Making Dogma New (was Definition of Political Economy (fwd))
Doug wrote: Ok, when I criticize Christianity, I'll be sure to leave the snake handlers out. And just remember the mainstream who believe that some divine guy from long ago was born of a virgin and was resurrected from the dead. "Who then will condemn Christians for being unable to give rational grounds for their belief, professing as they do a religion for which they cannot give rational grounds?" Pascal said this in the seventeenth century, and he did not say it to mock Christianity -- on the contrary, he turned the table and made the very inability to give rational grounds a hallmark of Christian faith. "They [Christians] declare that it is a folly, _stultitiam_, in expounding it to the world, and then you complain that they do not prove it. If they did prove it they would not be keeping their word. It is being without proof that they show they are not without sense." Standing near the beginning of modernity, thinking persons couldn't swallow the dogma of the church as it was. Pascal (who was a man of science and brilliant mathematician) had to defend the indefensible, as it were, so he made a bold move: he exposed that nothing stood behind dogma orthodoxy -- there was no guarantee -- and turned faith into a question of existential choice: "Let us then examine this point, and let us say, 'Either God is or he is not.' But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager?" With a stroke of an anti-foundational genius, so to speak, Pascal saved Christianity and Its Dogma from feudal stagnation succeeded in making them appear (to a large number of intellectuals-to-come for whom Christianity as it had existed wouldn't do) as if they were a matter of intellectual daring, exciting adventure in the realm of heterodox paradoxes. That is the way dogma has survived -- passing for heterodoxy. Yoshie P.S. Nowadays, no thinking person in academia and think tanks can afford to seem less than "heterodox," since to be "heterodox" has come to mean the same thing as to be "bravely on the cutting edge" and thus become a good marketing pitch. Even conservatives have to have a magazine named _Heterodoxy_, as you all know.
Re: Making Dogma New (was Definition of Political Economy (fwd))
People can believe in god and yet be active supporters of social revolution. There is no necessary contradiction between the two. Comradely regards George Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ Doug wrote: Ok, when I criticize Christianity, I'll be sure to leave the snake handlers out. And just remember the mainstream who believe that some divine guy from long ago was born of a virgin and was resurrected from the dead. "Who then will condemn Christians for being unable to give rational grounds for their belief, professing as they do a religion for which they cannot give rational grounds?" Pascal said this in the seventeenth century, and he did not say it to mock Christianity -- on the contrary, he turned the table and made the very inability to give rational grounds a hallmark of Christian faith. "They [Christians] declare that it is a folly, _stultitiam_, in expounding it to the world, and then you complain that they do not prove it. If they did prove it they would not be keeping their word. It is being without proof that they show they are not without sense." Standing near the beginning of modernity, thinking persons couldn't swallow the dogma of the church as it was. Pascal (who was a man of science and brilliant mathematician) had to defend the indefensible, as it were, so he made a bold move: he exposed that nothing stood behind dogma orthodoxy -- there was no guarantee -- and turned faith into a question of existential choice: "Let us then examine this point, and let us say, 'Either God is or he is not.' But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager?" With a stroke of an anti-foundational genius, so to speak, Pascal saved Christianity and Its Dogma from feudal stagnation succeeded in making them appear (to a large number of intellectuals-to-come for whom Christianity as it had existed wouldn't do) as if they were a matter of intellectual daring, exciting adventure in the realm of heterodox paradoxes. That is the way dogma has survived -- passing for heterodoxy. Yoshie P.S. Nowadays, no thinking person in academia and think tanks can afford to seem less than "heterodox," since to be "heterodox" has come to mean the same thing as to be "bravely on the cutting edge" and thus become a good marketing pitch. Even conservatives have to have a magazine named _Heterodoxy_, as you all know.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, Carrol, orthodox Marxism is a myth? I wish. --jks It is a myth absolutely necessary for the health of red-baiting. No Stalinist was ever so dependent on jargon of any sort as are red-baiters on the myth of orthodox marxism to red-baiting. The use of the term is evidence of intellectual bankruptcy. It shows a poverty of imagination in the art of name-calling. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
In a message dated 6/24/00 2:33:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bebel, like Kautsky, was a social democrat. Zetkin, like Luxemburg, was a socialist. Their approach to _Woman Question_ differed accordingly. Both Z and L criticized the party line orthodoxy represented by Kautsky in the second international. Furthermore, Zetkin criticized the notion of extending women's suffrage to middle class women only. Her socialist feminism was an achievement over liberal feminism. That was the point. Hey, Carrol, orthodox Marxism is a myth? I wish. --jks Justin, this sort of red-baiting Marxists does not solve the problem since you still have *not* clarified what you mean by orthodoxy. Rational communication requires logical arguments and empirical evidences not unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks. If you think whatever I said about Zetkin is *false* or makes me subscribe to *your* orthodoxy then you have the responsibility of explaining the "rational grounds" which your assumptions of orthodoxy rest upon. If you don't, I am afraid, you are being dogmatic. Furthermore, if you mean by orthodoxy holistic conception of history and vulgar determinism of the kind Kautsky defended, ie., inevitability of the theory of stages, it is obvious that Marx would *not* subscribe to your definition of orthodoxy. You may not have Kautsky in your mind, but I am afraid that like many of the bourgeois critics or defenders (Cohen) of MArx, you implicitly take the mechanistic formulation of historical materialism as the orthodoxy. Unfortunately, not only bourgeois critics of Marx but also some Marxist followers of Marx were responsible for misrepresenting Marx, turning Marx's dynamic theory of history into economic determinism and political passivity--the kind of things that bourgeois minded people *want" to see in Marx. Nowhere Marx in his writings appears to be a fatalistic believer in the functionalist causality between economics and politics, even in the _Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_. When Marx says in this text that legal and political structure of society "rise on the economic basis of society", he does not mean that A determines B or B mechanistically flows from A. Quite differently, what Marx means to say is that the mode of production of material life, which is itself a historically changing _social relationship_, conditions, if not determine, the political and legal structures of society and their corresponding forms of ideology. Marx does not give us a hint of determinism because "conditioning" may be given lots of interpretations. As Cohen mistakenly does, one may read the relationship between economics and politics in instrumental terms as if Marx specified the direction or degree of causality between the two. On the other hand, as Gramsci correctly did, one may read the basis-superstructure model in counter- productive terms to mean by conditioning "corresponding" or even "limiting", in place of determination (Since Marx beleived in the final analysis that capitalism _only to a degree_ liberated human beings, yet "limited" the development of human potential as a whole). Instead of red-baiting Marxists or calling them orthodox on the basis of superstitious reading of Marx, one should instead come across with what is meant by what is said about Marx. Ideology is a distortion of reality personified in the body of the intellectual! Mine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
Carrol Cox wrote: No Stalinist was ever so dependent on jargon of any sort as are red-baiters on the myth of orthodox marxism to red-baiting. That's really funny. You mean offbeat Marxists like Adorno or Lefebvre wrote more jargon-ridden prose than your average pronunciamento of the CPSU? Ever read the stuff that comes out of Sendero Luminoso? Carrol, you're retired, you've got some time. Drop in on next year's Marxist Literary Group and get a taste of the PLP wing. It's around the second week in June. Not sure where it'll be, but you're centrally located. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
You and CArroll responnd to sharp criticism with accusations of Red-baiting, and then have the chutzpah to reproach me for ad hominem attacks. Of course Marx was nota n orthodix Marxist. He was, as he said when he encountered the phenonomenon of orthodox Marxism, not a Marxist at all. He welcomed all scientific criticism. The defining charctertistic of an orthodox marxist is not her adherence to a particular substantive doctrine, but rather that she doesn't; she treats Marx and her favorite Marxists as scriputural. She does nor ask: is it true? Rather she asks, Is it consistent with the holy writ? If I thought all or even most Marxism was like that, I would not bother with it at all. But too many of them are. However, I find this discussion fruitless and I end my participation in it now. In a message dated 6/25/00 3:28:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ustin, this sort of red-baiting Marxists does not solve the problem since you still have *not* clarified what you mean by orthodoxy. Rational communication requires logical arguments and empirical evidences not unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks. If you think whatever I said about Zetkin is *false* or makes me subscribe to *your* orthodoxy then you have the responsibility of explaining the "rational grounds" which your assumptions of orthodoxy rest upon. If you don't, I am afraid, you are being dogmatic. Furthermore, if you mean by orthodoxy holistic conception of history and vulgar determinism of the kind Kautsky defended, ie., inevitability of the theory of stages, it is obvious that Marx would *not* subscribe to your definition of orthodoxy. You may not have Kautsky in your mind, but I am afraid that like many of the bourgeois critics or defenders (Cohen) of MArx, you implicitly take the mechanistic formulation of historical materialism as the orthodoxy. Unfortunately, not only bourgeois critics of Marx but also some Marxist followers of Marx were responsible for misrepresenting Marx, turning Marx's dynamic theory of history into economic determinism and political passivity--the kind of things that bourgeois minded people *want" to see in Marx. Nowhere Marx in his writings appears to be a fatalistic believer in the functionalist causality between economics and politics, even in the _Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_. When Marx says in this text that legal and political structure of society "rise on the economic basis of society", he does not mean that A determines B or B mechanistically flows from A. Quite differently, what Marx means to say is that the mode of production of material life, which is itself a historically changing _social relationship_, conditions, if not determine, the political and legal structures of society and their corresponding forms of ideology. Marx does not give us a hint of determinism because "conditioning" may be given lots of interpretations. As Cohen mistakenly does, one may read the relationship between economics and politics in instrumental terms as if Marx specified the direction or degree of causality between the two. On the other hand, as Gramsci correctly did, one may read the basis-superstructure model in counter- productive terms to mean by conditioning "corresponding" or even "limiting", in place of determination (Since Marx beleived in the final analysis that capitalism _only to a degree_ liberated human beings, yet "limited" the development of human potential as a whole). Instead of red-baiting Marxists or calling them orthodox on the basis of superstitious reading of Marx, one should instead come across with what is meant by what is said about Marx. Ideology is a distortion of reality personified in the body of the intellectual!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
Justin repeats my comments: I have and do. Alison, who is a friend of mine, btw, would be disappointed if you took the lesson from her book that Firestone doesn't count, and indeedd, has nothing to teach historical materialists, or isn't one in her way. I did *not* say that Firestone did *not* count. I said that Alison classifies Firestone under the subtitle _radical feminism_ in her book.Since Alison Jaggar is a _socialist feminist_, she also points out the flaws (biological essentialism) in Firestone's analysis of gender inequality, including Firestone's expectation of the radical feminist agenda to liberate women from the biological "oppresiveness of their bodies". Unlike Firestone, I don't think that women's biology is oppresive. To say the opposite is to accept par excellence the patriarchal definition of biology as the biology. My point. however, was that Marxists were up on the Woman Question a long time before 1970. actually this was *my* point initally, but it is nice to see you coming to this conclusion (refer to my previous post) I said: we were talking about the _classical_ architects of _Marxist feminism_ just as we were talking about the classical architects of liberal feminism (Mill, Taylor). Quite right, which is why I mentioned Bebel and Zetkin. --jks Bebel, like Kautsky, was a social democrat. Zetkin, like Luxemburg, was a socialist. Their approach to _Woman Question_ differed accordingly. Both Z and L criticized the party line othodoxy represented by Kautsky in the second international. Furthermore, Zetkin criticized the notion of extending women's suffrage to middle class women only. Her socialist feminism was an achievement over liberal feminism. That was the point. Mine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
In a message dated 6/24/00 2:33:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bebel, like Kautsky, was a social democrat. Zetkin, like Luxemburg, was a socialist. Their approach to _Woman Question_ differed accordingly. Both Z and L criticized the party line othodoxy represented by Kautsky in the second international. Furthermore, Zetkin criticized the notion of extending women's suffrage to middle class women only. Her socialist feminism was an achievement over liberal feminism. That was the point. Hey, Carrol, orthodox Marxism is a myth? I wish. --jks
Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Radical feminists do not find them perfect either. That being said, however, they were the ones who first raised the question of Women in Marxism Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg would also be surprsied to hear it took Shulamith Firestone to raise The Woman Question in Marxism. Mine, you gotta hit the boooks--jks ** http://www.marxists.org/glossary/index.htm; Zetkin, Clara (1857-1933) A prominent figure in the German and international workers' movement, most notably in the struggles womens workers' movement. From 1895, a National Executive member of the German SPD, and on its left-wing; member of the Bookbinders Union in Stuttgart, and active in the Tailors and Seamstresses Union, becoming its provisional International Secretary in 1896, despite the fact that it was illegal for women to be members of trade unions in Germany at that time. As Secretary of the International Bureau of Socialist Women, Zetkin organised the Socialist Women's Conference in March 1915. Along with Alexandra Kollontai, Zetkin fought for unrestricted suffrage, and against the 'bourgeois feminist' position supporting the restriction of the vote by property or income. Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg led the left-wing and waged a fierce struggle against revisionism as well as the center represented by Kautsky. During the War joined the Spartacists along with Luxemburg and Liebknecht. A founding member of the German Communist Party in 1918 along with comrades including Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. Became a delegate to the Reichstag from 1920; secretary of the International Women's Secretariat and member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International from 1921, but lived in Russia from 1924 until her death in 1933. -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1 _ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
why don't you "hit" the books dear Justin? I have and do. Alison, who is a friend of mine, btw, would be disappointed if you took the lesson from her book that Firestone doesn't count, and indeedd, has nothing to teach historical materialists, or isn't one in her way. My point. however, was that Marxists were up on the Woman Question a long time before 1970. Schulamit Firestone is traditionally known to be on the radical feminist front (Alison Jaggar _Feminism and Human Nature_, chapter 3, 1982). . . . we were talking about the _classical_ architects of _Marxist feminism_ just as we were talking about the classical architecs of liberal feminism (Mill, Taylor). Quite right, which is why I mentioned Bebel and Zetkin. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of history. Rod _The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny von Westphalen... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
At 08:20 PM 6/21/00 -0700, you wrote: Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of history. Rod _The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny von Westphalen... and many people say that Harriet T. likely wrote _The Subjection of Women_ but thought that she couldn't get it published under her name. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. I have to agree, Brad. And all gorgeously written, too. And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny von Westphalen... No use pretending Marx was as sensitive a feminist as Mill (although the former was well ahead of the pack in this regard), but there's no evidence Jenny's terrible privations and bereavements shook her devotion to her hubby, whose character was, I submit, very much in evidence from the outset. Marx was not one to misrepresent himself, even to the girls. And, I submit, Jenny never stopped liking that look. And, but for those moments when he was installed in the help (almost obligatory, really - as KM actually noted in the Manifesto)), Karl apparently reciprocated with an enduring passion. Call me an old romantic (I can add that to 'menshevik reformist running dog') but many a woman outside the class into which Jenny was born - indeed not a few of that class - would have had a far emptier, colder, and less rewarding time of it than the indefatigable Jenny. And, having said all that, it was a lot easier being a JSM than a KM, too. Ya gotta watch the implicit individualism your education has been stuffing into you all these years, mate - these blokes lived in very different contexts. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
Steuart published his book in 1767, although much of it was written decades before -- possibly lifted from Cantillon. The term, political economy, was first used by Montechretian in the 17th C. The idea was that term economy, concerned the management of an estate. Political economy meant that the terrain would shift to the whole country. Michael Hoover wrote: ah yes, political economy, the 'science' of acquisition... I had grad school prof who thought it'd be really good idea for me to read, in addition to Smith, some other 18th century Scottish political economists such as Adam Ferguson, James Steuart. If memory serves, Steuart's book _Inquiry into Principles of Political Economy_ appeared decade or so before Smith's _Inquiry into Wealth of Nations_ (JS may have been first to use term as such but some listers no doubt know more about that stuff than me). Marx. who *critiqued* political economy, refers approvingly to Steuart as thinker with historical view and understanding of historically different modes of production (contrasting him to those positing/holding bourgeois individual to be natural). Early 19th century saw number of books with political economy in title: Say, Ricardo, Malthus, among better known... Michael Hoover -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
_The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. I have to agree, Brad. And all gorgeously written, too. From J. S. Mill, _Considerations of Representative Government_: * Nothing but foreign force would induce a tribe of North American Indians to submit to the restraints of a regular and civilized governmentAgain, a people must be considered unfit for more than a limited and qualified freedom, who will not cooperate actively with the law and the public authorities, in the repression of evil-doers. A people who are more disposed to shelter a criminal than to apprehend him; who, like the Hindoos, will perjure themselves to screen the man who has robbed them, rather than take trouble or expose themselves to vindictiveness by giving evidence against him;...a people who are revolted by an execution, but not shocked at an assassination -- require that the public authorities should be armed with much sterner powers of repression than elsewhere, since the first indispensable requisites of civilized life have nothing else to rest on. * Yoshie
Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
Not my assessment, but Marx's. And he was referring to the Principles of Political Economy, not to the works you list. I happen to like J.S. Mill although I have an aversion to his father. Rod Brad De Long wrote: Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of history. Rod _The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny von Westphalen... Brad DeLong -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
She spent her weekends with her husband and JSM. I recall that she often could not walk, except when it was time for their vacation in France -- but I could be mistaken on that. Brad De Long wrote: Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of history. Rod _The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny von Westphalen... Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
C'mon Yoshie, You wouldn't have to bust a gut to find a bit of (almost unavoidable, in the 1850s) eurocentrism in Marx's writings. Some of that Asiatic Mode of Production stuff, is a little simplistic, no? And then there's his 'The Future Results of British Rule in India' - stuff like : 'Indian society has no history at all ... passive ... unresisting and unchanging society ... The British were the first conquerers superior ... to Hindu civilisation'. The Muslems are, incidentally, brushed aside in a word in this piece. And that word is 'barbaric'. Love the barbarism of the Taj Mahal, don't you? I think the article is an absolute beaut, mind (love the ringing conclusion, f'rinstance), but ya gotta admit Marx sports a couple of blemishes (by the standards of our day), too. Doncha? So what? Cheers, Rob. -- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20550] Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:23:36 -0400 _The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. I have to agree, Brad. And all gorgeously written, too. From J. S. Mill, _Considerations of Representative Government_: * Nothing but foreign force would induce a tribe of North American Indians to submit to the restraints of a regular and civilized governmentAgain, a people must be considered unfit for more than a limited and qualified freedom, who will not cooperate actively with the law and the public authorities, in the repression of evil-doers. A people who are more disposed to shelter a criminal than to apprehend him; who, like the Hindoos, will perjure themselves to screen the man who has robbed them, rather than take trouble or expose themselves to vindictiveness by giving evidence against him;...a people who are revolted by an execution, but not shocked at an assassination -- require that the public authorities should be armed with much sterner powers of repression than elsewhere, since the first indispensable requisites of civilized life have nothing else to rest on. * Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
And, having said all that, it was a lot easier being a JSM than a KM, too. Ya gotta watch the implicit individualism your education has been stuffing into you all these years, mate - these blokes lived in very different contexts. Cheers, Rob. Very true... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
At 08:20 PM 6/21/00 -0700, you wrote: Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of history. Rod _The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny von Westphalen... and many people say that Harriet T. likely wrote _The Subjection of Women_ but thought that she couldn't get it published under her name. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine I hadn't known that. Sources? Now I'm curious enough that I'll spend the morning re-reading it... Brad DeLong -- This is the Unix version of the 'I Love You' virus. It works on the honor system. If you receive this mail, please delete a bunch of GIFs, MP3s and binaries from your home directory. Then send a copy of this e-mail to everyone you know...
Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
Hi Rob: Forget "Eurocentrism" of Mill Marx for a moment -- my intention was to _confirm_ Brad's claim: Mill's writings "still stand up pretty well." _Considerations of Representative Government_, read (against the grain) as description of liberal democracy and not as an apologia of it, beautifully summarizes what it is. A "people who are revolted by an execution, but not shocked at an assassination" (be they Euro or non-Euro) _is_ a problem that requires "that the public authorities should be armed with much sterner powers of repression than elsewhere." This piece of wisdom is a foundation of liberal democracy. Yoshie C'mon Yoshie, You wouldn't have to bust a gut to find a bit of (almost unavoidable, in the 1850s) eurocentrism in Marx's writings. Some of that Asiatic Mode of Production stuff, is a little simplistic, no? And then there's his 'The Future Results of British Rule in India' - stuff like : 'Indian society has no history at all ... passive ... unresisting and unchanging society ... The British were the first conquerers superior ... to Hindu civilisation'. The Muslems are, incidentally, brushed aside in a word in this piece. And that word is 'barbaric'. Love the barbarism of the Taj Mahal, don't you? I think the article is an absolute beaut, mind (love the ringing conclusion, f'rinstance), but ya gotta admit Marx sports a couple of blemishes (by the standards of our day), too. Doncha? So what? Cheers, Rob. -- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20550] Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:23:36 -0400 _The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. I have to agree, Brad. And all gorgeously written, too. From J. S. Mill, _Considerations of Representative Government_: * Nothing but foreign force would induce a tribe of North American Indians to submit to the restraints of a regular and civilized governmentAgain, a people must be considered unfit for more than a limited and qualified freedom, who will not cooperate actively with the law and the public authorities, in the repression of evil-doers. A people who are more disposed to shelter a criminal than to apprehend him; who, like the Hindoos, will perjure themselves to screen the man who has robbed them, rather than take trouble or expose themselves to vindictiveness by giving evidence against him;...a people who are revolted by an execution, but not shocked at an assassination -- require that the public authorities should be armed with much sterner powers of repression than elsewhere, since the first indispensable requisites of civilized life have nothing else to rest on. * Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
I wrote: and many people say that Harriet T. likely wrote _The Subjection of Women_ but thought that she couldn't get it published under her name. Brad queries: I hadn't known that. Sources? Now I'm curious enough that I'll spend the morning re-reading it... unfortunately, this is something I picked up in a philosophy class taken many years ago, while the prof. didn't mention the source. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
This essay had little to do with India. Marx wrote it to undermine the influence of Henry Carey, who was sabotaging Marx's relationship at the Tribune and gaining a great deal of influence with the workers movement in Germany by way of the Duehring. I had a chapter telling this story in my Marx book. Rob Schaap wrote: C'mon Yoshie, You wouldn't have to bust a gut to find a bit of (almost unavoidable, in the 1850s) eurocentrism in Marx's writings. Some of that Asiatic Mode of Production stuff, is a little simplistic, no? And then there's his 'The Future Results of British Rule in India' - stuff like : 'Indian society has no history at all ... passive ... unresisting and unchanging society ... The British were the first conquerers superior ... to Hindu civilisation'. The Muslems are, incidentally, brushed aside in a word in this piece. And that word is 'barbaric'. Love the barbarism of the Taj Mahal, don't you? I think the article is an absolute beaut, mind (love the ringing conclusion, f'rinstance), but ya gotta admit Marx sports a couple of blemishes (by the standards of our day), too. Doncha? So what? Cheers, Rob. -- From: Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20550] Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:23:36 -0400 _The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. I have to agree, Brad. And all gorgeously written, too. From J. S. Mill, _Considerations of Representative Government_: * Nothing but foreign force would induce a tribe of North American Indians to submit to the restraints of a regular and civilized governmentAgain, a people must be considered unfit for more than a limited and qualified freedom, who will not cooperate actively with the law and the public authorities, in the repression of evil-doers. A people who are more disposed to shelter a criminal than to apprehend him; who, like the Hindoos, will perjure themselves to screen the man who has robbed them, rather than take trouble or expose themselves to vindictiveness by giving evidence against him;...a people who are revolted by an execution, but not shocked at an assassination -- require that the public authorities should be armed with much sterner powers of repression than elsewhere, since the first indispensable requisites of civilized life have nothing else to rest on. * Yoshie -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harriet Taylor (was Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd))
In one of his prefaces J.S. Mill thanks Harriet Taylor profusely and says that because he discussed the material with her so thoroughly, she should be considered a co-author. This has been taken by some and transferred into statements similar to those that Jim repeated. Rod Rod means the preface to "On Liberty": "To the beloved and deplored memory of her [Harriet Taylor] who was the inspirer, and in part the author, of all that is best in my writings -- the friend and wife whose exalted sense of truth and right was my strongest incitement, and whose approbation was my chief reward -- I dedicate this volume. Like all that I have written for many years, it belongs as much to her as to me; but the work as it stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable advantage of her revision; some of the most important portions having been reserved for a more careful re-examination, which they are now never destined to receive. Were I but capable of interpreting to the world one half the great thoughts and noble feelings which are buried in her grave, I should be the medium of a greater benefit to it, than is ever likely to arise from anything that I can write, unprompted and unassisted by her all but unrivalled wisdom." Also, in his autobiography published in 1873, Mill gave credit to both Harriet and Helen Taylor (Harriet's daughter): "Whoever, either now or hereafter, may think of me and my work I have done, must never forget that it is the product not of one intellect and conscience but of three, the least considerable of whom, and above all the least original, is the one whose name is attached to it." But evidence is not limited to the above. J.S. Mill wrote in a letter to Harriet Taylor (on 20 March 1854): "I am but fit to be one wheel in an engine not to be the self moving engine itself -- a real majestic intellect, not to say moral nature, like yours, I can only look up and admire. I shall never be satisfied unless you allow our best book the book which is to come, to have our two names on the title page. It ought to be so with everything I publish, for the better half of it all is yours, but the book which will contain our best thoughts [The Subjection of Women], if it has only one name to it, that should be yours." And most scholars now accept that some of the essays published under Mill's name were written by Harriet Taylor: "The Enfranchisement of Women" (the _Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review_ 1851), for example. Most important evidence comes from the works of Harriet Taylor herself: * Jacobs, Jo Ellen, ed., and Paula Harms Payne, asst. ed. Mill, Harriet Taylor The Complete Works of Harriet Taylor Mill Indiana University Press, September 1998, 592 pp., 20 black-and-white photos, ISBN 0-253-33393-8, $59.95 (higher outside North America) Description: For the past 170 years, historians have presented Harriet Taylor Mill as a footnote in John Stuart Mill's life. Few of her works have ever been transcribed from the manuscripts held at the London School of Economics. This volume presents Harriet Taylor Mill in her own voice. Readers may assess for themselves the importance and influence of her ideas on issues such as marriage and divorce, domestic violence, education and suffrage for women. Those reading her ideas on ethics, religion, arts, socialism, and historical figures will be able to note the overlap of her ideas (many expressed in letters from the 1830s) with her more famous husband's important works, On Liberty and Utilitarianism, which were published at least twenty-five years later. The works in these pages are filled with Harriet Taylor Mill's passionate and practical understanding of the world. She attacks organized religion for its irrelevance to most people's spiritual lives and praises the co-operative unions producing goods in France. Readers will learn about Victorian medical practices, the "watering" spas where members of the nineteenth-century middle class sought cures for ailments from tuberculosis to stomach "derangement," and the intricacies of travel in Europe during this period. HTM's letters to her daughter disclose the classic difficulties of a young adult's first departure from home, while her letters to her sons reveal an affectionate but more distant relationship. Harriet Taylor Mill's correspondence with John Stuart Mill demonstrates her willingness to open her heart to him -- along with her lust, her anger, and her curiosity. This volume contains all of the published and unpublished writing of Harriet Taylor Mill, including her drafts and essays on women and women's rights, marriage, women's education, domestic violence, ethics, religion, and arts, along with some revealing personal writing. This collection also comprises her letters to John Stuart Mill, John Taylor, and various family and friends. Approximately seventy percent of this work is appearing in print for the
Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
well." _Considerations of Representative Government_, read (against the grain) as description of liberal democracy and not as an apologia of it, beautifully summarizes what it is. Yoshie good point Yoshie, but this is what "liberal democracy" is all about, so _Considerations of Representative Government_is indeed an apologia of liberalism. It is not an anti-liberal text. The problem with liberal thinking is that it wants to maintain individual freedoms (including "economic freedoms" such as right to "private property") and protect the public at the same time from the "evils" they entail. This liberalism is typical of Mill's moralism, if we read the rest of the text on the role of "prudent" government. Liberalism wants to deliver justice within an unjust system--bourgeois idealism. The only way liberalism can live up to its idealism is by extending the scope of freedoms to middle classes (white, male) while effectively using public authority in the name of justice to obscure inequalities liberalism generates. thanks, Mine Doyran SUNY/Albany
Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny von Westphalen... No use pretending Marx was as sensitive a feminist as Mill (although the former was well ahead of the pack in this regard), Rob. J. S. Mill and Harriet Taylor are the architects of what came to be known as _liberal feminist movement_. You need female folks like Kollontai, Zetkin, Luxemburg, and male feminists like Engels, in order to make sense of the systemic roots of Women's Opression, including class. Radical feminists do not find them perfect either. That being said, however, they were the ones who first raised the question of Women in Marxism. Liberal feminism wants to liberate women without trying to liberate them from sexism, the class society, with all its petty moralism and bourgeois traditionalism, entails. In their agenda, some women are emancipated, but the rest is unliberated. Marxist feminism wants to liberate women from capitalism and sexism simultaneously. It is an advancement over Sir Mill's and Lady Taylor's limited feminism. thanks, Mine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
In a message dated 6/22/00 11:28:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Subjection of Women_; _On Liberty_; and _Representative Government_ still stand up pretty well. The "Essay on Bentham" is a sensitive positive critique of utilitarianism. And it seems to me likely that Harriet Taylor had more fun than Jenny von Westphalen... Right, but Marx was talking about JS as a political economist, where his reputation now seems inflated. As for Jenny, I don't think she ever let of if she was unhappy. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy(fwd)
In a message dated 6/22/00 4:11:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Radical feminists do not find them perfect either. That being said, however, they were the ones who first raised the question of Women in Marxism. What about August Bebel, whose Woman Under Socialism is the all time best selling Marxist book of all time? My old copy was translated by Daniel de Leon. Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg would also be surprsied to hear that it took Shulamith Firestone to raise The Woman Question in Marxism. Mine, you gotta hit the books. --jks
Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
Can someone please comment on whether or not the following is correct?
The meaning of the expression "political economy", as it is used
today, is not identical with the meaning of the expression "political
economy", as it was used by Marx and his contemporaries.
Gert, _political economy_ is relatively a new sub-field in social
sciences, particularly in political science and sociology. I doubt that
it has a strong foundation in economics departments, with the exception
of few radical places may be. Although originally the concept was
invented by Marx and his contemporaries, the definition of political
economy as a "social science dealing with the interrelationship of
political and economic processes" (_Webster's Third New International
Dictionary_) is a new contribution, a product of 60s, brought to our
attention by the proliferation of radical perspectives in social
sciences (world system, underdevelopment, imperialism theories, etc..).
Previously, in the 50s, specialists in the field, particularly
mainstream political scientists, looked at the role of the government
and the state only. They generally emphasized pure politics (let's say
how a bill becomes a law) and overlooked economic considerations. Their
use of political system detracted attention from class society, and was
limited to "legal and institutional meanings" (Ronald Chilcote, p.342)
Economists, on the hand, always found political science less scientific,
and they continue to do so, especially the ones who think that other
social sciences need a strong neo-classical foundation and objectivity. In
the 60s, when radical perspectives began to address the questions of
imperialism and dependency in international politics and emphasized the
politics behind economics, political economy was able to become a coherent
body of knowledge and integrated to the cirriculum of political science
departments. This development also anticipated the growth of international
political economy as a new subfield within political economy.
In today's usage, "political economy" refers to a treatment of
economic problems with a strong emphasis on the political side (the
politics of economics), as opposed to a de-politicized ("economistic")
view of economics.
True. You may like to consider for this distinction Stephen Gill's
book on _Gramsci and Historical Materialism_,or Jeffrey Frieden's edited
volume_International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and
Wealth_. Mind you that economists and other social scientists approach
political economy slightly differently. Economists generally stress the
economic ramifications of political economy (let's say market
inefficiency, supply and demand, price determinations, etc...).
Sometimes this approach develops a tendency towards a "depoliticized",
reified, economistic view of economics, which Marx wholeheartedly
criticized, and then later Gramsci rediscovered by developing a
_politically articulated historical materialism_. Considerably
differently from economists, sociologists, for example, stresss more
vehemently the societal, historical and idelological ramifications of
political economy (class, gender, race issues). I should admit that the
conteporary birth of interest in political economy is more of an effort
by sociologists than of efforsts by other scientists. This effort is
disseminating to other fields of social sciences too.
Origins and evoluton of political economy, however, dates back to much
earlier times. For example, Mandel dated the birth of political
economy " to the development of society based on commodity production".
On the other hand Marx's capital was a "Critique of Political Economy"
and emphasized commodities, surplus value, wages, accumulation of
capital. I generally disagree with the views that reduce Marx to Smith
and other classical economists. These views tend to see Marx the
Economist only, not Marx the revolutionary. Regardingly, Marx criticized
bourgeois economists for basing economics upon illusions of free
competition in which individuals "seemed" to be liberated. Marx reminded
us the fact that this notion of competitive market capitalism and
individual freedom was an historical product, not a natural state of
affairs, and would die one day as it was born.
At Marx's time the discipline of economics had not been ravaged by
scientism yet. At his time "political economy" meant the same as
"public economy" or "Staatswirtschaft" or macroeconomics
(macroeconomy), as opposed to business administration,
business management or microeconomics.
Historically speaking, what you are saying makes sense. Remember that at
Marx's time, in the German nation state, the concept of political
economy was used to refer to a field of government concerned with
directing policies towards distribution of resources, and national
wealth. This is where the concept of "public economy" comes from.
Although the use of political economy was related to economics, it was
still primarily
Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
Although originally the concept [of political economy] was invented by Marx and his contemporaries, * * * I made this mistake once early in grad school, and my political theory teacher humiliated me in front of everyone.. Pol econ was the term for what we call economics, mainly, but also political science with an eye towards material reproduction, for over 100 years before Marx. Rousseau discusses it, Smith thought of himself as doing pol econ. --jks
Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
Quoth Mine: Although originally the concept [of political economy] was invented by Marx and his contemporaries, Quoth Justin: I made this mistake once early in grad school, and my political theory teacher humiliated me in front of everyone.. Pol econ was the term for what we call economics, mainly, but also political science with an eye towards material reproduction, for over 100 years before Marx. Rousseau discusses it, Smith thought of himself as doing pol econ. --jks Quoth one Piercy Ravenstone, fiercely taking a three-year-old Karl Marx to pre-emptive task, in 'A Few Doubts as to the Correctness of Some Opinions Generally Entertained on the Subjects of Population and *Political Economy*' (1821): '(Capital) serves to account for whatever cannot be accounted for in any other way. Where reason fails, where argument is insufficient, it operates like a talisman to silence all doubts. It occupies the same place in their theories, which was held by darkness in the mythology of the ancients. It is the root of all their genealogies, it is the great mother of all things, it is the cause of every event that happens in the world. Capital, according to them, is the parent of industry, the forerunner of all improvements ... It is the deity of their idolatry which they have set up to worship in the high places of the Lord; and were its powers what they imagine, it would not be unworthy of their adoration.' Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
Quoth Mine: Although originally the concept [of political economy] was invented by Marx and his contemporaries, Quoth Justin: I made this mistake once early in grad school, and my political theory teacher humiliated me in front of everyone.. Pol econ was the term for what we call economics, mainly, but also political science with an eye towards material reproduction, for over 100 years before Marx. Rousseau discusses it, Smith thought of himself as doing pol econ. --jks Quoth one Piercy Ravenstone, fiercely taking a three-year-old Karl Marx to pre-emptive task, in 'A Few Doubts as to the Correctness of Some Opinions Generally Entertained on the Subjects of Population and *Political Economy*' (1821): '(Capital) serves to account for whatever cannot be accounted for in any other way. Where reason fails, where argument is insufficient, it operates like a talisman to silence all doubts. It occupies the same place in their theories, which was held by darkness in the mythology of the ancients. It is the root of all their genealogies, it is the great mother of all things, it is the cause of every event that happens in the world. Capital, according to them, is the parent of industry, the forerunner of all improvements ... It is the deity of their idolatry which they have set up to worship in the high places of the Lord; and were its powers what they imagine, it would not be unworthy of their adoration.' Rob. ah yes, political economy, the 'science' of acquisition... I had grad school prof who thought it'd be really good idea for me to read, in addition to Smith, some other 18th century Scottish political economists such as Adam Ferguson, James Steuart. If memory serves, Steuart's book _Inquiry into Principles of Political Economy_ appeared decade or so before Smith's _Inquiry into Wealth of Nations_ (JS may have been first to use term as such but some listers no doubt know more about that stuff than me). Marx. who *critiqued* political economy, refers approvingly to Steuart as thinker with historical view and understanding of historically different modes of production (contrasting him to those positing/holding bourgeois individual to be natural). Early 19th century saw number of books with political economy in title: Say, Ricardo, Malthus, among better known... Michael Hoover
Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
There is also a 19th century American tradition in this vein. People like John Commons of the Wisconsin Progressive School wrote books with "Political Economy" in the title. Of course, all this is before the rise of 20th century American "Political Science," which by splitting economics from politics, tried quite explicitly to provide another explanation besides Marx's dialectical materialism as the motor of history. Joel Blau Michael Hoover wrote: Quoth Mine: Although originally the concept [of political economy] was invented by Marx and his contemporaries, Quoth Justin: I made this mistake once early in grad school, and my political theory teacher humiliated me in front of everyone.. Pol econ was the term for what we call economics, mainly, but also political science with an eye towards material reproduction, for over 100 years before Marx. Rousseau discusses it, Smith thought of himself as doing pol econ. --jks Quoth one Piercy Ravenstone, fiercely taking a three-year-old Karl Marx to pre-emptive task, in 'A Few Doubts as to the Correctness of Some Opinions Generally Entertained on the Subjects of Population and *Political Economy*' (1821): '(Capital) serves to account for whatever cannot be accounted for in any other way. Where reason fails, where argument is insufficient, it operates like a talisman to silence all doubts. It occupies the same place in their theories, which was held by darkness in the mythology of the ancients. It is the root of all their genealogies, it is the great mother of all things, it is the cause of every event that happens in the world. Capital, according to them, is the parent of industry, the forerunner of all improvements ... It is the deity of their idolatry which they have set up to worship in the high places of the Lord; and were its powers what they imagine, it would not be unworthy of their adoration.' Rob. ah yes, political economy, the 'science' of acquisition... I had grad school prof who thought it'd be really good idea for me to read, in addition to Smith, some other 18th century Scottish political economists such as Adam Ferguson, James Steuart. If memory serves, Steuart's book _Inquiry into Principles of Political Economy_ appeared decade or so before Smith's _Inquiry into Wealth of Nations_ (JS may have been first to use term as such but some listers no doubt know more about that stuff than me). Marx. who *critiqued* political economy, refers approvingly to Steuart as thinker with historical view and understanding of historically different modes of production (contrasting him to those positing/holding bourgeois individual to be natural). Early 19th century saw number of books with political economy in title: Say, Ricardo, Malthus, among better known... Michael Hoover
Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
M. Hoover wrote: I had grad school prof who thought it'd be really good idea for me to read, in addition to Smith, some other 18th century Scottish political economists such as Adam Ferguson, James Steuart. If memory serves, Steuart's book _Inquiry into Principles of Political Economy_ appeared decade or so before Smith's _Inquiry into Wealth of Nations_ (JS may have been first to use term as such but some listers no doubt know more about that stuff than me). Marx. who *critiqued* political economy, refers approvingly to Steuart as thinker with historical view and understanding of historically different modes of production (contrasting him to those positing/holding bourgeois individual to be natural). This, I agree. _On James Mill_ (McL. _Selected Political Writings of Marx_), Marx refers somewhat "approvingly" to John's father. I have to read the text once again though, since my memory poorly serves me at the moment.. James Mill must belong to the tradition of utilitarianism, sharing a great deal of philosophical ideas with Bentham. Bentham's individualism was later criticized by John, the son who thought that pleasure maximizing principle should not be the sole concern of individualism. So John wanted to extend the scope of utility to areas other than individuals (public education, etc..). I have to open my exam notes for the distinction between James and John Mill to make sense of the debate between James and Marx. It does not seem terrribly clear to me at the moment, but I know Marx talks positively of James, if not very supportively. Mine Doyran SUNY/Albany Early 19th century saw number of books with political economy in title: Say, Ricardo, Malthus, among better known... Michael Hoover
Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
M. Hoover wrote: 18th century Scottish political economists such as Adam Ferguson, James Steuart. Steuart's book _Inquiry into Principles of Political Economy_ Marx. who *critiqued* political economy, refers approvingly to Steuart as thinker with historical view and understanding of historically different modes of production (contrasting him to those positing/holding bourgeois individual to be natural). This, I agree. _On James Mill_ (McL. _Selected Political Writings of Marx_), Marx refers somewhat "approvingly" to John's father. I have to read the text once again though, since my memory poorly serves me at the moment.. James Mill must belong to the tradition of utilitarianism, sharing a great deal of philosophical ideas with Bentham. Bentham's individualism was later criticized by John, the son who thought that pleasure maximizing principle should not be the sole concern of individualism. So John wanted to extend the scope of utility to areas other than individuals (public education, etc..). I have to open my exam notes for the distinction between James and John Mill to make sense of the debate between James and Marx. It does not seem terrribly clear to me at the moment, but I know Marx talks positively of James, if not very supportively. Mine Doyran I think there is some confusion here. My comments were about James Steuart, not about James Mill or about John Stuart Mill (who did, however write book with political economic in title). Marx's generally favorable remarks about James Steuart can be found in *General Introduction* to _Grundrisse_ and in first volume of _Theories of Surplus Value_. As for John Stuart Mill, didn't Marx characterize him as someone for whom production was fixed by eternal natural laws independent of history that just happened to bear remarkable resemblance to bourgeois relations? I recall something about attempting to 'reconcile irreconcilables' or some such language by Marx.Michael Hoover (who, for some reason, has spent inordinate amount of time e-listing today)
Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
James Mill was indeed a classic Benthamite utilitarian, and a very close friend of Bentham's to boot. You are mistaken, though, if you think that John Stuart Mill, the son of James, was opposed to making pleasure the sole good. He just had a more nuanced conception of pleasure, or to use his word, happiness. Of course James M and Bentham extended the principle of utility to politics, education, economics, law, and education, not just individual conduct (which did not much interest them); not for nothing were they called the Philosophical Radicals. There was no debate bewteen James M and Marx, since James M was dead before Marx was up and running, but Marx's attack on James M is hardly what I would call approving. He was likewise dubiousabout son JS, the preeminant political economist of his age. (And later a market socialist, as we would say). --jks In a message dated 6/21/00 4:19:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This, I agree. _On James Mill_ (McL. _Selected Political Writings of Marx_), Marx refers somewhat "approvingly" to John's father. I have to read the text once again though, since my memory poorly serves me at the moment.. James Mill must belong to the tradition of utilitarianism, sharing a great deal of philosophical ideas with Bentham. Bentham's individualism was later criticized by John, the son who thought that pleasure maximizing principle should not be the sole concern of individualism. So John wanted to extend the scope of utility to areas other than individuals (public education, etc..). I have to open my exam notes for the distinction between James and John Mill to make sense of the debate between James and Marx. It does not seem terrribly clear to me at the moment, but I know Marx talks positively of James, if not very supportively.
Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
okey,I have to respond to this. I did not say that Marx personally debated with James Mill.I know that James was dead before Marx was up. Merci. I said that Marx wrote a short article called _On James Mill_, which you can find in in McL's Marx: Political Writings... Mine the Philosophical Radicals. There was no debate bewteen James M and Marx, since James M was dead before Marx was up and running, but Marx's attack on James M is hardly what I would call approving. He was likewise dubiousabout son JS, the preeminant political economist of his age. (And later a market socialist, as we would say). --jks In a message dated 6/21/00 4:19:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This, I agree. _On James Mill_ (McL. _Selected Political Writings of Marx_), Marx refers somewhat "approvingly" to John's father. I have to read the text once again though, since my memory poorly serves me at the moment.. James Mill must belong to the tradition of utilitarianism, sharing a great deal of philosophical ideas with Bentham. Bentham's individualism was later criticized by John, the son who thought that pleasure maximizing principle should not be the sole concern of individualism. So John wanted to extend the scope of utility to areas other than individuals (public education, etc..). I have to open my exam notes for the distinction between James and John Mill to make sense of the debate between James and Marx. It does not seem terrribly clear to me at the moment, but I know Marx talks positively of James, if not very supportively.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Definition of Political Economy (fwd)
Marx's complain against J. S. Mill was that he was mediocre, and looked good simply because the competition was so dreadful. Mediocre because he confined himself to study surface phenomena, rather than to look at the real motor of history. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Mill was indeed a classic Benthamite utilitarian, and a very close friend of Bentham's to boot. You are mistaken, though, if you think that John Stuart Mill, the son of James, was opposed to making pleasure the sole good. He just had a more nuanced conception of pleasure, or to use his word, happiness. Of course James M and Bentham extended the principle of utility to politics, education, economics, law, and education, not just individual conduct (which did not much interest them); not for nothing were they called the Philosophical Radicals. There was no debate bewteen James M and Marx, since James M was dead before Marx was up and running, but Marx's attack on James M is hardly what I would call approving. He was likewise dubiousabout son JS, the preeminant political economist of his age. (And later a market socialist, as we would say). --jks In a message dated 6/21/00 4:19:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This, I agree. _On James Mill_ (McL. _Selected Political Writings of Marx_), Marx refers somewhat "approvingly" to John's father. I have to read the text once again though, since my memory poorly serves me at the moment.. James Mill must belong to the tradition of utilitarianism, sharing a great deal of philosophical ideas with Bentham. Bentham's individualism was later criticized by John, the son who thought that pleasure maximizing principle should not be the sole concern of individualism. So John wanted to extend the scope of utility to areas other than individuals (public education, etc..). I have to open my exam notes for the distinction between James and John Mill to make sense of the debate between James and Marx. It does not seem terrribly clear to me at the moment, but I know Marx talks positively of James, if not very supportively. -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
