> it would have been very problematical
> for Marx to buy into this defense of retributivism given the fact
> that he was a materialist. The whole dualism between phenomena
> and noumena would have been inadmissible for him nor could
> he accept the notion of a contra-causal free will. But without these
> presuppositions the defense of retributivism would necessarily
> collapse.
> And that seems to be just what he was saying in the New York Herald
> Tribune article attacking capital punishment.
This interpretation of Marx's "materialism" is contradicted by the fact that he does buy into that aspect of the theory that recognizes "human dignity in the abstract" i.e. that recognizes human being as always to some degree and potentially fully a "free and self-determined being." This is even more obvious if we translate "Bestechendes," as Justin argues would be more accurate, as "attractive, seductive, or appealing" rather than as "specious."
The "delusional" aspect of the theory is its treatment of the criminal as a fully "free and self-determined being," i.e. as actualizing a "will proper" and a "universal will" - a will that is "in accordance with Reason." A fully "free and self-determined being" in this sense wouldn't commit crimes; such a being also wouldn't be a capitalist (among other reasons because a capitalist "exploits" others, treats them as means rather than as ends). A will that is "in accordance with Reason" would, according to Marx, will a life creating and appropriating beauty and truth within relations of mutual recognition,
In Marx's "materialism," the development of a fully "free and self-determined being" requires "an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." In other "social circumstances" the "individual with his real motives, with multifarious social circumstances pressing upon him" will not be a a fully "free and self-determined being."
Ted