Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 23:47:21 +0000
From: Rahul Mahajan <rahul-AT-hagar.ph.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re:Paternalism -- Reply


Scott, you seem to have totally twisted what I had to say. First of all, I
used the word objectivist (tongue in cheek) to refer to Ayn Randism,
because of the obviously similar nature of the appeal -- do this because
it's best for you. There is disagreement only on what actually is best. But
I think anyone who denies the initial and continuing moral nature of the
Marxist appeal is barking up some 19th-century,
Marxism-as-the-ultimate-objective-science, value-free,
we-preach-The-revolution=because-it's-coming-no-matter-what tree.
    I am as hard-headed a materialist objectivist as the next girl or guy.
This leads me to understand that nothing in the way of Marxist social
analysis or prognostication can actually pass for science. Furthermore, you
haven't addressed the point that when you convince someone to work for the
revolution, even though you know it's not coming anytime soon, you are
generally getting someone to act against his or her own best interests.
    I might even accept the argument that the socialist state will be
better for all (or almost all) of us, but since it's not happening in the
foreseeable future, I'm not helping myself by working for it. To appeal to
anyone to became part of the small group of politically active people who
work for larger causes is an appeal to morality, and your Marxist
"scientific" analysis of society can't change that.
                    Rahul Mahajan




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

     ------------------