In a message dated 5/17/00 10:02:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism?
I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about
how systems of self-rule and people-power could actually work. I
Yes, Marx was distrustful of the ideas of utopians, who laid out plans
for the future. He thought that people should organize such things on
their own when the time came.
Brad De Long wrote:
> I suspect that there is more to it than Marx's lack of thought about
> how systems of self-rule and pe
I might be wrong, but I always thought that it was because he was a
democrat. People would decide for themselves what they wanted. People
freed from the constraints of a society of scarcity, and class divisions,
might decide things that he could not imagine.
Rod
Brad De Long wrote:
>
>
> I susp
Brad,
Well, it is a truism that he considered thinking
about what it would look like to be utopianism, which
he dismissed, although I have long claimed that parts
of the platform of the Communist Manifesto amounted
to utopianism, although some of it looks like garden
variety stuff today, e.g
Justin?
Well, you are right that State and Revolution is
full of democratic verbiage (I misremembered) although
it is full of denunciations of "parliamentarism" drawing
on Marx.
Try "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government"
written after attaining power. Now Marx's concept of the
Brad De Long wrote:
>So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism? Why
>was the world afflicted with, say, Paul Sweezy's claim that "One
>need not have a specific idea of a... beautiful musical composition,
>to recognize that the... the rock-and-roll that blares at us
>exem
In a message dated 5/17/00 11:28:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I might be wrong, but I always thought that it was because he was a
democrat. People would decide for themselves what they wanted. People
freed from the constraints of a society of scarcity, and class di
In The Closing of the American Mind, of course. ;) --jks
In a message dated Thu, 18 May 2000 12:16:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< Brad De Long wrote:
>So why, then, is the first Marx so weak in post-Marxian Marxism? Why
>was the world afflicted with,
Justin writes:
>I would add to this analysis that I think the democratic Marx was a lot
>more popular until the rise of the USSR; you see this in people like Rosa
>Luxemburg ... But the Soviet Unuion claimed the mantle of Marx and
>squelched democracy, So in the shadow of its prestige, the demo
Barkley wrote:
>BTW, in his personal political dealings Marx was not known for democratic
>tolerance. When Bakunin and the anarchists threatened to take control of
>the First International, Marx closed it, shut down the shop, took his
>marbles and went home and pouted.
this a partial picture
Barkley wrote:
>In the Critique of the Gotha Program he clearly goes totally utopian in
his programmatic speculations.
Just the contrary. _The Critique of the Gotha Program_ is one of the most
"realist" criticisms of the program of the Eisenach faction of the German
social democratic movement.
>In fact some Marxists argue that although Marx did not completely agree
>with R's notion of the general will, he was positively inlfluenced by R's
>critique of private property (unlike liberals like Hobbes and Locke who
>naturalized property ownership as a basis for apologizing inequalities a
Jim Devine wrote:.
>This is basically right, except that Hobbes did not "naturalize" property
>ownership.
in fact, he did. this is the sole idea behind R's criticism of Hobbes in
_On the Origins of Inequality_. Hobbes falsely projected what is social
(property) onto human nature, to say that
e: Thursday, May 18, 2000 1:16 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19221] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability (fwd)
Barkley wrote:
>In the Critique of the Gotha Program he clearly goes totally utopian in
his programmatic speculations.
Just the contrary. _The Critique of the Gotha Program_ is one of
I wrote:
>>This is basically right, except that Hobbes did not "naturalize"
property ownership.<<
Mine writes: >in fact, he did. this is the sole idea behind R's criticism
of Hobbes in _On the Origins of Inequality_. Hobbes falsely projected what
is social (property) onto human nature, to sa
Jim Devine wrote: >In the terms I used, this positing of possessiveness
reflected >Hobbes' experience with the English Civil War and the rise of
capitalist >competition.
Yes and No. Hobbes was not *simply* writing under the influence of his
circumstances. He was also *normatively* endorsing ca
Barkley Rosser:
> The utopianism came
> in when he actually discussed what socialism would
> be, or more precisely communism, e.g. the withering
> away of the state and "from each according to his
> ability to each according to his needs;" all very nice,
> but also very utopian, especially t
>Jim Devine wrote: >In the terms I used, this positing of possessiveness
>reflected Hobbes' experience with the English Civil War and the rise of
>capitalist competition. <
Mine writes:
>Yes and No. Hobbes was not *simply* writing under the influence of his
>circumstances. He was also *norma
I would add one more thing.Weber's definition of state is quite
misleading. If state is defined in terms of monopolization of power,I
don't think this is unique to capitalist state. If you carefully read
Weber's _Sociology of Ancient Civilizations_, where he analyzes
pre-capitalist states, you wi
2 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:19239] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability
(fwd)
>Barkley Rosser:
>
>> The utopianism came
>> in when he actually discussed what socialism would
>> be, or more precisely communism, e.g. the withering
>> away of the state and
20 matches
Mail list logo
