Jim Devine writes:
>> oooh, Straussians. I knew a few in college. They seem to have a
>> mystical approach to books by famous people (Machievelli, etc.),
>> always finding a message that other people can't see. Usually the
>> authors had this kind of hidden message in order to avoid persecution.
>> One of the Straussian tenets is that they should keep their own
>> message secret, too. If the unwashed masses knew what the Straussians
>> believe, the story goes, they'd face the fate of Socrates... Thus,
>> they have a reputation for secretive plotting (as part of the broader
>> neoconservative movement), as during the build-up to the US conquest
>> of Iraq in 2003.
It's not mystical. I took a class in college from a Straussian and we read
Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke, very "closely" as the Straussians call it. I
remember sitting there thinking -- Jesus, the professor is right! It's not
that people can't see what the Straussians see, it's that most people don't
read the books at all, and those that do claim to read them do not read them
with care.
And it is not that Straussians believe Straussians should be secretive, it is
that "philosophers" must be careful, as the story of Socrates shows.
"Political philosophy," according to the Straussians, is ultimately about the
relationship between "philosophers" and the "city." Philosophers (lovers of
wisdom) are devoted to truth-seeking as the highest good, which is not the
highest good of the "city", and if the philosopher openly announces in the
marketsquare that the gods of the city are myths, it (1) endangers the life of
the philosopher, and (2) endangers the happiness of the non-philosophers, who
are not prepared to look death in the face and, if they believe there is no
god, no life after death, no justice, etc., the social order will disintegrate.
The Straussian view that the philosopher needs to be careful seems valid
enough to me, even in an open society like the USA. For instance, if you
believe that it is true that biological differences explain the different
levels of success of men and women in the hard sciences, it is probably a good
idea for you to be somewhat circumspect in presenting your view, because it
challenges the foundational belief of the city that we are all created equal.
I should note that from the perspective of the Straussians, Marx is interesting
and important because he believes that, once communism is achieved. all will be
philosophers, not just the few. Straussians are skeptical. Strauss's extended
exchange with Alexander Kojeve is one of the most important Strauss materials.
>> Of course, there are no standardized definitions of any complex
>> concept. People can use this kind of idealist definition if they want
>> to ("capitalism means ... an ideology"). But as a student of society
>> and history, I know that ideologies go nowhere (i.e., have no effect
>> on human action) unless the social conditions are ripe. For capitalism
>> as an ideology to bloom, therefore, in practice we need capitalism
>> defined as as a type of social system to be present.
<snip>
>> In the Marxian view, capitalism as a social system is _not_ one "based
>> on private property relations." Rather, it's one based on
>> individual[*] property rights in the means of production (factories,
>> land, etc.) It cannot be a complete social system without
>> proletarianized labor (i.e. a mass of workers who don't own the means
>> of production and are not owned as property themselves).
>>
>>
>> Nazi Germany fit this conception of capitalism, except to the extent
>> that it used slave labor. No system is _purely_ capitalist (though the
>> MLs love and the neoliberals tried to establish that utopia). The Nazi
>> economic system was dominated by its capitalist core, but it had slave
>> aspects. In fact it was capitalist organizations -- corporations --
>> that got a big share of the benefits of the use of slave labor.
>>
>> Nazi capitalism was one case where the boundary between the state and
>> "civil society" (that part of society outside of the state sector) was
>> relatively fluid. The state was involved in production and the big
>> capitalists were strongly represented in government. One might call
>> that economy an amalgam between private capitalism (e.g., liberal
>> capitalism of 19th century England) and state capitalism (e.g.,
>> Algeria). But it was capitalism in the sense that the main means of
>> production were privately owned and there was a proletariat.
Defining "capitalism" is very difficult, precisely because Marxists are
slippery and disingenuous. (Sorry guys). Marxists are forever slipping and
sliding between allegedly neutral analysis and subjective moral valuations. I
can easily agree with you that we can call "capitalism" a social system
dominated by private property relations and proletarianized labor. Fine, that
is "capitalism." However, describing a social system as dominated by private
property relations and proletarianized labor to a non-Marxist is, in the
abstract, a neutral event, such a society has no intrinsic goodness or badness.
However, to a Marxist, identifying a specific society as dominated by private
property relations and proletarianized labor, and therefore "capitalist," has
all kinds of moral implications. Such a society, depending on the Marxist, has
inherent contradictions that will result in immiseration, is inherently
alienating, is premised on exploitation, etc., and deserves revolutionary
replacement. Therefore, agreeing with a Marxist that something is "capitalist"
is necessarily contentious. I could agree with you that Nazi Germany was
"capitalist" in the sense that yes, property continued to be held in private
hands and there was a proletariat. But that is the least interesting part of
Nazi Germany -- only a Marxist could look at Nazi Germany and the USA and say:
see, in both private property relations dominate and there is a proletariat,
therefore they are both "capitalist" and their differences are one of
marginality and not essence. That is a peculiarly Marxist way of looking at
things not shared by non-Marxists.
David Shemano
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
