Michael Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> He certainly hated capitalism. But his justification
> for expropriating the expropriators isn't founded
> on the immorality of the latter, is it? That would
> presuppose some moral framework (founded on what?)
> existing over and above or outside of the historical
> dialectic.
(I don't take Doug's question seriously. It sets up an infinite regress and he must know that. Hence if we answer him, the answer will only generate another question and so on.)
Marx establishes the historicitiy of capitalism and the potential for transformation that that historicity poses. Doug's argument, if he has one, is with Marx, not us.
We've been over this before. Here is my post of Fri, 21 Nov 2008, under the Subject line, "On the Threat from Religion."
=======
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> But if you don't have some moral or ethical objection
> to exploitation, why do you have a problem with capitalism?
Marx evidently did not think so. Your argument is with him, nor Jim.
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20081103/018110.html
Gspr Mikls Tams, in "Telling the truth about class":
"Marx is the poet of that Faustian demonism: only capitalism reveals the social, and the ?nal unmasking; the ?nal apocalypse, the ?nal revelation can be reached by wading through the murk of estrangement which, seen historically, is unique in its energy, in its diabolical force. Marx does not 'oppose' capitalism ideologically; but Rousseau does. For Marx, it is history; for Rousseau, it is evil." =======
You can't escape history, which precludes appealing to a morality outside history.
Carrol