From: jkschw1 at yahoo.com To: "marxist philosophy" <marxistphilosophy at yahoogroups.com> Subject: [marxistphilosophy] G.A. Cohen Goes Home Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:57:20 +0000
Unless I missed it the death the other day of Jerry Cohen attracted no comment on a list devoted to Marxist philosophy. I know that as first a founder of analytical Marxism, then as a refugee from Marxism to liberal egalitarianism, he was not favored among the participants here. But IMHO he was one of the most influential and important Marxist thinkers of the latter half of the 20th century, and his legacy requires comment. ^^^^^^ CB: Cohen may have been important , but he was not unusually influential among Marxist thinkers. This conclusion can only be reached from the tendencies in Marxism that dismiss the Marxism of CP's and Trotskyist parties, and thinkers in these sections of Marxism ^^^^^ Not much time here but I will note a few thoughts; - In the context of a sharp decline in the quantity and quality of Marxist theory, ^^^^^ CB: This is a position held by only a section of Marxists, particularly academic and anti-Party Marxists. ^^^^^ Cohen and the AMs stood for the disconnection of theory from practice, ^^^^ CB: A telling admission, given that Marx himself put so much emphasis on the unity of theory and practice. "Philosophers (like Cohen) have interpreted the world in a number of ways; the thing is to change it." ^^^^^^^^ the entrenchment of Marxism as another academic exercise. In some ways this was not their fault giving the collapse of Marxism as a movement and a force in the world. ^^^^^ CB: This ignores that the Communist Party is the ruling party of China, Cuba, Viet Nam, parts of India, et al., and the revolutions in South America , which though they don't announce it, are obviously part of the Marxist movement. ^^^^^ - Cohen helped bring a level of rigor and precision in Marxist thinking that had been sorely lacking for a very long time. ^^^^^^^ CB: This is an assertion that is not demonstrated nor accepted by many Marxists. It's also a self-serving claim by Analytical Marxists. ^^^^^ If it's complained that his work lacked popular accessibility, what are we to say about Adorno, a favorite here who gets wide discussion? - Cohen's major work on Karl Marx's Theory Of History is very valuable, but went down the wrong track in reviving a stagist, mechanical, primacy of the productive forces 2d Internat'l conception of historical materialism. (Possibly due in part to his roots in the Canadian CP.) ^^^^^ CB: Why not say that his alleged greater rigor and precision are the results of his roots in the Canadian CP ? ^^^^^ True, Marx gave that view a lot of space, but Cohen almost totally neglected Marx's alternative class struggle view, which I think is more true and valuable and gets no less, arguably more, space. Brenner is far better on this (and no less rigorous). ^^^^^ CB: A "rigorous" look at actual history today would lead one to a more "stagist" view. And of course CP's , including the Canadian , give much primacy to "the class struggle view". So, this is a typical slanderous claim about CP's. If the alternative to the "stagist" view is a "class struggle" view, then the CP's don't promote a "stagist" view. ^^^^^^^ - Cohen's turn to traditional style moral philosophy as important, first as a complement to his idea of historical materialism, then as a replacement for Marxism and materialist analysis, was a major retrogression. No doubt there is more ethics in Marx and Marxism than Marx cared to admit, but Marx pointed the way in integrating these into materialist analysis. ^^^^^ CB: There's a recent thread on LBO-talk discussing this. Marx doesn't claim that capitalists are moral, he just appeals to self-interest among workers, and appeal to self-interest is not a moral appeal. ^^^^^^^ Cohen's own positive ethical views were, moreover, disappointingly primitive and underdeveloped. See his awful Egalitarianism book, but also earlier papers on exploitation and his paper critiquing value theory -- a real train wreck. And I don't accept value theory myself! I haven't carefully read the last book in Rawls. Btw in that book Cohen lists as the big three books on political philosophy Rawls' A Theory of Justice, Hobbes' Leviathan, and Plato's Republic. Marx's Capital doesn't make his cut. Given Cohen's a priori turn to liberal morality, Marx might be happy to be left out. ^^^^ CB: Cohen's earlier thesis is interesting to get a discussion on Marxism going, and to demonstrate how Marxism is different than mid-twentieth century British philosophy . However, he's not an unusual giant among Marxist or Marxian thinkers. - Cohen was nonetheless a major influence, one of the few really original thinkers in late 20th century Marxism, along with perhaps Althusser -- who, it might argued, paralleled him in a French sort of way. The people we tend to discuss, Marx, the Western Marxists, all had their roots and did much or all of their important work before 1950. ^^^^^^^ CB: It's a common error to think that what Marxism needs is a lot of "original thinking" at the philosophical level. The classics are pretty much philosophically adequate. What's needed is to figure out how to get the fundamentals of classical Marxism to grip masses. ^^^^^^^^ It says something about the state of Marxism that Cohen and Althusser are among the giants of postwar Marxism. ^^^^^ CB: What does it say ? More later. Justin _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
