[lbo-talk] Marx and Justice

Carl Remick carlremick at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 25 14:49:03 PDT 2007



>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>On Jul 22, 2007, at 9:54 PM, Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> > Marx was trying to downplay the reformers who based their program on
> > morality. Marx was saying that the problem was not individual
> > employers unjustly ripping off their workers. The problem was the
> > rules of the system. In short, he was denying justice as a basis for
> > political organizing, calling for what he considered to be a
> > scientific
> > basis.
>
>Yeah that's the standard line, but do you really believe it? Sure he
>was annoyed by the screeching moralists of his day, as am I by their
>counterparts today, but why object to capitalism if it didn't offend
>you in some moral/ethical sense? What other basis is there for
>revolutionary politics?

Bingo, QED. As I've said before, Marx's thought is the moralism that dare not speak its name. Marx was 100 percent in the Old Testament tradition of a fire-and-brimstone-spouting prophet denouncing a corrupt society for refusing to honor the Golden Rule. To make that moralistic tradition relevant to the the arch-rational Victorian era, he erected a great clanking engine of scientific economic principles to frighten the bourgies and convince them he was no mere hand-wringing parson begging for a bit more charity in the world.

The irony, IMO, is that Marx succeeded mainly in adding a new type of alienation to the capitalist world. The very complexity of Marx's thought, though impressive as science, serves to reduce the transparency of capitalism's abominations. You shouldn't have to *study* Marx or anybody to grasp that the the existing economic order is contrary to moral law. Yet, instead of being told to trust their intuitions and recognize the system as a horror, the masses have traditionally been led to believe they must "do the reading" and, through arduous study of Marx, understand all the wiring diagrams of the system in order to appreciate how awful it is. That's a formula for disaster in terms of practical politics.

Ultimately, I think Marx has done more than anyone else to disenfranchise the masses from their visceral outrage and slow the progress of socialism in the world.

Carl

_________________________________________________________________ http://newlivehotmail.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list