What is Liberal Egalitarianism and how is it that Analytical Marxism differs from it solely in how property/resources are treated?
Results 1 to 10 of 10
Analytical Marxism vs Liberal Egalitarianism
Hello Revleft, I have an interesting question today. Analytical Marxism differs from Liberal Egalitarianism solely in how property/resources is treated: socialized versus equally distributed. My question is, why is it important (to Marxists) to socialize resources? I'm not sure of the answer, though I feel that socialized resources is a batter alternative to equal distribution of property. Would it result in higher productivity? Is Liberal Egalitarianism subject to some sort of injustice? Is alienation the only argument? Or is there more to socializing resources?
Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk
What is Liberal Egalitarianism and how is it that Analytical Marxism differs from it solely in how property/resources are treated?
Liberal Egalitarianism is basically the idea that everyone should have an equal amount of resources (possibly more or less for those who are handicapped, talented, etc.). It is still a Capitalist society, but everyone is suppose to be equally well off. Analytical Marxism is essentially the same, except it abolishes private property.
Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk
OK, I believe the answer you seek may become apparent in the process of proving the above statement. Keep in mind that (1) AM, if it ever was a real "movement", is now dead, having smashed itself on the rocks of its own contradiction, and (2) there is no one single AM position on this. For example, some AMers insisted on something they called "methodological individualism" as a key to understanding society. If there are no objective class interests that can be counted on to explain social forces and development then we are left with vague appeals to "injustice" in the abstract. Sort of Rawlsian sounding hot air is all that is left.
So, is there any contemporary Marxist, or even Communist movement? Or is Communism as a whole dead? Or is it just Marxism that is dead?
Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk
Marxism is dead, there hasn't been a sound social democratic policy since about 1945 here in Britain and even they didn't go so far as to abolish capitalism, just nationalise everything.
Analytical Marxism is nothing more than liberalism in socialist clothing, even the methods are taken from the Austrian school for christ sake.
It's not dead, it's just sleeping.
Frankly I agree with you, but OP sounds suspiciously like he's got a homework assignment from the "Marxism" section of a college sociology course, so he's gonna have to read this stuff regardless. If I was OP I'd focus on Jerry Cohen and Jon Elster as the "leaders" of the school. In fact, I'd read these two pages to start:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/me...individualism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_M...ory:_A_Defence
I've always been curious about reading that latter book, I simply have always had more important things to do
I have been reading for a class, but there's no homework other than the reading itself. I was just thinking about it because the author doesn't seem to say much about the subject. He doesn't even mention any problems with Liberal Egalitarianism when discussing why one should abolish private property, as opposed to equally distributing it.It's not dead, it's just sleeping.
Frankly I agree with you, but OP sounds suspiciously like he's got a homework assignment from the "Marxism" section of a college sociology course, so he's gonna have to read this stuff regardless. If I was OP I'd focus on Jerry Cohen and Jon Elster as the "leaders" of the school. In fact, I'd read these two pages to start:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/me...individualism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_M...ory:_A_Defence
I've always been curious about reading that latter book, I simply have always had more important things to do
Anyway, thanks for the help! By the way, it's a Philosophy course. [emoji14]
Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk
Sounds like old school pre-Marx utopianist socialism. Which is nice to read about of course.
Would you be so kind as to keep this thread updated with your findings?
Of course! As for choosing Analytical Marxism over Liberal Egalitarianism, here are a few things I have thought about:
• in Nozick's "State, Anarchy, and Utopia", he argues against Liberal Egalitarianism, and other "patterend" theories of justice, because it's impossible to keep everything equal without imposing restrictions on liberty. He goes into detail, but basically, trades/exchanges and gifts can disrupt the balance of utility, or what have you, and so you must either constantly redistribute (near impossible, not to mention an infringement of privacy), or ban exchanging of goods (an infringement of liberty). If no one owns anything, you can see why this wouldn't be a problem.
• in a Liberal Egalitarian society, people may not necessarily be motivated to better society. People who just want to survive and enjoy life might pursue careers not beneficial to society, such as dealing narcotics, fossil fuels, etcetera. However, a Communist society would not have Capital to interest people into things that are bad for society.
Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk
