[lbo-talk] Marx and Nietzsche

Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com
Wed Nov 5 04:28:04 PST 2003


My past posts on this subject include:

http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@lists.panix.com/msg14473.html http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0203/0294.html http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0203/0266.html

http://www.marxmail.org/archives/august98/zizek.htm

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:28:21 -0800 (PST) andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> --- Curtiss Leung <curtiss_leung at ibi.com> wrote:
> > an:
> >
> > Just some questions:
> >
> > 1) Agreed that Marx has no systematic
> > *presentation*,
> > but don't you think that more that just ideas of
> > philosophical interest can be extracted from Marx's
> > work? Capital V. I is a critique of political
> > economy, but isn't the analysis of commodity
> > fetishism
> > also a philosophical polemic against the
> > metaphysical
> > underpinning of the capitalist mode of production,
> > i.e.,
> > the notion that "value" inheres in the commodity?
> > Related
> > to this, isn't his critique of the "Robinsonade"
> > type
> > of economics--lone man appears and begins to trade
> > with
> > other lone men--an attack on subject-based
> > epistemology?
>
> This sort of analysis is what I mean by extracting
> ideas of philosophical interest from Marx's writings
> about other things. I've done it myself, arguing in
> various paprties taht Marx has an ethic of freedom and
> a reliabilist conception of epistemology, etc. But
> really, Marx had a PhD in philosophy (equivalent to a
> modern American Master's degree), and was more than
> competent to do philosophy if he wanted to do it. In
> fact, he did.s ome, in his early writings (pre German
> Ideology).
>
> Why not take him at his word when he says that he
> thought he was a lot of bushwa (ideology as opposed to
> science, dreck, etc.), and that he didn't see himself
> as doing that any more? Of course we don't have toa
> gree that he was right about philosophy, but we can
> agree with him that whatever it was he was trying to
> do, it wasn't what he thought philosophy was. So, we
> can say, well, although he didn't think of what he was
> doing as philosophy, some of it can be looked at as
> philosophy that is either different from he thought he
> was getting away from, thus OK on his herms, or not
> different, whichs hwos either that his terms were
> wrong or he was wrong to reject philosophy as he saw
> it.
>
> >
> > My impression (as an autodidatic, which may be why
> > I'm wrong) is that while Capital V. I is a work
> > of economics, it depends upon and/or implies a
> > philosophical structure that starts with this
> > critique of metaphysics.
> >
> > 2) I know Kaufmann pointed out that the distance
> > between
> > Hegel and Nietzsche on some philosophical points was
> > not
> > as great as N. liked to make out. As a pro on these
> > topics,
> > do you know if anybody's tried to do the same with
> > Marx
> > and Nietzsche?
>
> I am very far from being any kind of a Nietzsche
> scholar. I am justa former professor who used to
> teach a bit of Nietzsche in classes on 19th century
> philosophy. I do not even try to keep up with the
> literature. I have read one book on Nietsche in the
> last maybe deacde -- my friend Brian Leiter's recent
> book, and I read it because Brian is a friend. His
> book is pretty good, too. But there are sort of left
> wing Nietzscheans whose work I am dimly aware of who
> try to make N more palatable to lefties. I think Tracy
> Strong, who I think has an old book on Nizetsche and
> the Politics of Transfiguration, for example. Yoshie
> might knwo more about this than I would.
>
> I know, I know, N. would have had
> > nothing
> > to do with economics, let alone socialism, but on at
> > least
> > one topic, the insubstantiality of the subject, they
> > seem
> > to coincide. M never says this in so many words as
> > N does
> > (IIRC in _Gay Science_ where he writes of
> > consciousness as
> > a consequence of the social nature of language), but
> > I feel
> > it's there.
>
> I don't think that M has any views on this of the sort
> than N does; he just wasn't interested in formulating
> metaphysical theories.
>
> >
> > Just wondering,
> > Curtiss
> >
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list