Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:18:10 -0500 (EST)
From: "Chris M. Sciabarra" <sciabrrc-AT-is2.NYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Trust


On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 davidmbr-AT-sprynet.com wrote:
> If Marx repudiates "coercive" relationships, what does he count as coercive?  
> Time and again I hear from Marxists this notion of "economic coercion," which 
> seems to mean that one has to work for a living.  Did this come up after Marx 
> kicked the bucket?  
	Personally, I think that Marxists in general, have a very fuzzy
grasp of what precisely constitutes coercion.  I think the term
"exploitative" suggests that somebody is taking something from somebody
else, something that they do not have a 'right' to... though, of course,
Marx did not argue on the basis of a notion of rights, but on the view
that a certain definite amount of labor-power was being extracted from the
labor process by groups of individuals who did not labor, but who merely
benefitted from the labor of others.
	Interestingly, I think G. A. Cohen has raised some very
provocative questions for both Marxists and libertarians in his newest
book on "self-ownership."  Cohen has been criticized by some Marxists for
giving any credence to such a "libertarian" notion popularized by Nozick.
But Cohen has answered that the core notion of "self-ownership" shows up
in the Marxist tradition as well, since it is the laborer's labor-power
that is ultimately alienated from the laborer; the laborer is, in effect,
in the Marxist view, disowned of what he/she produces.  I think there is a
lot to this argument, and Marxists who dismiss the libertarian notion of
"self-ownership" must thereby defend that very notion on different grounds
given the labor theory perspective.

> Re labor theory of "value," I don't think the labor
> theory  
> is directly relevant here; I suspect it's a theoretical and probably 
> rationalizing sequel to the already existing antagonism to capitalistic 
> self-seeking.  I doubt Marx was deranged from a previous inclination by the 
> development of his labor theory of value.  Didn't he start out with Kant and 
> Hegel in school?
	No more than he did with the classical economists like Smith and
Ricardo (from whom he derived his own labor theory of value) and such
classical Greeks as Aristotle (from whom he derived much of his naturalism
and essentialism).

> How can a conception of coercion as direct or indirect physical force and 
> violation of rights be construed as "broader than" a notion of force as
> having 
> to work in order to survive.  One is not a subset of the other.  Are
> you arguing 
> that the MArxist view of corcion is entailed by the libertarian view?
> Does he 
> have five or six different ideas of coercion, one of which is
> compatible?  
	Some very rhetorical questions here... but let me clarify:  I was
not saying that my libertarian view of "coercion" was "broader than"
Marx's; on the contrary, I was merely suggesting that Marx appropriates
some of the core themes from the classical liberal Enlightenment, namely,
that there is something right about human autonomy and mutual-reciprocal
relationships among autonomous individuals.  I am arguing that the
libertarian view that I espouse is "broader" in only one sense:  it
accepts the form of free association that Marx champions, but does not
reject the market as the enemy of free association.  I'm not trying to
fudge distinctions here; I simply think that there are some essential
themes uniting Marxists and libertarians, and that the essential
differences between them should be viewed, at least on occasion, as
speaking to the same essential themes.
	I don't think that Marx was a hypocrite; I think he was mistaken.
Marx spoke the language of the Enlightenment -- freedom, autonomy,
independence, individuality, cooperation, equality.  That he embraced
statist means to achieve these goals is not hypocritical, in my view, but
deeply, horribly mistaken.  On the other hand, one need not strain to find
thinkers in Western thought who embrace slavery, authority, and obedience
as goals unto themselves.  I don't think Marx qualifies as one of these
thinkers, even if his utopian vision must degenerate into a dystopian
nightmare.
					- Chris
=================================================Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Ph.D
Visiting Scholar, NYU Department of Politics
INTERNET:  sciabrrc-AT-is2.nyu.edu
http://pages.nyu.edu/~sciabrrc
=================================================


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---