Op dinsdag, 30-jun-98 schreef Peter Gates:
PG> so I guess my question is, as someone with hope for the future, how d=
o we
PG> argue for the continuing significance of marxism at a time when capit=
alism
PG> is beocmeing ever more subtle in its attacks on human freedom.
PG> Remember ... i am not a sociologist, so go easy on me!
I would say that since it has become clear that Marxism doesn't work, it =
has really become very interesting and it might rise again, even become m=
ore important then ever, but now as pure social and reflective criticism =
and not as a ideology or a recipe for a better world. So you can read Mar=
x now without having to become a fan of the Chinese gerontocracy. The pro=
blem with capitalism is that it works to well!
BTW, in your first posting you seem to suggest that British philosophy or=
any other has something important to say about those issues you mention,=
maybe you can enlighten me here, because I've really no idea which philo=
sopher you might think of. On the contrary: while Anthony Giddens is stil=
l thinking that most poor people have a choice, it's Pierre Bourdieu who'=
s raising important ehtical issues and social criticism. And this is not =
new: when British philosophers were just working on linguistic problems, =
people like Sartre and Camus brought up the important ethical issues. =
best wishes
erik
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=
~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Erik Hoogcarspel < jehms@xxxxxxxxxxx >< Boerhaav=
eln 99b >
< tl+31.(0)104157097 >< 3112 LE =
Schiedam >
< fx+31.(0)842113137 >< Holland =
>
*=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D*
PG> so I guess my question is, as someone with hope for the future, how d=
o we
PG> argue for the continuing significance of marxism at a time when capit=
alism
PG> is beocmeing ever more subtle in its attacks on human freedom.
PG> Remember ... i am not a sociologist, so go easy on me!
I would say that since it has become clear that Marxism doesn't work, it =
has really become very interesting and it might rise again, even become m=
ore important then ever, but now as pure social and reflective criticism =
and not as a ideology or a recipe for a better world. So you can read Mar=
x now without having to become a fan of the Chinese gerontocracy. The pro=
blem with capitalism is that it works to well!
BTW, in your first posting you seem to suggest that British philosophy or=
any other has something important to say about those issues you mention,=
maybe you can enlighten me here, because I've really no idea which philo=
sopher you might think of. On the contrary: while Anthony Giddens is stil=
l thinking that most poor people have a choice, it's Pierre Bourdieu who'=
s raising important ehtical issues and social criticism. And this is not =
new: when British philosophers were just working on linguistic problems, =
people like Sartre and Camus brought up the important ethical issues. =
best wishes
erik
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=
~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Erik Hoogcarspel < jehms@xxxxxxxxxxx >< Boerhaav=
eln 99b >
< tl+31.(0)104157097 >< 3112 LE =
Schiedam >
< fx+31.(0)842113137 >< Holland =
>
*=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D*