Re: Marx on civil liberties and justice

From Alex Day <aday999@yahoo.com>
Date Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to <BAY101-F30nXgffHr1q00003295@hotmail.com>


Brian and Jonathan,

Jumping in here....

  I think, what underlies this whole disagreement is
whether the economy is separated off from politics or
not.  This is also central to many of the arguments in
China over the past several years.  Most liberals
(people like Zhu Xueqin) argue that the economy is a
sphere of natural rights that are foundational and
pre-political.  The problems of the present,
therefore, are a matter of the state (power)
interfering in the economy.  Many on the left have
been critical of this assertion of a pre-political
separation.  Brian seems to be making an argument
similar to the liberals: there is no compulsion if
there is formal equality in the market; 'the awesome
power of bourgeois freedoms' comes to stand outside
and before struggle--classical idealism; freedoms are
a-historical universals and are "human freedoms",
unrelated to power-relationships or pre-power; such
"human freedoms" must be established first, before
social equality is possible. 


Brian's response in this exchange sounds like it could
have come out of a debate in China: 

Jonathan:
> >And how do you deal with the most central of the
> core bourgeois freedoms: 
> >private property? Is this most holy of bourgeois
> freedoms consistent with 
> >your understanding of freedom?

Brian's response:
> Yes, if under conditions of relative equality.  In
> the real world, the 
> situation is often that of those who have long used
> the state to develop 
> wealth then preaching laissez-faire to protect these
> state augmented gains.  
> So the issues of pure private property and voluntary
> cooperation never 
> arises.

Again, it seems the key for Brian is that the market
be founded upon formal equality, which would keep
certain unscrupulous people from using the state to
unfair advantage in gaining wealth.  Keep Zhu Xueqin's
'foot' (state power) from standing on the 'invisible
hand' of the market.   


Brian: 
> I don't like the Marxist term bourgeois freedoms. 
> They are human freedoms.

Why don't you like the term?  Shouldn't we historicize
such categories instead of treating them as
a-historical universals?  These "freedoms" have
origins don't they? Or are they natural in some sense?
 I'd say, whenever you hear people claim a universal,
try to figure out what the hidden politics behind such
a claim is.  We should ask, why are some "freedoms"
universal (is it by chance that they are the freedoms
put forth by the ruling class?) and others not.  What
power effects this separation between universal
freedoms and an economy based in private property?  Is
it simply the power of an idea ('the awesome power of
bourgeois freedoms') or are there some more material
relations behind this power?  Brian, I think your own
language here should key you into some of your
assumptions in this discussion.


Jonathan:
> >The contradiction rests within 'bourgeois freedoms'
> freedoms themselves. 
> >How could anyone 'support' a contradictory ideal?
> Marx was very supportive 
> >of the call for rights/freedoms that the bourgeois
> issued as they fought 
> >with feudalism and pre-/non-capitalist formations,
> but there's a tendency 
> >for the 'freedoms' allowed to be limited when the
> bourgeois (private 
> >property) come under threat. You're trying to rip
> Marx's historically 
> >determined, critical and limited support for a
> subset of 'bourgeois 
> >freedoms' out of its context in order to justify
> your more general (and as 
> >yet unjustified IMO) support for bourgeois
> freedoms. That's my beef.

Brian:
> Well, I claim he separated them.  Freedoms cannot be
> fully exercised under 
> conditions of inequality, but freedoms are tools to
> CREATE more equality, 
> and their absence is death for egalitarian
> struggles, which is why they've 
> been opposed by the elite for as long as possible.

Here I would just point out that Marx was very
historical about this and DID NOT separate formal
equality from material relations.  On  the contrary,
his whole project was about historicizing this sort of
linkage.  For Marx there really isn't a separate world
of economy and then of political rights--these are
always intimately linked.  Brian, you seem to be
separating them in order to turn Marx into a
liberal--this is something he surely would have fought
against.
 

best,
  Alex Day,
  UCSC



--

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com