Nothing in natural history on the earth precluded the emergence of the human species, and nothing in human biology precluded the emergence of the kinds of consciousness that we characterize as "rational." That doesn't make (A) the kind of "rational" consciousness of an individual with which we are familiar today under capitalism, or (B) the kind of rational consciousness that human beings may acquire in a communist future, the uncaused cause of historical change, unless "reason" has its destiny and is at work in all human doings in the Hegelian sense, making use of human passions (moral, religious, or otherwise) as its means. If one doesn't assume the existence of the Hegelian reason, however, (A) is a result, not a cause, of class and other struggles in the past, and we may or may not arrive at (B) at all.
>[lbo-talk] How to Read
>Michael Dawson -PSU mdawson at pdx.edu, Wed Mar 17 09:01:07 PST 2004
<snip>
>Althusser charged Marx with replicating Hegel's errors. In order to
>do that, he had to willfully misread Marx.
Are you saying that Marx was never a left-Hegelian and that Marx never made any Hegelian errors even in his youthful thoughts? Or that a great philosopher would never change his mind, from the beginning to the end of his life? That is a very radical claim, for which you have yet to produce any evidence. :-)
>Yoshie claims this classic passage from _Capital_ is an attack on
>individualism:
>
>>"a very Eden of the innate rights of man," where "alone rule
>>Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham"
>
>It's not. It's a lampoon of capitalists' claims to represent the
>final triumph of freedom. Again, big difference.
You conflate all sorts of different issues and questions: whether or not human beings enjoy more varieties in some spheres of human life because of the globalization of capitalism (the question generated by Doug's posting titled "the gains from variety," <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040308/date.html>); whether or not human beings enjoy more varieties in all spheres of human life because of the globalization of capitalism; whether or not human beings ought to be able to enjoy more varieties in some spheres of human life; whether or not human beings ought to be able to enjoy more varieties in all spheres of human life; whether or not the power of choice is the necessary condition of freedom; whether or not the subject is the uncaused cause of historical change; etc. Saying yes to one of the above questions doesn't mean that you must say yes to all others, though you make it sound as if we must, without offering any argument as to why. Also, you conflate individualism, individuality, and individuals as well, though it may very well be the case that more individualism means less individuality, or that criticism of individualism means defence of individuals and individuality.
As for my reference to "a very Eden of the innate rights of man," where "alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham" (in <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040315/005856.html>), it was made in the context of saying that the fact that "a very Eden of the innate rights of man," where "alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham," is a historical product of capitalism does not mean that "Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham" are "untrue," nor does it mean that to experience oneself as the subject of "Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham" is "irrational." If you have arguments to the contrary, I'm all ears.
In any case, the argument in this or any of the related threads never concerned whether freedom is desirable -- all subscribers of LBO-talk agree that it is, I am sure. The main question, for me, is how to understand historical change. Marx wrote: "Man's reflections on the forms of social life, and consequently, also, his scientific analysis of those forms, take a course directly opposite to that of their actual historical development. He begins, post festum, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him" (at <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm>). Individualism is a good example of beginning "post festum, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him." -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>