At 01:18 PM 8/6/97 -0700, Jim Devine wrote, inter alia:

>The key question is whether or not Marx's sins, errors, and omissions are
>organic parts of his theory, so that their removal causes the whole edifice
>to come crashing down. 

My reply (ws):
Well, that seems a rather odd proposition about someone advocating the unity
of theory & practice.  It seems that the sharp distinction between the
private and the public, on which the defence of the "theory's merits"
regardless of the personal sins or virtues of the theorist hinges, is rather
bourgeois -- it is a cornerstone on which the separation of the "private"
and "company" time -- and thus the expropriation of the product from the
producer -- rests. 

>From that standpoint (provided, of course, the allegations of having sex
with his servant are true), Marx was no different from other employers of
the time -- extracting whatever use-value he could from his female labour
power. (A purist would argue that in this particular case the "product" of
that liaison stayed with the immediate producer, but it is a moot point
whether an "illegitimate" child is the product proper or rather an
externality :)).

On the second thought, however, that seems to confirm one of the fundamental
points of Marx's critique of capitalism: that the system operates on its own
logic that is rather independent of virtues and vices of individual
capitalists.  It follows that even a devout anti-capitalist is bound to
behave like a capitalist when he/she is put in control of the means of
production.  That, BTW, is a reminder to much of today's Left, not to
mention Ben-and-Jerryesque "bleeding hearts" and reformers, who seem to be
pretty Dickensian in their desire to improve the system by requesting more
virtuous functionaries of the system.  Are you there, Max?

regards,
wojtek sokolowski 
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax:   (410) 516-8233

POLITICS IS THE SHADOW CAST ON SOCIETY BY BIG BUSINESS. AND AS LONG AS THIS
IS SO, THE ATTENUATI0N OF THE SHADOW WILL NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE.
- John Dewey




Reply via email to