David S.
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.
^^^^^^^
CB: Speaking of slippery, the bourgeois philosphers say but don't
practice the idea that all are created equal. The wealthy are wealthy
because they deserve to be and deserve to be better than the poor.
Do you think that women have longer life expectancies, an ultimate
form of "success", because of biology ?
A better and more pertinent modern example of philsophers being
jeopardized by openly telling the truths they know would be Marxists
threatened by anti-Communism in the US.
What are the controversial truths Straussians believe they have discovered ?
^^^^
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.
^^^^
CB: It's also the Marxist view that philosophy in the classical sense
is obsolete ( See Engels' _Ludwig Feuerbach_.) Almost certainly they
would be significantly different than the Straussian sense. What is
the Straussian definition of philosopher , lover of wisdom ?
>> 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.
Defining "capitalism" is very difficult, precisely because Marxists
are slippery and disingenuous. (Sorry guys).
^^^^
CB: Surely you are not saying we are slipperier than anybody else,
like Straussians (smile)
^^^^
Marxists are forever slipping and sliding between allegedly neutral
analysis and subjective moral valuations.
^^^^^
CB: Basically, Marxists are very consistent and straight forward in
opposing capitalism and advocating socialism. All the "moral
evaluations" your refer to can be understood by that. It's not that
"slippery" if you focus on that. It sort of like your ignoring the
point that left/Marxism is anti-capitalist/pro-working class, and no
more axes are needed to get the basic idea. The slipping and sliding
is more a subjective projection by you than something objectively "in"
Marxism.
^^^^^^^
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.
^^^^^
CB: Actually, on this point , Marx wrote a letter to his father as a
young student claiming he had found a way to unite "the is and the
ought". So, the relationship between the objective and the
moral/subjective for Marxists _is_ one of more unity than from your
perspective, perhaps. The morals of a society are derivative of the
objective social relations. But Marx is very clear on advocating the
revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Immerseration is an objective
result of private property in the basic means of production and
exploitation and mass unemployment.
Why is it contentious to agree with Marxists that something is
capitalist ? Marxists are pretty clear and consistent as to what we
claim is capitalist. Do you have your own defnition of "capitalist" ?
^^^^^^^
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
^^^^^
CB: Sure but only a non-Marxist would say that capitalist relations of
production don't define what is capitalist . Also, for Marxists ,there
aren't a lot of other forms of society in modern society, feudalism
being about the only other one. So...What name do you give to Nazi
Germany ?
And what , to you, is capitalism ?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
