On 1/2/07, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marx's philosophy is a philosophy of freedom, not of justice (which is made clear, above all, by his critique of the Gotha Program), but the freedom he championed is not only not the same as that of liberalism but, at bottom, at odds with it, since the freedom of liberalism doesn't mean much once we yank its material basis -- private property -- out from underneath it. E.g., socialism may incorporate the liberal value of free speech at the level of ideology, but if the state owns all means of production directly or indirectly, and there are no competing centers that possess wealth and power on virtually equal footing with the state, free speech as we conceptualize it in liberal capitalist democracy cannot obtain. Yoshie
<<<<<>>>>>
Marx's writings appeared amidst the failed promises of classical liberalism. Disparity between wealth and poverty created by industrial capitalism illuminated disparity between liberal theory and nineteenth century social reality. Marx's work is only one - arguably the most historically significant - response to such discrepancies as they developed in the 1800s. Among liberals, J. S. Mill and T. H. Green laid the groundwork for modern liberalism by presenting a positive view of the state. Socialists - Saint-Simon, Owen, and Fourier among them - referred to as uotpians by Marx for their "blueprints" of the future, argued against individual enterprise and market competition. Anarchists, from Proudhon to Bakunin proclaimed that the evils of capitalism would not disappear until all state forms were eliminated (even as they disagreed about what this might mean). Meanwhile, those like the Tory Disaeli longed for the "good ole' days" of pre-capitalist society. Marx's work consists of explanation of why capitalism frustrates efforts by the mass of people to develop in accord with liberal principles. Certainly, the rise of a working class afforded many opportunities to criticize liberalism; Marx's analysis of the capital-labor relationship was the distinguishing feature of his critique. Both detractors and supporters of Marx have asserted that his rejection of liberal society reflects his hostility to liberal values. Yet, he was a lifelong defender of civil liberties and supporter of universal suffrage. He identified with rationalism and the subsequent development of science and application of technology. He agreed, with Adam Smith, that more recent epochs were "progressive" in comparison to the past. He believed, as the classical liberals had, in correspondence between changes in the economic system and political structures. Politically, Marx wished to subordinate the executive to the legislature. In economics, he adopted a labor theory of value. And, philosophically, he traced socialism to Locke's materialism. Moreover, he was no less committed (more so, imo) to individual development than were liberals. Of course, he did focus on the social implications of liberal values through placement of them in the context of social relations. Marx built upon concepts - freedom, equality, democracy - found in the liberal tradition. He did this by starting from the premise that humans are social beings, in contrast to liberalism, which Hegel said embodies "the atomistic principle." This difference, quite obviously, is a profound departure. However, Marx was attached to liberal values even as he was hostile to the institutional structures advocated and built by liberals. In effect, his though fulfills liberalism, emerging out of liberal society to critique it, and develop understanding of the potential for a more historically progressive social system that would "go beyond" what liberalism offers abstractly. Michael Hoover
