Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability (fwd)
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 *normatively* endorsing capitalism and private property regime. If one's ideas simply reflect one's circumstances, then Marx could never have been "critical" of capitalim. I didn't say "simply reflected circumstances," since I didn't use the word "simply." plus, Hobbes' notion of the "instict of rational self-preservation" is completely "ahistorical". Hobbes abstracts the concept from its historical content, and then projects capitalism onto human nature as if human nature has never changed, or as if it has always remained capitalist. He does not locate rationality in its historical context. He assimilates the very definition of liberty to capitalist rationality (posssesive individualism). I don't disagree. I wouldn't equate his views of human nature with "capitalist rationality," though. I think it also reflected (though it did not "simply reflect") the extremely contentious English Civil War. You say R's model was an abstraction. i don't terribly disagree with this. however, i don't see any problem with abstractions per se nor do I. The problem for me, as for Marx Engels, was with the kind of abstraction it (R's "contrat social") was. I wrote: But following R, there's a distinction between "possession" (control) and "property" (state-endorsed rights). Mine writes: I don't recall this. do you have a citation for this distinction from the text. Under "capitalism", state is by definition a protector of private property regime The distinction is in R's SOCIAL CONTRACT. BTW, I don't think the concept of "private property" is a good one. I would use the term "individual property" instead, since the impact of "private property" is more than private. Under capitalism, owning the right kinds of property allows one to appropriate a share of the societal surplus-value. Even under simple commodity production, the owner of property can impose pollution and the like on others. I think it's confusing to _define_ the capitalist state as "a protector of [the] private property system." That's what it does, but I would define it in more general terms as the organization that monopolizes violence (or attempts to do so) in a given territory. (This follows Weber, who follows Trotsky, but is not the same.) At least for a while the working class could control the state in a way that goes against capitalist property. I like that book [Origins of Inequality] too. It's a very abstract and hypothetical anthropology, akin to a lot of "sociobiology" in style of analysis (trying to figure out what people were like without society) but with more attractive conclusions to most leftists. come on! which socio-biology?. I strongly disencourage you to assimilate R to biologically reductionist socio-biology arguments that reduce man to "genes"... I explained what I meant, in parentheses. this missive is too long to respond to any more... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability(fwd)
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 will see that Roman empire was monopolizing
power in a given territory too, but Roman empire was not necesarily
capitalist, as Weber admits. In _Economy and Society_ Weber adds one
more dimension to his theory of the modern state: "legitimate right to
have a monopoly of violence in a given territory".He does not use
legitimacy in the sense of consent formation (contractual). He uses it to
describe how rulers receive legitimacy ("beleif" in legality, p.37)
regardless of whether or not rulers are themselves are legitimate
(following his logic faschism is legitemate too! geez!).
So Weber is interested in how the ruling autority is "legitimized". In
that respect, the capitalist state doees not simply use coercion but also
seek consent to make people beleive that its very existence is legimate
Weber was a bourgeois thinker.I prefer Gramsci's concept of hegemony to
Weber's concept of domination, since he has a more dynamic
vision of the state. Gramsci argues that the very definition of
the capitalist modern state is based two charecteristics: consent and
coercion. Politics is a power struggle of trying to gain hegemony over the
state (war of position),and of converting spontaneous mass movements to
long term organic developments. Once a dominant groups establishes her
hegemony, then they automatically resort to consent formation by
effectively using the ideological appratuses in society: civil society,
business groups, education, family, church..
ohh! gramsci is a different story.i love his reading of M' prince with a
communist twist! italian geniousity..
Mine
I think it's confusing to _define_ the capitalist state as "a protector
of [the] private property system." That's what it does, but I would
define it in more general terms as the organization that monopolizes
violence (or attempts to do so) in a given territory. (This follows
Weber, who follows Trotsky, but is not the same.) At least for a while
the working class could control the state in a way that goes against
capitalist property.
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 "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs;" all very nice, but also very utopian, especially the bit about the withering away of the state. What a pathetic joke. Where have you been, Barkley? Tell me the truth. Russia? Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability (fwd)
Mark, So, was this utopian or not? We certainly did not see any withering away of the state, not in the former USSR, not in the PRC, not anywhere that was or is ruled by a self-labeled Communist Party (or some variation on that). Would that it were not so. I was in Denmark for a conference last week. Those social democracies still look about as good as we have managed anywhere on the face of this globe so far. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Mark Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 3:02 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 "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs;" all very nice, but also very utopian, especially the bit about the withering away of the state. What a pathetic joke. Where have you been, Barkley? Tell me the truth. Russia? Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
