On 2/12/07, David B. Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In response to Jim Devine: .... It seems to me that the King, or the investment banker, has "power" to > live his life as he pleases. I stipulate that he does so only because of the > collective efforts of the masses, exploitation, etc., but the point is that he > has the "power." .... I think I get your point about "relative isolation," but that just raises a > peripheral question -- what of the individual who has no interest in the > communal decision-making? Are you making an existential point (such > individuals will not exist) or a moral point (everybody will have to > contribute whether they want to or not)?
David, I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to think that the individual loses his freedom to "live his life as he pleases" under Marxism. That every individual will be forced to contribute to some common social good. I don't believe Marx meant this at all. All Marx ever did was make the observation that certain people (i.e. our IB friend) take much much more than they give thereby burdening the rest of society. (But I am not a Marx scholar, so I may well be wrong..) -raghu.
