--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>In a message dated 2/10/01 12:57:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><< I think it is one of the strong failings of Marxism...that it only
>considers the historical trends of the collective and ignores what happens
>to individuals. >>
>
>
>Don't blame Marx for what was done in his name after his death. He >would
>never have countenanced any of the horrors of the 20th >century, and would
>have denounced them. In fact, he did separate >himself from what was being
>done in his name shortly before his >death.
I based my opinion on what I studied when I took a semester course on
Marxism as part of my philosophy degree. The texts we used in this study
were early writings found in "The Young Hegelians and "Early Marx."
The only essay name I remember is "On the Jewish question." In it he shows,
to his satisfaction, how Jews can never be citizens and remain Jews."
The particular idea that I recall is the historical dialectic. It is a
deterministic look at historical forces, with only large groups of
individuals mattering. He did not think in terms of personal rights. I'm a
bit hazy on the details, but I see him as trying to develop the science of
human interactions. (Well, he was the first sociologist, after all.)
I don't think that Marx was totally worthless. His work on alienation is
valuable, IMHO. But, I have profound disagreements with basic assumptions
of his (and Nietchzie too). I think they reflect a low point in German
philosophy that foreshadows some of the horrors of the 20th century.
Just to let you know I'm not totally anti-German, my favorite philosopher is
Kant. I think he is the towering figure in philosophy of the last several
hundred years.
Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge.
Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
