David Shemano, in response to me:
Let me try again. In "History Of The World Part I," Mel Brooks, as
the King of France, memorably says "It's Good To Be The King."
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." < right. He benefits from the social structure more than others do.
Now, you say that Marx was not a philosopher who spent a lot of time on ethical questions, but I view him as a philosopher concerned with the "best life," and the best life is the one outlined in the German Ideology: "Whereas in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic." <
yes, I guess it depends on how one defines "ethical questions." My point is that he criticized the _structure of society_ (and its laws of motion) rather than individuals. Usually ethics is about individuals.
In other words, under communism, each individual would have the
"power" to choose to do whatever he wanted to do. Under my hypothetical, my friend the investment banker has the power to do what he wants to do. I am trying to understand whether we can gain insight into what Marx believes to be the best life by examining the life of the rich under capitalism. < your imaginary friend (as it were) has power over others and power over his own life. In Marx's communism (as described above), the individual has power over his or her own life, but not over others. And that power over one's life has to be tempered by a democratic obligation to cooperate with others. It's a little like the perfect market system in economics, where no-one has any power, but everyone makes decisions for him or herself. Marx rightly sneers at that ideal, since it assumes we're not connected in any way but buying & selling. His idea (in a very small nutshell, as I interpret it) is that the ideal life of universal powerlessness -- and responsibility -- can only work with democracy.
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)?< I'm sure that there are people who don't like to be engaged in communal decision-making. To my mind, they don't have to be involved with communal life if they don't want to -- unless they make decisions that have an impact on others. I guess there are people like that. But if they don't participate in communal decision-making at all, they must be willing to live with the results of the decisions of others. I think that it's a fact of life that we are forced to live in society with others. The only solution is not isolation or markets but democracy. I'll be gone for a week. -- Jim Devine / "The truth is more important than the facts." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
