First Published: Canadian Revolution No. 3, October-November 1975
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Malcolm and Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
Political Economy: A Beginner’s Course
By A. Leontiev. Reprinted
by Proletarian Publishers
... socialism, since it has become a science, demands that it be pursued as a science, i.e., that it be studied. Engels
The mastery and application of Marxist theory is one of the decisive tasks facing Canadian Marxist-Leninists. More and more militants recognize that our principal objective is to rebuild a Communist Party, without which socialist revolution is impossible. But in spite of this desire to unite, the movement is nevertheless beset by divisions, even regarding essentials such as the objectives and strategy of our revolution. An example of such disagreements is found in Canadian Revolution Number 2, in the two articles concerning the nature of the capitalist class. Our theoretical weakness is also revealed by what is omitted in present debates: too often these days communists are heard to make authoritative-sounding pronouncements on the principal contradiction, for example, analyzing only the bourgeoisie and ignoring the definition of the people’s forces altogether.
A really correct understanding of our objectives can only come about through an open struggle based on thorough study of scientific socialism and investigation of our specific conditions. In this process, which our movement is just beginning, we have not yet begun to exhaust the factual and statistical information available from the bourgeoisie. But what is sorely missing so far is a sound theoretical foundation to fit these into an overall explanation. We are truly in a situation in which ’without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice’. Under these conditions we welcome the reprinting of A. Leontiev’s text Political Economy and encourage its wide distribution.
The reprinting of Political Economy will also help to lay to rest the dangerous myth that there are no Marxist-Leninist sources on political economy, and that revisionist or trotskyist sources must be relied on instead. In Toronto this point of view is most often heard from individuals who are not active communist militants, but nevertheless interested in the study of Marxism-Leninism. Those who recognize the counter-revolutionary nature of the revisionist and trotskyist organizations, but defend the use of their theoretical works, can’t help but harm the communist and working-class movement, no matter what their intentions. The counter-revolutionary class point of view of the revisionists and trotksyists is inevitably reflected in their interpretation of political economy. Any liberalism in this field, with the result that opportunist theories are “smuggled” into the communist movement, will eventually lead to serious political errors.
Admittedly, our own movement is too weak in the field of political economy. This is partly the result of its own youth and primitiveness, and partly on account of the theoretical shallowness of the CP even in its revolutionary days, which has left us little theoretical “inheritance”. Our own weakness increases the importance of promoting Leontiev’s textbook. The present edition is reprinted from the original, which was first published in 1935 by International Publishers. As the title suggests Political Economy: A Beginner’s Course provides an introduction to the basic concepts of Marxism, from the origins of class society, to the laws of imperialism. This material is grouped into convenient chapters complete with study questions, which make the book a good choice for study groups. For the reasons given below, Political Economy cannot be regarded as the “last work” in political economy. Nevertheless, it is still recommended as a good introduction and reference source.
The importance of sharply distinguishing Marxist-Leninist from opportunist theory can be illustrated by using Leontiev’s first chapter, which outlines the method and objectives of political economy. As an example of the way opportunists fundamentally distort the method of political economy, consider the opening lines of An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory by the trotskyist Ernest Mandel. Here Mandel claims that “in the last analysis, every step forward in the history of civilization has been brought about by an increase in the productiveness of labour”, (p. 7, Pathfinder Press, 1973). Albanian Marxist-Leninists refer to this as the “theory of the productive forces”, which one-sidedly over-emphasizes the role of the productive forces in shaping history, and downplays the class struggle. Leontiev, on the other hand, defends the Marxist viewpoint when he says:
economics lies at the basis of social development and . . . the mainspring of social development is the class struggle. The struggle of the oppressed classes against their oppressors – this is the fundamental motive force of history, (p. 17)
Mao-Tse-Tung has further developed this point:
. . . the productive forces, practice and the economic base generally play the principal and decisive role; whoever denies this is not a materialist. But it must also be admitted that in certain conditions, such aspects as the relations of production, theory and the superstructure in turn manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role. When it is impossible for the productive forces to develop without a change in the relations of production, then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive role. (Mao, “On Contradiction” Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 335-6)
In other words, during periods of “peaceful development” of capitalism.the development of the productive forces, outside the control of the communists or the working class, determine the direction of social development. In periods of crisis and revolutionary change, however, it is the class struggle which is decisive: the forces of the contending classes, the preparedness of the working class and the quality of its communist leadership, its ability to identify and win over allies, etc. Thus, to successfully lead the revolution, communists must understand two factors: the mode of production and the development of the productive forces, and the conditions under which they lead to crises; and the relations of production – the opposing classes, their fudamental interests and relation to state power.
By contrast, a current example shows how the theory of the productive forces leads to disastrous conclusions in the field of strategy. In their recent book, Imperialism and the National Question in Canada, two Canadian trotskyists claim that “. . . Marxism-Leninism is the science of developing a revolutionary strategy from the study of the development of the productive forces”, (p. 104) Presumably these would-be revolutionaries would adopt the same strategy no matter what the class character or form of state power, including fascism or the foreign occupation of our country . . . provided the productive forces stayed the same!
With the beginning of class society, through slavery and feudalism up to the origins of capitalism. Leontiev points out that:
the exploitation of one class by another – that is what characterizes the different stages of development of class society. The forms of exploitation, however, the methods by which one class lives at the expense of another, change with the different stages of development, (p. 41)
Previous to capitalism, class society was based on naked exploitation. The slaveowner and feudal lord alike visibly lived off the labour of the oppressed classes. The fact that the capitalists grow rich by the exploitation of the proletariat is by no means so obvious. That is why the theory of exploitation (founded on the labour theory of value) is such an important discovery of Marxism.
Briefly, the labour theory of value holds that commodities with different physical properties have the same value and can be exchanged for one another (or for equal amounts of money) only if both require the same labour-time for their production. (Commodities must have a use-value too. They must have a usefulness that fills a need of the purchaser, or no exchange would take place). More exactly, it is the socially necessary labour-time needed to produce a commodity that determines its value:
In saying that the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour worked up or crystallized in it, we mean the quantity of labour necessary for its production in a given state of society, under certain social average conditions of production, with a given social average intensity and average skill of the labour employed. (Marx, Value, price and Profit, quoted in Political Economy, p. 61)
Leontiev also points out that under commodity production the market prices of commodities are not necessarily equal to their values. Instead, the prices of commodities are in constant flux around their values, depending on supply and demand, (p. 63) The genius of Marx did not lie in the discovery of the labour theory of value (which was discovered by bourgeois economists preceding him). What Marx did do was to further develop this theory from the standpoint of the proletariat to unlock the secret of capitalist exploitation. Specifically, Marxism shows that capitalists do not grow rich through cheating the workers or unfair manipulation of prices, as reformists generally maintain. Instead, Leontiev shows:
Surplus value (profit, roughly speaking-T.H.) cannot arise out of the circulation of commodities, for this represents only the exchange of equivalents; it cannot arise out of an advance in price, for the mutual losses and gains of buyers and sellers would equalize one another; and what we are concerned with here is not the individual but the mass, average, social phenomenon. In order that he may be able to receive surplus value, ’Moneybags must. . . find ... in the market a commodity whose use value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value’ (Marx, Capital, Vol. I., p. 157) – a commodity, the actual process of whose use is at the same time the process of creation of value. Such a commodity exists. It is human labour power. Its use is labour, and labour creates value. The owner of money buys labour power at its value, which is determined, like the value of every other commodity, by the socially necessary labour time requisite for its production (that is to say, the cost of maintaining the worker and his family). Having bought labour power, the owner of money is entitled to use it, that is, to set it to work for whole day, twelve hours, let us suppose. Meanwhile in the course of six hours (’necessary’ labour time) the labourer produces sufficient to pay back the cost of his own maintenance; in the course of the next six hours (’surplus’ labour time) he produces a ’surplus’ product or surplus value, for which the capitalist does not pay him. (Lenin, Karl Marx, quoted in ,Political Economy, p. 89)
The exploitation of the proletariat is the inevitable outcome of the “fair” laws of commodity exchange under capitalism, and the source of the ever growing wealth of the capitalists. This is the foundation of the antagonistic contradiction between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. If communists do not fully understand this, they cannot possibly carry out the all important objective of winning the advanced workers to communism. Consciousness of the fundamental class antagonism and the need for proletarian dictatorship can never be generated on a large scale spontaneously from within the ranks of the immediate economic struggle. It must be brought “from without” by the communists themselves. Why? It is common knowledge that the capitalist class constantly attempts to increase its profits by reducing the wages of the workers. This provokes the defensive reaction of the workers, who unite in trade unions in order to restore the price of labour power to its value (the cost of adequately maintaining the worker and his or her family). By itself this limited spontaneous struggle can only produce consciousness of the need to struggle for economic and political measures aimed at improving the terms of sale of labour power. The consciousness thus generated equates the concept of “exploitation” with the “reduction of the level of wages below the value of labour power”. This ideology, which Lenin called “trade unionism”, results in the political enslavement of the workers to the bourgeoisie and its political parties.
Communists must constantly guard against such distortions in the doctrines of value and surplus value in their own ranks. If they do not, communists will never succeed in making the working class conscious of its historic role, nor will they succeed in identifying the real interests of the proletariat and other classes.
Ample illustrations of this can be found in the recent history of our own revolutionary movement. Consider, for example, the “New Left” and the terrorist and populist groups it spawned in different parts of the country. These groups rejected the Marxist theory of exploitation. They saw that some parts of the industrial proletariat had suceeded in winning a living wage. From this they concluded that the working class in the capitalist countries was no longer exploited, and that it was “bought off” and fundamentally reactionary.
Confusion on this point also leads to errors of right opportunism. Many Canadian Marxist-Leninists have supported (or at least, “not decisively rejected”) the slogan of “equal pay for work of equal value” as a step towards the emancipation of women. “Equal pay for equal work” is a sound slogan, where it applies. The mistake lies in adding the words “for work of equal value ”, which confuse the working class about the nature of exploitation. They imply that women are exploited because they are low-paid and that some workers (the relatively better paid males) do receive the full value of the products they create. How, for example, does this differ in essence from the bourgeois reformism of the trade union bureaucrats? Dennis McDermott and others wax indignant about the “exploitation” of migrant farm workers – by which is meant that they are paid less than a living wage, the value of their labour power. But the aim of the union bosses is not to abolish capitalist exploitation itself, but to bring such lower-paid workers up to the “standard of exploitation” of other parts of the working class.
In addition to the most basic concepts of Marxism, Political Economy also explains some of the more sophisticated economic laws which are passed over in other introductory textbooks. This is a strong point of Leontiev’s book. Without these laws (found primarily in Capital, Volume 3 and Lenin’s writings) it is impossible to understand the concrete workings of an actual capitalist society. They include the division of surplus value among the capitalists, the cause of crisis, the development of agriculture and the sources of rent, and the development of imperialism. Many of these have a direct bearing on the current debates in our movement, especially concerning the character of the capitalist class and its internal divisions.
Among the less well known of these laws is the method by which surplus value is divided among the capitalist class. It would appear at first sight that certain branches of industry are far more profitable than others. We have seen already that the unpaid (“surplus”) labour of the working class is the sole source of surplus value. In addition, certain branches of industry obviously require far more investment per worker in machinery, buildings, raw materials, etc, than others. This would seem to suggest that the fields which use more labour and less machinery would reap more surplus value (a “higher rate of profit”) than capitalists in fields where more machinery and fewer workers are employed. Why don’t capitalists completely desert the “capital-intensive” fields with a lower profit (e.g. oil refining) and concentrate exclusively in the “labour intensive” ones (e.g. the garment industry)? Additional factors must be found to explain why this does not happen.
The basic answer to this problem lies in the establishment of a general or average rate of profit which enables all capitalists to share in their common fund of surplus value in direct proportion to the amount of capital they have invested. Through this means even capitalists such as bankers and merchants – who do not exploit the proletariat directly – share in the surplus value it creates. Leontiev explains in greater detail how this takes place as a result of competition among capitalists by means of the deviation of prices of commodities from their values. (p. 134-145)
The significance of this is two-fold. First, it shows the concrete economic interest which is the basis of the class solidarity of the capitalists – the industrial and non-industrial capitalist alike have a joint “stake”in the exploitation of the working class. Secondly, it shows why one cannot understand the essence of capitalist exploitation without studying the overall realtionship of classes. The prices and profits of the individual capitalist are not determined by the conditions within his own factory, but outside of it, by the general, average, social conditions of capitalism as a whole. This helps to explain why the laws of capitalism do not become obvious to the workers in the course of economic struggle with their individual employer.
Another issue of great importance is the cause of capitalist crisis, to which Political Economy devotes an entire chapter (p. 163-89). This is a subject of controversy in the communist movement, and Leontiev’s explanation should be regarded as an introduction and starting point of investigation, rather than a definitive explanation. Leontiev argues that:
It is this fundamental contradiction of capitalism – the contradiction between the social character of production and the private character of appropriation – that makes crises inevitable under capitalism (p. 182).
He explains furtherthat this contradiction is expressed primarily in the tendency of capitalism to expand production without limits, while simultaneously restricting the consuming powers of the masses:
Inherent in capitalism, there is the deepest contradiction between the colossal growth of production possibilities and the relatively reduced purchasing power of the masses . . . (the) tendency towards an unlimited expansion of industry comes into conflict with the limited powers of consumption of the broad masses of workers. The growth of exploitation does not only mean the growth of production. It also means a reduction in the purchasing power of the masses, a curtailment of the possibility of selling commodities. The purchasing power of the masses of the workers and peasants remains at a low level. Hence the inevitability of over-production crises under capitalism (p.184).
Thus, according to Leontiev, the crisis of over-production results because the capitalists are driven to produce masses of products which can find no market.
Other Marxist:Leninists, on the other hand, have stressed the importance of the falling rate of profit and the over-production of capital itself – rather than the shortage of markets – as the fundamental cause for crisis. I am not personally qualified to explain the differences between the two approaches or to say which is the more correct. I suggest interested readers investigate Capital , Vol. Ill, particularly Part 3, and the references which Leontiev quotes from Lenin, in order to evaluate for themselves.
Likewise, the Chapter “Capitalism in Agriculture” must also be approached carefully. Here Leontiev summarizes the theory of rent. Ground rent, as Marx showed, consists of two parts, differential rent, and absolute rent.
First, let us take differential rent. We know that in industry the value of commodities and their cost of production is determined by the average conditions of production. This is not so in agriculture. Land area is limited and cannot be increased as needed . . . from better soil with the same expenditure of capital a better harvest is obtained. Land which is advantageously located saves the husbandman expenses which are required to transport products when the land is located in isolated districts. The price of production of agricultural products is determined by the conditions of production on the worst soil, otherwise capitalist entrepreneurs would not work the worst soil but would transfer their capital to industry. But if this is the case, those working the better soil realize an extra income. Who gets this income? It is clear that it falls into the hands of the landowner, (p.148, emphasis added).
In addition to this differential rent, the landowner also receives absolute rent. Land, as Leontiev explains,
is under the monopoly control of private owners. This monopoly of land ownership prevents the free transition of capital from industry to agriculture. In order to work the land the permission of the landowner must be obtained. Technically, agriculture is on a lower level than industry. Therefore, the organic composition of capital is lower than in industry. This means that with the same capital invested, more surplus value is produced in agriculture than in industry. If there were a free flow of capital between agriculture and industry the rate of profit would be equalized by competition. But such freedom does not exist because of private ownership of land. Hence agricultural products are sold at prices above the price of production. The excess thus obtained goes into the pockets of the landowner and is called absolute ground rent. (p. 148-49, emphasis added).
Based on this analysis of the sources of rent, Leontiev explains several of the general trends determining the development of agriculture under capitalism. “Capitalism” he points out, “creates a gulf between city and village, creates and continually deepens the antithesis between industry and agriculture”, (p. 146) His specific conclusions about the development of agriculture and the revolutionary potential of the rural population must be approached with care, however, for he bases these mainly on countries in which feudal forms of landownership and the peasantry still existed. Much investigation is still needed to determine the exact way these general laws of rent apply to our country and its rural population.
Leontiev concludes his explanation of the general laws of capitalism with an analysis of imperialism. This will not be examined in detail because it is essentially a summary of Lenin’s writings on this topic.
One aspect of Lenin’s theory does deserve comment, however, since it has become an extremely important factor influencing the current debates in our movement. This is the question of finance capital. As it is well known, Lenin pointed out that one of the characteristics of imperialism is the “merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the basis of this ’finance capital’, of a financial oligarchy”. (Lenin, Imperialism, quoted in Political Economy, p. 192). Much of the current debate on the character of our revolution centres on this question, whether such a fusion has taken place in the Canadian capitalist class. Several groups and individual Marxist-Leninists maintain that it has and that Canada is a full-fledged imperialist power. Others say that the important sections of the bourgeoisie are still commercial “middle-men” and stress that American imperialism is an immediate enemy of the working class.
To resolve this debate and to correctly understand the objectives of our revolution, we must deepen our understanding of monopoly capitalism, including what is meant by finance capital. For example, the strength of Canadian banks, and their “control” over industry through interlocking directorships are often cited as proof by those who view Canada as an imperialist country. (This would appear to be the method used by the Workers Unity Collective in their articles in Canadian Revolution, Number 2). However, it is not merely the transformation of the field of banking that is characteristic of imperialism. This is an erroneous conception, as Leontiev points out:
Here the radical difference in the approach to the study of imperialism by Lenin, on the one hand, and the social-democratic theoretician of imperialism, Hilferding, on the other, is disclosed. Hilferding puts foremost not those changes which have taken place in the field of industrial structure of the latest capitalism, but those changes which are taking place in the field of circulation – first of all, in the field of credit, in banking spheres. In this the exchange conception characteristic of Hilferding’s falsification of Marx is apparent. Instead of the primacy, i.e. predominance, decisive importance, of production, he puts the primacy of circulation. The exchange concept is very characteristic of Social-Democratic theoreticians, (p. 200, emphasis added).
As a first step to determine conclusively whether Canada is an imperialist country, we must first define more exactly what is meant by the “marriage” of banking and industrial capital which Lenin speaks of. It should be clear that close business relations between banks and industry are not in themselves proof of their “marriage” into finance capital, for the banks have carried on business with industry from the start of industrial capitalism. What we must do is to clarify the specific relationship (in the fields of ownership of share-capital, outright ownership of machinery and equipment, long- and short-term loans, etc.) which is characteristic of banks and industry under monopoly capitalism. Once this is done, factual investigation will show whether Canada has indeed become an imperialist power.
Political Economy: A Beginner’s Course naturally cannot give exhaustive answers to the theoretical problems of the Canadian revolution. What it does offer is an easily understood explanation of the “laws of motion” of capitalism discovered by Marx and elaborated by Lenin, which introduces readers to the basic tools to analyze these problems for themselves. However, in addition to its generally correct analysis of capitalism, Political Economy makes serious errors in the laws of socialist construction.
Leontiev is not personally at fault in this, for his book was authorized by the Communist International. The book, in fact, reflects the limited practical experience and consequent theoretical weaknesses of the Soviet Party at the time it was written in the mid-1930’s. These theoretical mistakes and the policies that followed from them could not but have helped pave the way for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. To prevent such an occurence elsewhere, communists must study these mistakes carefully, aided by the positive examples of the Albanians and especially the Chinese.
Leontiev does not devote a separate section to explaining the laws of socialism. Instead, he comments throughout Political Economy on the development of socialism in the Soviet Union and its superiority to capitalism.
The essential error of Leontiev’s approach is that he does not recognize the continuation of class struggle under socialism, or the forms in which is continues. This is a mistake of the greatest importance, for socialist society begins with the old classes and class relations intact, and constantly creates new bourgeois forces in its own midst. Hence failure to recognize the continuation of the class struggle leads to serious mistakes in practice. On the one hand, it disarms the proletariat and its party, since it leads them to give up in advance the political struggle against the bourgeoisie, as well as the struggle to overcome the material conditions which give rise to new bourgeois elements. On the other hand, those who do not recognize that socialism itself spawns new bourgeois elements must inevitably handle contradictions among the people incorrectly. For if socialism is regarded as a classless society, then manifestations of class struggle can only be regarded as the effects of imperialist subversion, requiring the most ruthless counter-measures.
At first sight, readers of Political Economy may think that this is an unjustified criticism of Leontiev. He does point to factors necessitating continued struggle during the dictatorship of the proletariat: the force of bourgeois habit, the remnants of the former oppressing classes, the rich peasantry and foreign subversion (p. 27-30). Leontiev, however, regards the proletarian dictatorship as a prolonged transition period distinct from classless, socialist society:
The transformation from capitalism to socialism cannot be accomplished at once. A fairly long transition period is unavoidable. During this period state power is in the hands of the working class which is building socialism, (p. 28)
Under socialism, the division of society into classes is done away with, abolishing class contradictions and class struggle ... (p. 29)
The dictatorship of the proletariat is that power which accomplishes the building of classless socialist society. (P. 31)
Socialism is not, as Leontiev suggests here, a stable classless society. As the Chinese have pointed out, “the period of socialism is a period of struggle between moribound capitalism and nascent communism”. It is a period during which the proletariat must strive to extend the field of its dictatorship, because the social relations under socialism constantly produce new bourgeois elements.
How is it that new bourgeois forces can grow if the private ownership of the “commanding heights of the economy” have been replaced by proletarian public ownership? In the first place, commodity production cannot be completely eradicated with the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship. The petty bourgeoisie continues to exist for a long time, constantly engendering capitalists and capitalist ideology in its ranks. Moreover, as a recent article in Peking Review points out,
It is perfectly correct for people to attach importance to the decisive role of the system of ownership in the relations of production. But it is incorrect to attach no importance to whether the issue of the system of ownership has been resolved in form or in reality, to the reaction exerted on the system of ownership by the other two aspects of the relations of production – the relations between men and the form of distribution – and to the reaction exerted on the economic base by the superstructure; these two aspects and the superstructure may play a decisive role under given conditions. (Peking Review, Number 14, 1975, “On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie”, p. 7)
Thus socialist ownership does not in itself thoroughly eradicate bourgeois social relations, habits and culture. It provides only a framework within which they can be eventually transformed as the dictatorship of the proletariat is extended. It is clear that Leontiev does not understand this when he says conclusively “in Soviet enterprises there are no two classes with opposing interests, as there are in capitalist enterprises. The enterprises are the property of the Soviet state, of the proletarian dictatorship”, (p. 91)
In a similar vein, Leontiev lauds the introduction of piecework in the Soviet Union:
The piecework form of remuneration has an entirely different significance in the conditions obtaining in the U.S.S.R. There the worker does not sell his work to a class of exploiters, but uses it in enterprises which are the property of the proletarian state . . . Piecework remuneration in the socialist economy of the Soviet Union is the best means of establishing conformity between the quantity and the quality of the labour expended, it is a powerful level in raising the productivity of labour and in addition the well-being of the working class. Therefore, it is entirely different from piecework under capitalism, (p. 114)
I am not qualified to say whether the use of piecework was ever really needed in the Soviet Union. But even if it was a temporary necessity, it must be recognized for what it really is – a bourgeois form of distribution which increases inequality within the working class, and whose consequences must be struggled against, not praised. Moreover, this particular example – the continuation of the wages system – is just one example of the bourgeois forms of distribution which continue under socialism. If they are not restricted in a step-by-step way, these bourgeois relations will create inequalities and class interests which will eventually undermine the socialist system of ownership.
In the time since Leontiev wrote Political Economy several historic events have added to our understanding of the laws of socialist construction. The first of these is the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, which should serve as an important lesson by negative example. Many comrades recognize the aggressive and imperialistic character of Soviet foreign policy. But so far, not nearly so many understand the transformation of the Soviet State into a monopoly capitalist dictatorship of the fascist type, in which the working class and the nationalities are denied all political rights. Marxist-Leninists face the task of taking the basic concepts of Marxism contained in Leontiev’s book and using them to explain the resotration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and its implications. Sources on this subject are limited, but interested readers can begin by investigating Martin Nicolaus’ recent series in the Guardian and How Capitalism Has Been Restored in the Soviet Union by the Revolutionary Union.
Even more than the negative example of the Soviet Union, recent positive examples have greatly deepened our knowledge of the laws of socialism. The Albanians, and especially the Chinese Marxist-Leninists have made important contributions in this area. For interested readers, Cultural Revolution and Industrial Organization in China by Charles Bettelheim (MR Press) is recommended as an explanation of the lessons of the Cultural Revolution. (The “Postscript” criticizing ultra-left and anti-party interpretations is particularly valuable). The articles in recent issues of Peking Review by participants in the movement to criticize Lin Piao and Confucius are also recommended. Three of these articles in particular provide a good overview of the sources of the class struggle under socialism, and the spheres where the proletariat must extend its dictatorship: “Uphold the Theoretical Weapon of Proletarian Dictatorship”, (March 28, 1975); “On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship over the Bourgeoisie, (April 4, 1975); and ”Ideological Weapon for Restricting Bourgeois Right”, (May 30,1975).
In conclusion, Leontiev’s book is recommended reading for students of political economy, in spite of its errors in the laws of socialism. It contains an accurate summary of the basic economic categories of Marxism, which are explained in a clear and easily understood way. Political Economy also explains some of the less well known laws of Marxism, though Leontiev’s interpretation is open to question in the cases examined above. The book should therefore be used as an introduction and reference source, not as a substitute for studying the original writings of Marx and Lenin themselves. Used in this way, Political Economy: A Beginner’s Course is a timely study guide, particularly since our movement is still at the “beginner’s stage” in its grasp of this important subject.
NOTE: The present book should not be confused with the following revised variations published in recent years by Lev Leontiev: Political Economy: A Condensed Course (Progress Publishers, 1972); A Short Course of Political Economy (Progress, 1968); and Fundamentals of Marxist Political Economy (Moscow, 1965). In keeping with the interests of the new Soviet bourgeoisie, these books fundamentally distort the original text by Leontiev and rob it of tis revolutionary content.
Sources for the original text of A. Leontiev’s Political
Economy: A Beginner’s Course include:
Librairie L’Etincelle, 4933 Rue de
Grande-Pre, Montreal, Quebec
China Books & Periodicals, 125 Fifth Ave.,
New York, N.Y. USA 10003