Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 20:55:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: Post-Marxism and Paleo-Marxism



Jukka seems to think the disagreements between Leo and myself derive from
the fact that we are not sufficiently clear that Leo is talking moral and
political philosophy and I am supposed to be talking social philosophy.
ACcordking to J the difference is roughly that political philosophy as
prescriptive and social philosophy descrptive.

I so not think this gets at the difference at all. The difference is
rather a straightforward disagreement in social philosophy, if we are to
accept Jukka's distinction at least arguendo. Leo thinks that Marxism is
washed up because there's nothing worth keeping left once we jettison
historical teleology and the class in/for itself distinction, roughly, in
Englsih, the notion of the revolutionary potetial of a class conscious
working class. I disagree that Marxism is committed to historical
teleology and I think that Leo, unlike myself, has not given any good
arguments against the revolutionary potential of a class conscious working
class. This is in J's terms a disagreement about social philosophy.

Incidentally, as someone who has done a good deal of hard professional
work in moral and political philosophy over the years I find rather odd
the suggestion that I am not interested in that.

Anyway I reject the purported distinction. Our moral beliefs about what is
politically desirable depend in part on our social theory. Because I
regard Marx's analysis of capitalsim as exploitative as basically sound, I
seek a noncapitalist society taht is not exploitative and look to ther
working class as a central agent for getting us there because the working
class is the main object of exploitation and has an interest in getting
rid of it. This is just an example.

--Justin