tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post8047544581193284873..comments2024-03-28T06:07:03.667-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: MISREADING MARXRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-82732360682106356002018-08-12T10:35:43.804-04:002018-08-12T10:35:43.804-04:00While we are getting if off our chests, Capitalism...While we are getting if off our chests, Capitalism (as the term is normally understood) obviously does exist, so it's not "contradictory". Of course somebody may reply that Hegelian and Marxist theory stipulates that the dialectic nature of history will lead to the sublation, or synthesis, of its contradictions. In the Marxian view, the capitalist class becomes the “thesis”. It creates the proletariat as its “antithesis”. Because I am hilarious, I'll quote Lenin:<br /><br /><br />'The enlightener believes in the present course of social development, because he fails to observe its inherent contradictions. The Narodnik fears the present course of social development, because he is already aware of these contradictions. The “disciple” [of dialectical materialism] believes in the present course of social development, because he sees the only earnest hope of a better future in the full development of these contradictions. The first and last trends therefore strive to support, accelerate, facilitate development along the present path, to remove all obstacles which hamper this development and retard it.'Dannyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11915977609430813824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-4908475545469861622018-08-11T15:30:49.027-04:002018-08-11T15:30:49.027-04:00I made the reference to the review of Prof. Robin&...I made the reference to the review of Prof. Robin's book, and I did so in an effort to (uncharitably) discredit Prof. Berman. I apologize for derailing the discussion, even though one mitigating consequence of my having done so is this latest of Prof. Wolff's posts, which is, par for the course, instructive. I suppose I should apologize as well to Prof. Berman, whose scholarship I don't know at all. She might indeed be very good in that arena. However, I didn't much admire the WaPo op-ed or the review of Prof. Robin's book (as mediated by Prof. Robin's critical take-down). If there's a common thread to all of these aspects of this ongoing discussion, it has something to do with the scope of expertise and the function of public intellectuals. Even if Prof. Berman is obviously qualified to produce scholarship and teach (at Barnard, no less), it doesn't follow that she is best situated to opine on current affairs for mass consumption. Perhaps Prof. Robin has demonstrated talents in both arenas; certainly, Prof. Wolff has done so. Put another way, albeit crudely, if more people read Profs. Wolff and Robin than the WaPo, we might enjoy a more astute citizenry. Deannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-38201947193692808602018-08-11T14:29:21.292-04:002018-08-11T14:29:21.292-04:00Let's all give a hand to LFC for his charitabl...Let's all give a hand to LFC for his charitableness. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-62204749227407095672018-08-11T12:49:14.674-04:002018-08-11T12:49:14.674-04:00The comments here deal with her review of a book b...<i>The comments here deal with her review of a book by Corey Robin</i><br /><br /><br />Um, no, not all of the comments. My comment said nothing about her review of Robin and was entirely about her Post piece. (I'm going to make the charitable assumption that perhaps you drafted this post before my comment posted or before wading through the whole comment thread.) LFCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-454372525675495762018-08-11T11:47:57.061-04:002018-08-11T11:47:57.061-04:00So, contrary to the popular misunderstanding, Marx...So, contrary to the popular misunderstanding, Marx's thoughts about a future, better state of society were not a piously held dogma, or an a priori deduction, or even the expression of his psychological make-up (a refusal to accept reality as Elster once suggested), but rather his thoughts about future developments were the result of careful observation and reflection upon the world around him, and those thoughts were, given the evidence available to him at the time, a reasonable conjecture.<br />Moreover, there's nothing of determinism in those thoughts. Marx's thoughts about where the world was heading were based upon observations of the actions of men and women, and it was because he saw women and men choosing as they chose that he thought there would come a future in which our current ways of social organization would naturally transform themselves.<br /><br />A paraphrase of your remarks. (A pedantic exercise partially for my own amusement)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com