of women in what three of his works? According to her, what
does Marx single out about women in each of these works?
5) What does Edward Said mean by “Orientalism”? Is Said’s methodology in
Orientalism necessarily in opposition to Marx’s method? If so, why, and if not,
why not?
6) What does Dunayevskaya say led Marx to break with the concept of theory in
her “Marx’s ‘New Humanism’...”?How does the break in the concept of theory show
itself in Marx’s Capital? Does the break in the concept of theory mean that
disputes with other theoreticians are excluded from what is meant by theory? (p.
195-196)
7) Discuss what Dunayevskaya means by “the totality of Marx.” Does her
concept just mean all of Marx’s writings, or does it mean something more?
8) How does Dunayevskaya’s concept of “the totality of Marx” relate to her
concept of “post-Marx Marxism, beginning with Engels, as pejorative””? (see
especially section III of “Marx’s ‘New Humanism’...”)
Meeting 9
Re-creating Marx’s Philosophy of “Revolution in Permanence” for Today
Race and culture are crucial issues in social transformation—both in the U.S.
and around the world. This meeting takes them up in the context of what
Dunayevskaya called “the absolute challenge to our age”—re-creating Marx’s
multidimensional philosophy of revolution in permanence.
1) In what works, according to Dunayevskaya, where did Marx explicitly
discuss the concept of “permanent revolution,” and what role does the concept
play in his thought?
2) Why did Marx take issue with Mihailovsky’s claim that Capital represented
a “universal” theory of human development, and why did Marx insist that Capital
traced out the trajectory of capitalist accumulation only for Western Europe?
3) In chapter 12 of Rosa Luxemburg, Women’s Liberation, Marx’s Philosophy of
Revolution, Dunayevskaya writes, “Absolute negativity manifests its pivotal role
in the Idea precisely because it is both totality (summation) and new beginning,
which each generation must first work out for itself” (p. 194). What does she
mean by this statement, and how does it relate to the task of re-creating Marx’s
philosophy of “revolution in permanence”?
4) In “Marx and the Black World,” what does Dunayevskaya mean by the
“vanguard nature of the Black dimension,” and how has its vanguard nature shown
itself in specific turning points in American history?
5) How did Marx’s writings on the Black dimension “unchain” the dialectic,
according to Dunayevskaya? Which writings of Marx is she referring to? How valid
is her argument?
6) In light of Dunayevskaya’s “Marx’s Critique of Culture” (1984), did Marx
completely subordinate culture to class struggles? How does she view the role of
culture in society?
7) Why does Dunayevskaya state that she agrees with Louis Dupré’s contention
that “alienation and fetishism are not at all synonymous”?
8) According to Dunayevskaya, how did Marx’s concentration on capital and
labor at the point of production take him beyond a merely economic critique of
capitalism? What importance does this have for understanding Marx’s concept of a
socialist society?
Return to top | 
