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 Hobbes abstracts the concept from its historical content, and then projects capitalism onto human nature as if human nature has never changed, or as if it has always remained capitalist.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: 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 the most "realist" criticisms of the program of the Eisenach faction of the German social democratic movement. it is a critique of bourgeois "idealism" as it criticizes the failure of bourgeois democracy to live up to its ideals of equality and justice. (See for this Norman Geras' article in _New Left Review_, Marx and Justice Debate, 1989 or 86?) I always find the first passage the most remarkable: Party program says: "labour is the sources of all wealth and all culture, and since useful labour is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society" Marx replies: "Labour is not the source of wealth. nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labour power. The above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct in so far as it is implied that labour is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. but a socialist program can not allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that alone give them meaning.. the bourgeois have very good grounds to for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labour; since precisely from the fact that labour depends on nature it follows that the man who posses no other property than his labour power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the SLAVE of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labour. He can work only live with their permission, hence live only with their permission" (Marx-Engels reader, Tucker ed., ) Mine Doyran Political Science Phd student SUNY/Albany
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability (fwd)
Mine, But, Marx's remarks do not address what socialism will be. It is just more critique. 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. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 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 the most "realist" criticisms of the program of the Eisenach faction of the German social democratic movement. it is a critique of bourgeois "idealism" as it criticizes the failure of bourgeois democracy to live up to its ideals of equality and justice. (See for this Norman Geras' article in _New Left Review_, Marx and Justice Debate, 1989 or 86?) I always find the first passage the most remarkable: Party program says: "labour is the sources of all wealth and all culture, and since useful labour is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society" Marx replies: "Labour is not the source of wealth. nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labour power. The above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct in so far as it is implied that labour is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. but a socialist program can not allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that alone give them meaning.. the bourgeois have very good grounds to for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labour; since precisely from the fact that labour depends on nature it follows that the man who posses no other property than his labour power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the SLAVE of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labour. He can work only live with their permission, hence live only with their permission" (Marx-Engels reader, Tucker ed., ) Mine Doyran Political Science Phd student SUNY/Albany
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability (fwd)
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 and possesive individualism).If you read Marx's early writings in details, you will see that there is not an _explicit_ attack at Rousseau. I think he only mentions once in his essay "On the Jewish Question" (or manuscripts), not in a polemical way though.. for this, see Colleti's book on R, Marx and Lenin. the influence from R to Marx is not an easy generalization... Mine Doyran Political Science Phd student SUNY/Albany Robespierre. Marx was quite critical of Rousseau's idea of the General Will. snip Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability (fwd)
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 and possesive individualism).If you read Marx's early writings in details, you will see that there is not an _explicit_ attack at Rousseau. This is basically right, except that Hobbes did not "naturalize" property ownership. What Hobbes did "naturalize" was a posited battle of each against all. In other words, he took the civil war of his own society (the English Civil War) and the rising phenomenon of capitalist competition (which was disrupting traditional ways of life) and then inserted them into what was supposed to be an un-societal setting (the "state of nature"). Hobbes would agree with Rousseau that it makes sense to talk about individual _possession_ in a "state of nature" (I control my books) but that it doesn't make sense to talk about individual _property rights_ (I own my books), since such rights are creations of society. In celebration of getting (some of) my books out of boxes, let's quote THE GERMAN IDEOLOGY (in Tucker's 2nd ed. MARX-ENGELS READER): "Only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, etc., personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only insofar as they were individuals of this class." (p. 197) Here, not only do ME see freedom as a social creation (following Rousseau and Hobbes) but they point to the issue that liberals (both "neo" and New Deal) ignore, i.e., the distribution of freedom, the way in which the freedom of some (the capitalists, the State bureaucrats) limits the freedom of others (the workers). On the next page, ME refer to Rousseau's _Contrat social_ (though without naming Jean-Jacques), calling to it as "arbitrary," which I interpret as saying that it was simply a product of R's mind rather than being a product of societal processes in history. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
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: Marx and Malleability (fwd)
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 it was in human nature to acquire property. R disagreed with him since he believed private property was a social invention, "not" a natural condition of human being. R says "averice" "oppresion, desire", all the attributes that liberal contract theorists traced to human nature are the charecteristics we gain in society. he then continues in the same passage, they "portrayed savage men". "it was in fact CIVIL MAN they depicted" i always find _Origins of Inequality_ a very important piece of work on the "anthropology" of human development.that being said, it should not be read from a romantic point of view as if R was talking about an abstract state of nature.. it should be read from a materialist point of view. R was *not* Marx, but if I were to choose among Locke, Hobbes and R, I would definetly put R near Marx, *not* near Hobbes.. Mine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx and Malleability (fwd)
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 say that it was in human nature to acquire property. R disagreed with him since he believed private property was a social invention, "not" a natural condition of human being. R says "averice" "oppresion, desire", all the attributes that liberal contract theorists traced to human nature are the charecteristics we gain in society. he then continues in the same passage, they "portrayed savage men". "it was in fact CIVIL MAN they depicted" I think we basically agree on this: Hobbes put "possession" -- and thus possessiveness (the seeking by each individual to accumulate power after power) -- into the "state of nature," which is illegitimate, as Rousseau points out. In the terms I used, this positing of possessiveness reflected Hobbes' experience with the English Civil War and the rise of capitalist competition. But following R, there's a distinction between "possession" (control) and "property" (state-endorsed rights). Hobbes did not put property into the state of nature. He wanted property to exist, though, which is an important reason he wanted the Leviathan to impose order. Similar to the plot of many Westerns, "private property" couldn't exist until the Sheriff rode into Dodge on his white horse to shoot and/or jail the Bad Guys. i always find _Origins of Inequality_ a very important piece of work on the "anthropology" of human development.that being said, it should not be read from a romantic point of view as if R was talking about an abstract state of nature.. it should be read from a materialist point of view. I like that book 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. Even though as a materialist I get something out of it, I wouldn't call it a materialist book. (Materialism involves studying the empirical world, among other things.) My handy-dandy philosophical dictionary defines "Romanticism" as a movement rejecting the 18th-century Enlightenment, emphasizing imagination and emotion against the Enlightenment's emphasis on Reason. That fits R. While the Encyclopedists (Diderot, etc.) were glorying in the benefits of "civilization" and the early stages of capitalism, along with the importance of transforming people and conquering nature with the application of Reason, R pointed to the down-side of civilization's development (the increase in inequality, etc.) and the fallacy of separating reason completely from emotions. (In the SOCIAL CONTRACT, he wrote that the most profound law is that which is inscribed "in the hearts of the citizens," while hoping that the shared sentiments of the citizens -- patriotism, etc. -- would find expression in the general will.) R was *not* Marx, but if I were to choose among Locke, Hobbes and R, I would definetly put R near Marx, *not* near Hobbes.. Luckily we don't have to make that choice. R might be thought of as the father of modern collectivism, but he wasn't a democrat (until _after_ the all-knowing, all-seeing Legislator imposed a Social Contract that involved censorship, propaganda, a civic religion, etc.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
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
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.
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.
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).
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. Marx also
abstracted capitalism in such a way to formulate it as a mode of
production based on an endless accumulation of surplus, using classical
political economy as a starting point. He did this albeit in a critical
manner. We always need abstractions to understand the reality.
Abstraction is a useful analytical tool to reason and to see who we are,
what we are and what our human needs are (See for this Geras's book on
_Marx and Human Nature_) The problem is to decide which abstractions are
better approximations of reality. Definetly, Hobbes's human nature is a
false abstraction as well as a "distorted" understanding of his own
circumstances. Moreover, it is an ideological distortion of the
anthropology of human nature: "I put for a general inclination of mankind
a perpetual and rentless desire for power after power, that ceaseth only
in death" (Leviathan chpt 11). My credit to R is that he saw that human
nature was historically conditioned as it took shape through the
development of modern civilization, the same human nature which Hobbes
fixated, essentialized and ahistoricized "as war of man against another
man".He also understood that natural right is an abstraction created by
convention to preserve the right of the strongest. R argued hunting and
gathering societies did not even have a conception of private property.
The desire to posses developed as people started to settle on the land and
claimed right to property. He says " The first person who, having eclosed
a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people
simple enough to beleive him, was the true founder of civil society"
But following R, there's a distinction between "possession" (control) and
"property" (state-endorsed rights).
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.
Hobbes did not put property into the state of nature. He wanted property
to exist,
The only way for him to LEGITIMIZE property was to see it as a
"natural right". Hobbes uses the concept "naturalness" in two ways.
Sometimes "natural" implies a concept with which man "spontaneously" gains
"security", "acquisitiveness" and "agression". Sometimes, it is something
that generates "perfect reason", which allows man to make himself as
"secure" as possible.
though, which is an important reason he wanted the Leviathan to impose
order.
true because Hobbes wanted capitalism. Leviathan, he thought, could impose
possesive market regime. Leviathan ("supreme soverign") was an abstraction
par excellence, just as R's Social Contract was, so I don't see the point
in your argument that R's model was an abstraction whereas H's model was
influenced by his own circumstanes. R was as much influenced by his
own context as Hobbes was.
i always find _Origins of Inequality_ a very important piece of work on
the "anthropology" of human development.that being said, it should not be
read from a romantic point of view as if R was talking about an abstract
state of nature.. it should be read from a materialist point of view.
I like that book 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". Unlike sociobiologists, R REJECTS to see inequality, domination,
war, endless desire for power in human nature. The book itself is a very
analysis of the development of HUMAN SOCIETY, not an analysis of people
"without society"."Men are not naturally enemies, for the simple reason
that men living in the original state of INDEPEDENCE do not have
sufficiently constant relationships among themselves to bring about either
a state of
