By way of example: Enroute to an antiwar conference on a "Trotskyist" bus a comrade realized she'd left her purse in a booth at a highway roadstop about 5 miles back. A debate ensued over whether we should turn back or not. A young comrade jumped to the front of the bus and demanded, "What kind of a bus is this anyway? We're supposed to be a socialist bus, so we shouldn't be talking about turning around for an article forgotten by a single individual. That's just bourgeois ideology comrades!" The matter was settled by the driver who went back to get the woman's purse. It struck me then that a fallacy of composition existed where the democratic principle of majoritarianism was counterposed to the principle of individual human need. But isn't majority rule a procedural norm, whereas treatment of individuals as ends is a matter of substantive principle? So it's more a matter of concern for the well being of each being a necessary condition for the happiness of all. This may not be the best example, but it's always seemed to me that Kant's "ends principle" was subsumed by both Hegal and Marx, and mediated by Feuerbach. RM
^^^^^^ Seems to me that Marxism wants to preserve a principle of "All for one and one for all", and is willing to struggle with the contradictions that make practice of the principle difficult, inconvenient even, as in the bus incident Robert relates. Also, Marx and Engels talk a lot about individuals developing more fully in communism. My hypothesis is that women's liberation is fundamental to healthier development of individual persons. Charles _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
