Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
> The system justifies itself for
> its basis in free and fair exchanges. Marx tears away the veil of
> justice just as he shows in his theory of primitive accumulation that
> capital did not have its origins in just transactions. But such
> deconstructive critiques only means that Marx stripped capitalism
> bare so that it could be judged in terms of its historical role,
> rather than hallowed in terms of transcendent ideals. In other words,
> he did not critique capitalism because it is unjust. He said that
> because it is not just we can open ourselves to the prospect of a
> new society (just as our understanding of the historicity of
> capitalism so opens us).
This is a I think a good way of putting it. "Unjust" is not the only alternative to "just." One cannot defend capitalism on the basis of its justness, and one need _not_ attack it on the basis of its alleged "unjustness," which would imply a transcendental standard. (This is also why I can't accept Ted's notion of rationalism, preferring to see the rational/irrational opposition as historically grounded. Capitalists are not irrational, but neither is their rationality one that should impress opponents of capitalism, whose rationality is otherwise formed.)
> Which does not mean that capitalism does not
> have a historical justification; Marx clearly thought that it did.
This I find wrong, though I will grant that Marx so thought. But by any standard we can derive from present perspective, the immense human slaughter brought about by capitalism cannot be transhistorically justified by any conceivable outcome. Capitalism is a _fact_, a bloody and destructive fact, but (given that) we can see how for us (or perhaps only for our descendants) a redemption in terms of the future it makes possible. But certainly nothing about capitalism calls into question the validity of the ancient Greek proverb, "It is best never to be born; once born, it is best to go hence quickly."
> That it still does is Meghnad Desai's argument; Marx can be made a
> conservative. At any rate, it can be seen that Marx is miles away
> from the philosophical discussion of justice by Rawls and Nozick. The
> question becomes how to compare Marx's and Nietzsche's
> deconstructions of justice. Perhaps there is no common ground? Just
> different horses in different races?
Andie has argued in the past though not recently on list that philosophy is merely an interesting entertainment, having no use in the world. Whether that is comprehensively true or not, I think it applies to these questions.
Carrol
>
> Rakesh
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk