Thinking about it a bit more, I figured out how Louis can say that Leibniz exemplifies individualism at the same time that he is usually classified as a philosopher of internal relations (seeing monads as parts of a greater totality). Leibniz is a little like Adam Smith. Smith, in his WEALTH OF NATIONS, emphasizes the competition of large numbers of individuals (monads, if we wish). In the background, however, he _assumes_ there exists a consensus in favor of preserving private property and thus a basic societal unity in seeking a clear national interest. This consensus is examined in his THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS. The unity of individuals and the totality of society is summarized by Smith's famous phrase "the invisible hand." The difference between Leibniz and Smith, on the one hand, and Marx, on the other, is that Marx sees no societal consensus, no clear national interest. Different classes have different collective interests, where the working class collective interest does not involve the preservation of private property. The Leibnizian/Whiteheadian vision of constant change without fundamental change seems to be less dynamic that Smith's view, BTW. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground Troops make things worse! US/NATO out of Serbia now!
