>From _Bad Subjects_, Issue # 45 , October 1999
Entire article at:
http://eserver.org/bs/45/myers.html
[snip]
Neither did it turn out to be the case that rational, reasonable considerations of Marx as a political thinker would get any easier after the red flag had been hauled down from over the Kremlin. In a recent article devoted entirely to the work of Alexis de Tocqueville, for example, Daniel Elazar found it necessary to open by slamming Marx for having failed to "accurately describe, analyze, and explain the late-modern and early-post-modern world." Why this sort of anti-Marxist spasm still seems unavoidably necessary is unclear. We must, however, give credit where credit is due. Wheeling in Tocqueville to criticize Marx's fortune-telling credentials is a bold new innovation. Traditionally, of course, this had been the task reserved for Max Weber. If Marx was wrong about what lay ahead for Western capitalist societies, Weber was right. For those of us schooled during the Cold War era, this was sure and certain knowledge. As sure and certain as the knowledge -- obtained from somewhere no one can remember -- that supermarket lines in Kiev were longer than those in Cleveland. The outcome of the Marx/Weber debate was the bedrock of American social science. Now, perhaps it seems churlish of me to want to stir up an old fight again, but surely if those two old German duelists were with us today they'd be ready for a few more rounds. So in the interests of reflection and contemplation here at the business-end of the 20th century, let's bring 'em back into the ring.
[snip]
--
Joseph Noonan Houston, TX jfn1 at msc.com
If the government doesn't like the people, why doesn't it dissolve them and elect a new people? --Brecht