The Twilight of Capitalism by Michael Harrington (Part I: The New Karl Marx, Chapter 2-3)

Chapter Two is about Marxism Misunderstanding Itself.  This is probably true of all systems of thought, particularly religion, including Christianity and especially Catholicism, whose moral philosophy is promulgated by wealthy asexual bishops, which is not good if you are talking about either fiscal equity or sexuality.  This is where the difference between Marxism and Marxian Philosophy matters.

Socialist point out that Stalin misunderstood Marx, although I doubt he ever really understood Capital. What he did understand was the Marxian elevator speech, which he replicates and which focuses on militancy. Mao makes the same mistake.  This results in what Harrington calls Bureaucratic Authoritarianism. Whatever that is, it is not Marxian Philosophy, which attempts to understand history, economy and social relations systematically.

It is up to us to take that knowledge to political and economic change, although having to read three dense volumes is not particularly easy, although this may be blamed on translation errors.  Even the first preface is so applicable to the international economics  of today that the microcosm proves the theory in just those pages.

As for the rest of this chapter, it gets bogged down with even more debates about Marxism with various authors, including Engels. It then traces the history of how Marxism was accepted for the first hundred years, including its use in Communist countries, which transformed the Marxian into the Marxist. Scholarship on Marxian thought over this period is equally wrong. Again, there is a litany of sloppy understanding in the Academy about Marxian thought. 

Chapter Three, “ The Pervasive Light, The Special Atmosphere emphasizes that Marxian Philosophy is not simply about economic systems, but instead is about the social relationships in which system exists. Again, there is an explication of arguments with Marx by his contemporaries, including his friend Proudhun, on this matter, although systems matter in Marx, especially in analysis of the problems of today, including automation and even the Twitterverse. 

At heart, Marx is not about organizing the factory floor, either in terms of industrial engineering or payroll systems.  It is about the social relations which underlie these arrangements, including how class systems work. This is especially true when discussing the social domination of workers by the Capitalist culture. 

Capitalism is not as the capitalists portray it. It is not simply the free market system that is held up by conservatives as a refutation of socialism. Socialists like buying things too. Small businesses do not practice capitalism the way large industrial firms do, even if the small business owner profits from the labor of his employees. Most small businesses have no employees, so they cannot be capitalist.  Capitalism is about the social relations between the capitalists and the workers. It is about social dominance, not simply economics

Marx is not averse to socialist making money. Neither are socialists. His writings on Capitalism in his volumes by the same name could be used to teach modern production.   If fans of Donald Trump really understood Marx, they would be storming their local union hall demanding membership or insisting on employee ownership of their workplaces. The Marxian view is that such understanding is the necessary element in accepting socialism.