Saturday, October 31, 2015

Capitalism and Slavery

The ugly racial history of the U. S. has obscured Slavery as an Economic relation, comprised of 1. A owning the work--both the process and the product--of B, and 2. B being forced to work for A.  Now, the most immediate manifestation of such force is the threat of violent harm, usually in the context of imprisonment  But, the alternative to working being impossibility of survival, even if no detention is involved, can be just as effective as a direct threat.  In other words, the difference between the expense of rooming and boarding a slave, and that of subsistence-level wages to an employee is inessential to the power relation involved.  Marx's insight is to recognize the latter variety, even if unanticipated by Smith, as the inevitable foundation of Capitalism, reinforced by Theology and/or the Ideology of "Freedom".

Friday, October 30, 2015

Socialism and Slavery

The fundamental principle of Marxism can be formulated as: Technology renders Slavery obsolete.  Marxist concepts such as Exploitation, Class Conflict, and Proletariat, are various allusions to Slavery, i. e. to the necessity of having to work for another, and the abolition of Property that Socialism achieves begins with that of the ownership of the work of another, i. e. Technology replaces the latter.  Accordingly, the otherwise problematic relevance to Socialism of Dialectical Materialism comes into sharper focus--it is a Materialist response to Hegel's 'Master-Slave Dialectic', while the history of technological development, i. e. of the Means of Production, can be interpreted as teleologically determined by the goal of the elimination of the need for a Slave class.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Ability, Need, Marxism

Marx may have popularized the principle "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", but he is not the coiner of a phrase that antedates him by a century.  So, the occasion of his expressing it is not a pioneering of the formulation of Socialist ideals, but the observation that the stage of technological development at the time has accelerated its actualization, i. e. with the mass production of goods now achievable, needs can be universally satisfied, and work can thus be a voluntary activity.  So, from him, the proposition is an historical judgment, not the articulation of an ideal.  But, while thereby remaining consistent with Materialist methodology, i. e. because the ideal is concrete, there is nothing in the principle that systematically relates it to the analysis that distinguishes Marxism from other varieties of Socialism, i. e. that the conditions that it describes are the necessary products of a Dialectical process that resolves the Class Conflict underlying the specific exploitation of the specifically Manufacturing Proletariat.  Accordingly, while implying solidarity with other Socialists, Marx's embracing of that principle only emphasizes the contingency of his distinctive contribution to the tradition.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Proletariat, Property, Labor

One elucidation by Marx of the emergence of Socialism is: 1. The Proletariat is the revolutionary Class; 2. The principles of any ruling Class are expressions of its fundamental characteristics; 3.  The fundamental characteristic of the Proletariat is property-lessness; 4. Thus, the defining characteristic of an ascendant Proletariat is property-lessness;  5. The fundamental characteristic of Socialism is the abolition of Private Property; 6. Thus, Socialism is the result of a Proletariat revolution.  Now, #3 is problematic, because it assumes that the Proletariat remains property-less after a revolution, i. e. that its members do not keep what they have seized for themselves.  But, the deeper problem with that premise is that it is false.  For, it is a cardinal tenet of Marxism that any worker owns their Labor, as well as the fruits of it, even as it is alienated from them.  Thus, the Proletariat is not property-less, with, therefore, 4. Thus, the defining characteristic of an ascendant Proletariat is Labor.  Accordingly, #6 can be preserved by a revision of #5 as: the fundamental characteristic of Socialism is the collectivization of Labor, from which the collectivization of Property can follow.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Labor and Manufacturing

The Marxist focus on Manufacturing Labor likely reflects the recognition of unprecedented industrialization as the predominant factor in the determination of social relations.  Thus, the demonstrable exploitation involved in that determination, based on the fact that the owners of the means of production and the operators of the means of production are not the same, and, therefore, according to the ethos of Capitalism, have conflicting interests, is novel.  But, if that contradiction is specific to the Manufacturing sector of that era, then its generalizations are strained, e. g. the classification of land as a 'means of production' in order to reduce a feudal landowner to an 'owner of the means of production', or, the extension of that mode of exploitation to other sectors.  Likewise, if the mode of exploitation is specific to it, then so, too, is its remedy, e. g. the nationalization of manufacturing industry does not in itself justify that of the transportation or of the health sector of a society.  So, the Marxist emphasis on Manufacturing Labor conversely entails a limitation that is ignored in its analyses.

Monday, October 26, 2015

Lumpenproletariat and Productivity

The prototype of Marx's concept of Labor is manufacturing, a transforming of some given material that, by virtue of having a yield, can be characterized as 'productive'.  Now, these concepts of Labor and Productivity can be extended to other kinds of work, e. g. the arrival of food is the product of the labor of a waiter, and the improved condition of a patient is the product of the labor of a physician.  But, then, so, too are the applicable to the pleasure that is the result of the efforts of an organ-grinder, or of those of a prostitute.  So, Non-Productivity is not the adequate criterion for the categorization of the latter two as Lumpenproletarian as Marx takes it to be.

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Lumpenproletariat and Organ-Grinder

Another member of Marx's Lumpenproletariat is the organ-grinder, once again ostensibly on grounds of non-productivity, but in this case, the arbitrariness of that criterion is a little more conspicuous.  For, Praxis per se, does not distinguish between purposeful and purposeless doing, so Practice does not inherently privilege productive action over non-productive action, e. g. a performance of an orchestra.  And yet, for Marxists, any Art is necessarily either reactionary or revolutionary, a thesis based on a concept of Art as purposeful.  So, the categorization of the organ-grinder as Lumpenproletarian is symptomatic of the reductionist convenience that that Class affords Marxism.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Lumpenproletariat and Prostitution

Marx classifies the world's oldest profession as part of the Lumpenproletariat, ostensibly on grounds of non-productivity, possibly sharing a moral judgment with ideologies that he otherwise repudiates.  He thereby evades consideration that prostitution be categorized as a 'service', to which Marxism seems inadequate.  For, since any Service, e. g. treatment by a physician, does not involve the production of a Good, its value cannot derive from the Labor via which some material is transformed.  Accordingly, since there is no surplus-value in the work of e. g. plumbers, a Capitalist victimization of them, like that of prostitutes, e. g. via a generalized deliberate suppression of fees, eludes the Marxist concept of Exploitation, while even fair fees are not explained the Labor Theory of Value to which the Marxist subscribes. Thus, as is the case with the chronically unemployed, as has been previously discussed, the marginalization of prostitutes as Lumpenproletarian reflects more a systematic covenience than some inherent deficiency in their activity.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Lumpenproletariat and Unemployment

In some passages, Marxists include the chronically unemployed among the Lumpenproletariat, presumably on the grounds of non-productivity.  However, as contemporary events evince, unemployment can be a consequence of Capitalists hoarding their accumulated wealth, rather than, as Smith optimistically projects, redistributing it, e. g. via investments, one remedy for which has been the Keynesian policy of government picking up that slack.  Thus, it may only be because Marxist analysis is inadequate to some varieties of victimization under Capitalism, that in the supplanting of the latter by Socialism, some members of the Lumpenproletariat are transformed from indifferently neglected to methodically marginalized.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Lumpenproletariat and Socialism

In some passages, Marx seems to ground his marginalization of the Lumpenproletariat on the principle that someone who is non-productive is not entitled to the sharing of the fruits of labor that Socialism affords.  However, it does not follow that an organ-grinder or a prostitute is not entitled to protection of Law from physical harm.  In other words, the marginalization of the Lumpenproletariat is, conversely, a circumscription of the scope of Socialism, which undermines one the fundamental tenets of Marxism--that Economics and Politics are related as Base to Superstructure, i. e. that all Political relations are determined by Economic ones.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Lumpenproletariat and Dialectical Materialism

Some successors are more sanguine than is Marx about the revolutionary potential of the Lumpenproletariat.  Nevertheless, the challenge remains that according to Dialectical Materialism, that sub-class is either exploiter or exploited, even though its multifarious members are not involved with the Means of Production that, according to Marxist analysis, mediates the exploitation that is at the heart of its critique of Capitalism.  So, as much as does the thesis that an empowered Working Class acts voluntarily, not by necessity, the existence of the Lumpenproletariat exposes the inadequate reductionism of Dialectical Materialism, an inadequacy that is arguably concretely manifest in the totalitarian rigidity of some subsequent Communist regimes.  

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat

While Marx-Engels often use "working class" and "proletariat" interchangeably, their functions within the system diverge, a vacillation that is symptomatic of a more general failure.  In Marxism, the significant characteristic of the working class is that its members are victims of exploitation, constituted by others profiting from the fruits of their labor, while the significant characteristic of the proletariat is its property-lessness, which is the concrete historical ground of the post-revolutionary abolition of property.  But, as Marx well recognizes, not every member of the population that is property-less is also an exploited worker; such non-productive types are a range of misfits that includes bohemians, the chronically poor, and petty criminals, that he glosses as the "lumpenproletariat".  Now, corresponding to the disdain that he sometimes expresses for these types, is the inadequacy of his system to their existence.  For example, as neither exploiters nor exploited, they are outside of the Dialectical scheme of both History and Society, so, specifically, Marxism cannot recognize the chronically poor as victims of a ruling class, and, generally, falls short of adequacy as a comprehensive theory of Society or History.  In concrete terms, the fate of the Lumpenproletariat in Marxist Socialism is uncertain, which a systemic failure, since other less "scientific" varieties manage to incorporate those misfits into their societies.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Society and Being-with-Others

In Heidegger's system, each Individual is essentially Being-in-the-World, one dimension of which is Being-with-Others.  In contrast, as Marx-Engels' concept of Consciousness connotes, each Individual is essentially Being-with-Others.  Accordingly, each Individual can be conceived as a Materialist, window-ed, Leibnizian Monad, distinguished from any Other by its uniqueness of Perspective, and, furthermore, insofar as essentially Practical, door-ed, as well as window-ed, thereby constituting a unique Prospect.  Thus, a 'Society' appropriate to Socialism is a totality of the relations between all Beings-with-Others, a complex network, not a mere co-existence of simple Individuals.  

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Consciousness, Practice, Language

What distinguishes Kant's concept of a General Will from any of its rivals is that it is expressed verbally, i. e. as the Fundamental Principle of Pure Practical Reason, and essentially so, because it functions prescriptively in the determination of conduct.  Furthermore, his concept of Individual Will is similarly verbal, expressed as Maxims.  Now, his concept of Consciousness as primarily Practical is preceded by Spinoza's, but the concept of it as fundamentally linguistic is innovative, anticipating developments of almost a century later.  So, in his system, Consciousness is not only fundamentally Practical, but social because verbal, a concept which plainly escapes the notice of Marx-Engels even though they are familiar with it.

Saturday, October 17, 2015

General Will, Egalitarianism, Means of Communication

The structure of Plato's ideal Polis is determined by the principle 'each according to their abilities'.  Hence, it is not necessarily the case that a non-exploitative political system is not hierarchical, nor that the resolution of hierarchical antagonisms, e. g. Class Conflict, is Democratic.  More generally, the example illustrates that there is nothing inherently Egalitarian about a General Will or a Common Good.  So, Dialectical Materialism is neither a necessary nor a sufficient ground for the emergence of Socialism, nor is either Rousseau's concept of a General Will, or the French Revolution. adequate as an inspiration for it.  Indeed, technological development is, as Marx-Engels posit, a significant factor in the rise of their system, but not as it informs the Means of Production.  Rather, the clear precedent of the Egalitarianism of the entire era is the transition from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism that pervades Europe, a transformation effected by one event--Gutenberg's invention.  So, Socialist revolution can be interpreted as one of a series of consequences of a change in the predominant Means of Communication in Europe, another of which is the preceding emergence of the concept of a General Will.

Friday, October 16, 2015

Varieties of 'General Will'

At least five interpretations of 'General Will' seem possible: 1. It is a Nominalist concept equivalent to the aggregate of Individual Wills; 2. It is a heuristic concept useful in analyzing events; 3. It is a fundamental species drive; 4. It is a determinant of conduct as a means to social organization; 5. It is a combination of #3 and #4.  Now, #3 is Schopenhauer's version, #4 is Kant's, and either could be Rousseau's.  furthermore, whether or not he intends it as such, Smith's is a combination of #2 and #4--the former, the Invisible Hand as explaining the posited equilibrium of phenomena, the latter, the basis for the imperative for an individual to pursue Self-Interest exclusively, as opposed to Kant's concept of the General Will as a basis for overcoming Self-Interest.  Now, Marx-Engels vacillate between #3 and #4, thereby falling short of #5--their #4 is expressed in the analysis that when the Means of Production reaches a certain stage of development, the Proletariat becomes conscious of their solidarity, but, rather than further elaboration, they typically resort to their #3, i. e. History as Dialectically determining both the arrival at that stage, and what ensues.  In, contrast, a systematization of the General Will as a species drive, and the General Will as a Practical concept, e. g. the concept of the latter as a supplement to the former, is an example of #5.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Socialism and General Will

As has been previously discussed, the collectivization of Property is derived from the collectivization of Action.  So, since, the ground of Action is Will, Socialism is an expression of a General Will.  Now, on a Kantian interpretation, according to which a General Will can function only as a deliberate motivator, Socialism is the unique actualization of the General Will.  However, in numerous Marxist passages, a General Will is conceived as alienated from personal Wills, i. e. as an impersonal force that is either actually antithetical to the latter, or is imagined as such.  In either case, it is being presented as a force that pre-exists Socialism.  But, if so, then, it is also possible that the General-Personal antithesis, and the condition of alienation that is manifested, is itself an expression of a General Will, as is any Class Conflict that precedes the arrival of Socialism.  In other words, it follows that the General Will is History, governed by a Dialectical pattern, in which, whether or not Socialism is itself a transitory stage, that system enjoys no moral superiority over exploitative systems.  So, if Marx-Engels intend a privileged status for Socialism, they must follow Kant, and conceive it as a deliberate motivator of Revolution, and of what ensues.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Alienation and Power

The essential structure of Capitalist exploitation is the gainful appropriation of the fruits of the labor of another in exchange for the market value of that labor.  Underlying that structure is the arrangement of working for another, which is constituted by the subordination of one's labor to the ends of another in exchange for a perhaps minimal satisfaction of one's own ends.  Thus, underlying the concept of the alienation of the fruits of one's labor is that of the alienation of one's labor.  Now, Labor is a purposeful mode of Action, and Action is an exercise of Power.  So, Capitalist exploitation is a process of disempowerment, and, therefore, the transition to Socialism is one of Empowerment.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Property, Means of Production, Labor

As Trotsky, among others, formulates it, Socialism eliminates Capitalist exploitation by the elimination of private property.  But, on standard Marxism diagnosis, the fundamental exploitative scenario consists in the owner of the means of production profiting from the Labor of others.  Accordingly, the immediate corrective to exploitation is the collectivization of, specifically, the Means of Production, which spans everything from land to tools.  Furthermore, though often only occasionally explicitly expressed, entailed in the collectivization of the Means of Production is that of Labor, as well, i. e. the erstwhile owners of the means of production now share in the Labor, as well.  So, Trotsky's formulation tends to encourage the popular concept of Socialism as merely a redistribution of goods, which obscures the essence of the Marxist response to Capitalism.

Monday, October 12, 2015

Prospectivism, Collective Action, Collective Property

As has been previously discussed, according to the Prospectivist concept of Consciousness, what is most immediately one's own is one's Action.  Hence, the basis of any concept of Collective Property is Collective Action.  Accordingly, in a transition to a Prospectivist social system, those without property gain access to goods, while those who have been inactive must share in productivity.  Thus, the transition eliminates the unilateral acquisition of Property by inactive members from active members.  In other words, the Prospectivist concept more adequately grounds one of the implicit dimensions of Marxist Socialism.

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Prospectivism and Socialism.

Standard academic segregation of Philosophy and Political Science departments tends to obscure the Practical significance of Epistemological Theory.  For example, Locke's concept of Primary Qualities, as inhering in objects of Consciousness, connotes social commonality.  Likewise, Berkeley's reduction of them to Secondary Qualities is equivalent to a privatization of the erstwhile public sector, the fuller political consequences of which emerge when Smith eliminates his concept of the Common Good from the determination of personal behavior.  Similarly,  "for me" connotes property that is either received or taken.  In contast, in a "from me" concept of Consciousness, i. e. a Prospectivist one, what is fundamentally one's own is one's actions, from which it follows that any concept of common property is based on one of collaborative action.  So, a transition to Prospectivism can reinforce both the concept of Consciousness that Marx-Engels adopt, as well as the concept of Property that it entails.

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Consciousness, For Me, From Me

As Hegel argues, Possession is preceded by Acquisition. But, an obect thereby becomes one's own only by virtue of the act of acquiring it already being one's own. Likewise, in the Prospectivist concept of Consciousness, a World is one's own only by virtue of being a field of potential Action, with the latter as what is fundamentally attributable to one. Thus, this concept of Consciousness is, more accurately, "from me", rather than "for me", and, perhaps, is presupposed by the latter.

Friday, October 9, 2015

Prospect, World, Existence of Others

In a Prospectivist concept of Consciousness, previously introduced, one is a center of a field of potential Action that can be called a 'World'. Such a concept of the objects of Consciousness bypasses centuries of self-indulgent Epistemology, i. e. of armchair speculation about the 'reality' of those objects, with the accuracy of Perception a Practical problem resolved by trial-and-error methodology. For example, if Descartes' scenario were the starting or the dousing of a fire, speculation about an Evil Genius would be a silly distraction from the problem of determining the optimum arrangement of tinder and logs, as might have been Galileo's primary concern. Now, such a concept of World implies the possible existence of a plurality of Worlds, a concept that is less exotic than when 'world' is taken in an absolute sense. Furthermore, the problem of the existence of Worlds other than one's own, which entails that of the chronically vexing Philosophical question of 'the existence of others', is a lot less stymieing when those others are conceived as centers of Action, rather than as subjects of Perception. For, while many Philosophers, including even Sartre, have been mesmerized by the unprovability of the possibility of a Consciousness within the head of an Other, the mundane observation of someone else modifying some feature in one's World, e. g. of moving some object, or, more tangibly, walking up to one and pushing one down, more easily leads to the conclusion that there exists other Agents, with their own Worlds, which are outside of any "for me".

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Consciousness, Perspective, Prospective.

As has been proposed, Consciousness can be conceived as a centered Perspective in relation to its objects. Furthermore, with respect to the latter, it is not only a terminal of Perception of them, but the origin of Action on them. Thus, Consciousness can function as both a Perspect and a Prospect on objects Accordingly, qua Theoretic, Consciousness is a Perspect, but qua Practical, it is a Prospect. Thus, the concept of Consciousness as primarily Practical can be termed Prospectivist.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Consciousness and Perspective

"For me" can connote either privacy or perspective, a distinction which, since Berkeley's reduction of Primary Qualities to Secondary Qualities, e. g. the assimilation of the perception of a coin as an ellipse, to color-blindness, is often obscured. Corresponding to, and perhaps underlying, the distinction is a Metaphysical one of the concept of the I as an Atom, and that of it as essentially in relation to a world. Likewise, Selfishness may be Atomist, while Egocentrism is implicitly relational, i. e. a Center entails the existence of points of which it is the center. Also, Perspective connotes Finitude, but not necessarily fixed, because a perspective can vary in scope. For example, Hegel's 'Phenomena' are actually Perspectives that, in the course of the Phenomenology, increase in scope Dialectically. Now, the essentially social character of Marx-Engels' concept of Consciousness indicates that it is perspectival. Furthermore, just as a Center can be the locus of both centripetal and centrifugal motions, Consciousness that is at the center of experience can be both the end point of perception, and the origin of action. In other words, the Perspectivist concept of Consciousness can ground both Theory and Practice.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

For Me and In-Itself

The concept of "for me" is opposed to that of "in-itself". While the former connotes that the contents of Consciousness are entirely private, the latter connotes that those contents, or, more properly, the objects, of Consciousness are independent of it. Thus, the contrast is one of Appearance and Reality, and the classifications of the two concepts of Consciousness are Phenomenalist and Realist, respectively, with Phenomenological one variation of the former. So, the attractiveness of the "for me" concept to Marxism, probably via Hegel, is that it can be a safeguard against Ideology, insofar as in the latter, Appearance is presented as Reality. However, in their adoption of that concept, Marx-Engels seem to overlook its potentially reactionary features, stemming from its initial introduction by Locke, i. e. Secondary Qualities, which are privately experienced. Accordingly, Berkeley's radicalization of that category eliminates all commonality, i. e. Locke's Primary Qualities, from social life, while retaining one characteristic--that of Consciousness as a mere observer of its contents/objects. Furthermore, as Spinoza best understands, Phenomenalists are naive about the presumed opacity of the "for me"--about how it can be the product of heteronomous inclinations, i. e. that it can be an expression of externally determined prejudices. So, in sum, the concept of Consciousness that Marx-Engels adopt is one of selfishness and idleness, i. e. that of the Capitalist.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Property, Practice, Consciousness

As has been previously discussed, the concept of Property, in an Economic sense, is derived from that of Use, i. e. an owned object is one that is available to be employed. Accordingly, the abolition of Private Property is equivalent to that of Exclusive Use, e. g. in a public library, an unused book is available to others, whereas a book in a private library that is not being read, is not. Now, Use connotes Practice. Hence, if there is a personal Consciousness that can be transformed by the transition to Socialism, it is the Practical variety, i. e. that which determines action, not the Theoretical variety, i. e. that which functions as an observer disengaged from its object, even from oneself. So, likewise, the Philosophical transition in priority from that of Theory, to that of Practice, can itself constitute a revolutionary moment.

Sunday, October 4, 2015

Selfishness and Exploitation

An influence of Kant on Socialism is more explicit in Trotsky's version of it. For, the latter's declaration that the ultimate end of Socialism is, via the abolition of private property, the elimination of interpersonal exploitation, can be recognized as the Kantian duty to not treat others as mere means to one's ends. But, then, that ultimate end, like that Duty, entails vestigial Selfishness, since it potentially protects disassociative personal pursuits from interference. In contrast, a concept of Socialism inspired by the corresponding "Imperfect", though more demanding, Kantian Duty, i. e. to promote the well-being of others, overcomes that vestige, and constitutes a better integrated Socialism.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

General Will and Sharing

Marx's juxtaposition to Hegel overshadows a potentially instructive contrast with Kant. Both he and the latter are influenced by Rousseau's General Will, but while Kant conceives it as primarily a Moral Principle, for Marx, it is a Political one. For Kant, it is the ground of an overcoming of Egoistic drives, which he further projects as the basis of a polis, i. e. his Kingdom of Ends, but the latter remains an abstract ideal, mediated with actuality by 'God'. In contrast, Marx regards Kant's concept of Morality as an expression of social alienation, with the abolition of Private Property the actualization of the General Will that reconciles Morality and Politics. However, so long as his "for me" concept of Consciousness is unaffected by that abolition, the projected reconciliation remains incomplete. In an alternative to both approaches, the concept of Sharing is both a Moral expression of the General Will, and the basis for the concrete achieving of the Socialist goal of the abolition of Private Property, i. e. it can change both persons and the world in accordance with Rousseau's concept.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Philosophy, Communication, Change

Marx's rendering of the Theory-Practice contrast as 'interpret the world' vs. 'change the world' abstracts from Philosophy as the content of communication, e. g. of a book. Hence, the formulation abstracts from the effects of each type of project on the audience of a work. In other words, it abstracts from the social function of Philosophy. Now, from the perspective of Communication, his classifications get complicated. For example, while Epistemology and Political Philosophy are typically categorized under Theory and Practice, respectively, the presentation of a method for establishing Knowledge, e. g. the Cartesian, is Practical, and an outline of an ideal polis, e. g. a City of God, can be Theoretical. Furthermore, the recognition of the communicative phase of Philosophy opens up a distinction between changing the world and changing the people who, only after reading a book, change the world. Now, while Marx generally treats the two changes as concomitant, they he overlooks the significant case in which they are not--the possibility of a Socialist society being inhabited by members whose mode of Consciousness is essentially egocentric, i. e. a Phenomenological "for me" mode. He, thus, overlooks the possibility of an implied distinction between changing the world and changing people, i. e. changing their mode of Consciousness from selfish to universal, as well as the possibility that the latter change has ultimate priority over the former.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Marxism, General Will , Private Property

Following Rousseau and Kant, the fundamental Practical principle of Marxism, only occasionally explicitly cited as such, is the General Will. Smith's Invisible Hand is also in that tradition, but its apparent divergence from the line is crucial to the development of Marxism. For, the respect in which it seems to diverge--that it is a Theoretical law of Nature, not a principle determining Practice, is, according to Marx-Engels, a product of the alienation that is a consequence of the privatization of property. Accordingly, the specific contribution of Marxism to the tradition is the thesis that entailed in the General Will is the elimination of exclusively private property, though a methodical exposition of that entailment, e. g. via an application of Dialectical Logic, is not presented, as it would in a distinctively Philosophical treatment.