DOCSLIB.ORG

Analytical Marxism – an Ex-Paradigm? the Odyssey of G.A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analytical Marxism – an Ex-Paradigm? the Odyssey of G.A Analytical Marxism – an ex-paradigm? The odyssey of G.A. Cohen Marcus Roberts In 1978 G.A. Cohen published Karl Marxʼs Theory the outset. So, too, had Marxʼs ʻmultiply confusedʼ 2 of History: A Defence. That this landmark work set anatomy of the capitalist mode of production. As for out to defend (something like) the orthodox historical ʻMarxʼs theory of historyʼ in its technological deter- materialism of the Second International was surprising minist incarnation, Cohen has long since confessed enough; that its author situated himself within the ʻana- to doubts as to its defensibility; few Marxists – even lyticalʼ tradition – and therefore engaged, and sought amongst his co-workers – now share the slightest 3 to defeat, Acton, Plamenatz, Popper et al. on their doubts about its indefensibility; and, anyway, Cohen own methodological terrain – was surprising indeed. himself no longer considers it to have any purchase It is testimony to Cohenʼs analytical acuity that, from upon the crucial problems confronting socialists at such unpropitious materials, he fashioned not a mere the close of the twentieth century. He argues that the curio, but arguably the most accomplished defence of pre-history of the historical materialist programme has ʻtechnological determinismʼ ever produced, and one nothing very interesting to tell us regarding either the of the most important works of Marxist philosophy constituency, agency and strategy of any prospective to have emerged from the Anglo-American academy. transition to socialism, or the motivational and insti- In fact, its publication heralded the emergence of a tutional structures of a feasible socialism. Thus, in the sui generis Marxism designated by its progenitors introduction to Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality – prominent amongst whom, alongside Cohen, were (1995), Cohen concedes that Jon Elster, John Roemer, Adam Przeworski and Erik to the extent that Marxism [i.e. Analytical Marxism Olin Wright – as ʻAnalyticalʼ or ʻRational Choiceʼ – MR] is still alive, as … one may say that it (sort Marxism. The architects of this new ʻparadigmʼ of) is in the work of scholars like John Roemer and insisted that a necessary condition of Marxismʼs salva- Philippe Van Parijs [note the conspicuous absence tion was its importation into the tradition of analytical of Elster – MR], it presents itself as a set of values philosophical method, ʻpositivistʼ social science, and and a set of designs for realising those values … Its shell is cracked and crumbling, its soft underbelly is – or, at least, so argued Elster, Roemer and Przeworski exposed.4 – that version of rational choice theory originating in the Marginalist revolution of the 1870s and providing However, while conceding the demise of Analytical neo-classical economics with its definitive axioms. As Marxism, Cohen, in an article originally published in one commentator observed, ʻCohen and his co-thinkers 1990, announces the advent of another new paradigm: … casually crossed the supposedly impassable border ʻAnalytical Semi-Marxismʼ.5 between Marxism and the academic mainstream in If it is true that the moment anyone started to talk to philosophy and social theory.ʼ1 Marx about morality he would laugh, then Analytical After nearly two decades, few Marxist ʻinsightsʼ Semi-Marxism would have had him in stitches. At the have survived the attempt to ʻreconstructʼ it. Most end of a century providing socialists with few occa- of the Marxist heritage – Marxism-Leninism, Trot- sions for merriment, Cohen declares it high time for skyism, Western Marxism and Structuralist Marxism a straight-faced engagement with, and development of, – had been consigned to the Humean flames from the ʻethicalʼ or ʻutopianʼ socialism decried by Marx- Radical Philosophy 82 (March/April 1997) 17 ismʼs founders.6 Marxists could excuse themselves labour. Remarkably, Cohen is forced finally to conclude from serious application to normative political phil- not only that Marxists should be exercised by Nozick osophy only so long as they had anticipated both the but also that ʻthe Marxist doctrine of exploitation is emergence of a working-class movement impelled into flagrantly incongruent with even the minimal principle class struggle by its material interests, and the advent of the welfare stateʼ.11 of an era of material abundance placing humankind, Those Marxists who argue that capitalist exploi- at long last, beyond the ʻcircumstances of justiceʼ tation is unjust claim that, despite formal freedom of and, therefore, the need for theories of justice. The contract, workers are forced to sell their labour power latest news from the Anglophone academy is that to some capitalist; and that, on entering the sphere of the working class has a good deal more to lose than production, they spend a portion of the working day its chains (and, it appears, a good deal less to win producing surplus value appropriated by the capitalist than a world), and that ʻ[w]e can no longer sustain without return. Exploitation is unjust because capital- Marxʼs extravagant, pre-Green, materialist optimismʼ.7 ists ʻstealʼ a portion of the workerʼs product. What The ʻplanet earth rebelsʼ against the final elimination general principle underlies this critique? The very of material scarcity.8 The Marxist explanatory pro- principle, or so Cohen claims, to be found at the heart gramme in ruins, and – relatedly – socialism relegated of Nozickian libertarianism: the self-ownership prin- from the destiny of humankind to one social blueprint ciple. Exploitation is morally objectionable because amongst others, ʻMarxists, or what were Marxists, are workers are coerced into exercising their powers for impelled into normative political philosophyʼ.9 the benefit of non-workers (i.e. capitalists). This is In view of Marxʼs notoriously inconsistent and frag- objectionable because it violates self-ownership: ʻI do mentary remarks concerning our morals and theirs, it not (fully) own myself if I am required to give others might be anticipated that, if Marxismʼs ʻhard factual (part of) what I earn [or produce – MR] by applying carapaceʼ has disintegrated, then its ʻsoft underbellyʼ my powers.ʼ12 The problem is that taxing workers in will prove very soft indeed. So concluded Elster and order to finance welfare programmes for non-workers Roemer, who, bereft of carapaces, set about appro- violates self-ownership for precisely the same reasons priating and developing left-liberal normative phil- as capitalist exploitation does: it takes from workers osophy in defence of versions of market socialism. and gives to non-workers (i.e. welfare claimants).13 Against this current, Cohen, resisting the stampede to Marxists appear to be compelled, on pain of inconsist- market socialism, has launched a last-ditch defence of ency, either to drop their egalitarian commitments a more resolutely Marxian normative position. Contra or to abandon the moralized critique of capitalist Roemer, he argues that, unlike egalitarian liberals, exploitation; that is, unless there is some subtle way Marxists have traditionally been, and should continue of reconciling self-ownership with egalitarianism (and, to be, interested in, and unreconciled to, capitalist therefore, Marxian anti-capitalism with socialism). exploitation.10 Unfortunately, in so far as this Cohenite Some obvious moves are either unsatisfactory or brand of Semi-Marxism distinguishes itself from left- unavailable. For example, it is unsatisfactory to argue liberalism, it finds itself in bad company. Specifically, from the unjust origins of capitalism to its moral or so Cohen argues, it is forced to take the rabid indefensibility. Of course, capitalismʼs origins leave neo-liberalism of Robert Nozickʼs Anarchy, State and something to be desired; the problem is that a con- Utopia extremely seriously. sistent, and historically literate, libertarian (admittedly a rare enough beast) must concede the injustice of Taking Nozick seriously historical capitalism, in view of its origins in, and Cohen argues that a Semi-Marxism insistent upon the development via, multiple violations of those inviolable injustice of capitalist exploitation confronts a serious rights eulogized by the libertarian Right. However, it challenge from a neo-liberal ʻentitlementʼ theory of does not follow from capitalismʼs bloody history that justice which abandons the unemployed, sick, disabled, the form of exploitation characteristic of the capitalist and old – or at least those so ʻirresponsibleʼ as to mode of production is, in and of itself, unjust. A ʻcleanʼ have failed to make adequate private provision – to capitalism – that is, one with unimpeachable origins the tender mercies of private charity; refusing to tax – is, at least, conceivable. For example, we might the Trumps, Rockefellers, Gettys, Bransons, and of imagine everyone beginning at the beginning with an course the less spectacularly endowed, in order to equal share of worldly resources. If some people are finance welfare provisions, on the grounds that this hard-working and frugal then they may work them- is morally equivalent to condemning them to forced selves into a position to exploit the ʻlazy rascalsʼ who, 18 Radical Philosophy 82 (March/April 1997) abandoning themselves to whatever ʻriotous livingʼ ceded). Self-ownership alone will not generate an is afforded in a state of nature, have allowed their unequal distribution of worldly resources. If we go plots to go to seed. Moreover, the ʻexploitedʼ in such back far enough, we eventually arrive at a point in circumstances
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Althusser After Althusser
    REVIEWS Althusser after Althusser Louis Althusser, Philosophy of the Encounter: Later Writings, 1978–1987, ed. François Matheron and Olivier Corpet, trans. and introduced by G.M. Goshgarian, Verso, London and New York, 2006. 300 pp. £50.00 hb., £16.99 pb., 1 84467 069 4 hb., 1 84467 553 X pb. ʻI am looking, in the history of philosophy, for the Althusser most dramatically addresses the question elements that will enable us to account for what Marx of non-publication in reminding us of Marxʼs refusal thought and the form in which he thought itʼ, writes to publish the theoretically invaluable ʻCritique of Althusser in ʻPhilosophy and Marxismʼ. The statement the Gotha Programmeʼ at a crucial moment in the arguably describes his project as a whole, from For historical institution of Marxism. Meekly resisting his Marx onwards, in which he tracks down the ways in own status as a ʻMarxistʼ (when he could rather have which Marx avoids epistemological capture by Hege- deployed the ʻtheoretical-personage effectʼ emerg- lianism and political economy and breaks away into a ing around him), Marx, paradoxically for a critic of new science of history. But here it also refers specifi- political idealism, refused to intervene theoretically in cally to a more positive turn in his endeavours: the party political practice: the founding of the German articulation of a possible ʻmaterialism of the encounterʼ Social Democratic Party on completely misguided or ʻaleatory materialismʼ. ʻPhilosophy and Marxismʼ, a ʻcommunistʼ grounds. Maybe these texts by Althusser long interview, originally published in Mexico in 1988 – together with their associated correspondence – will (interestingly, aimed ʻexclusivelyʼ at a Latin American prove to be politically and theoretically invaluable in audience of students and political activists), is the most the future too.
    [Show full text]
  • Socialism, Feminism and Men
    Socialism, Feminism and Men Peter Middleton Feminism has been both welcomed and resisted by socialist they return to either a divided socialism pretending to an men in the past twenty years. As a critique of exploitation and imaginary unity, or an uneasy masquerade as feminists. Nei­ inequality, feminism has been easily recognisable to social­ ther is tenable. Men can and should support feminism, but ism. Women can be added on to its emancipatory project as they cannot be its subjects, representatives or policy makers. another oppressed class to be liberated. In practice this has How can we speak of a socialist politics in which gender often meant that feminist politics and socialist politics have was recognised to be involved with its every aspect, that managed an uneasy co-operation, a co-ordination that breaks would make it possible for men to take active roles, and that down when specific issues highlight the consequences in would remain socialist and pro-feminist? That, I want to priorities and strategies of their seemingly incompatible fun­ suggest, is one of the most pressing demands on the socialist damental analyses of contemporary society. Feminism has agenda, and one of the hardest to respond to in both theory and been resisted when these fundamental differences have be­ practice.2 In the remainder of this article I will discuss two come central to political strategy. The respective emphases on areas of especial conceptual difficulty: the questions of op­ the primacy of patriarchy or the relations of production have pression and of sexual difference. The confusion these have created a split between feminists and socialists.
    [Show full text]
  • E. P. Thompson, 1924-1993
    NEWS E. P. Thompson, 1924-1993 The great bustard has winged off, removing as he went one of the prime attractions of these shores, and one of the few remaining reasons for still proclaiming intellectual allegiance to them. Thompson liked to present himself as an earth-bound English creature incapable of much soaring. But he had enough of the lark in him to have died singing, as Blake is said to have done; and who knows but that he did in his own fashion, for he was of that spirit. Thompson's trust in 'experience' shared common roots with Blake's 'Auguries of Innocence'. He knew what the poet meant when he warned that 'He who shall teach the Child to Doubt, The rotting Grave shall neer get out' , and he has escaped that rot, and will live with us now as one of the most inspirational voices of English culture. Thompson has been rightly acclaimed the great­ est English historian of the post-war period, and his stature as a peace activist aptly compared to that of Bertrand Russell. But as a polemicist and radical visionary, he may be ranked in a canon which transcends our own century. Thompson was not simply a rill, to invoke Coleridge' s metaphor, flowing with a perforation in the tanks ofBlake, and Morris, Swift and Cobbett. He was himself a fountain comparable to theirs. But perhaps the watery image is not the most appropriate. In many respects he was more like a power house; and although illness had already reduced some of the force before he died, now that he has been finally extinguished, one feels the cut in energy The other great family influence was exerted posthumously by his all the more acutely.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revival of Hegelian Marxism on Martin Hägglund’S This Life Nathan Brown
    The revival of Hegelian Marxism On Martin Hägglund’s This Life Nathan Brown When a notable philosopher, having established a reputa- been able to carry out this project with such accessible tion for rigorous argumentation and scholarship, directs clarity is so unusual as to be disorienting. a major new book toward a popular audience, a certain Hägglund’s book unfolds in two parts: the first ar- skepticism may be forgiven among those familiar with ticulating a concept of ‘secular faith’ as a condition of the earlier work. However welcome an accessible style intelligibility for any form of care; the second articulat- may be, popular address too often gives way to the pop- ing a concept of ‘spiritual freedom’ that demands for its ularisation of philosophical concepts and problems with actualisation the overcoming of capitalism and the de- results that are seldom adequate to the complexity of termination of value in terms of socially available free their history and significance. The general reader re- time. The critique of religion in the first half of the ceives a bowdlerisation of conceptual difficulties, while book will be broadly familiar to readers of Hägglund’s the price of public reception is inconsequence at the level Radical Atheism (2008): across three chapters engaging of philosophical intervention, and the demands of legib- most substantially with C.S. Lewis, Charles Taylor, Sören ility offer an excuse for setting aside abstruse debates Kierkegaard, Saint Augustine and Karl Ove Knausgaard, and technical details. Hägglund argues that the religious orientation of desire Martin Hägglund’s third book, This Life: Secular toward eternal life – in itself incompatible with care for Faith and Spiritual Freedom, may be met with varieties of this life – in fact obscures an implicit commitment to such skepticism among seasoned readers of Marx, Hegel, a secular form of faith grounding any and all commit- Heidegger – and of the traditions from which their work ments to the projects of finite existence.
    [Show full text]
  • Gender As Performance an Interview with Judith Butler
    Gender as Performance An Interview with Judith Butler ludithButlerteaches in the Rhetoric Department at the University When the book came out, the Second Annual Conference of of California, Berkeley. Her first book, Subjects of Desire: Lesbian and Gay Studies was taking place in the USA, and it got Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France ( J 987) traced taken up in a way that I could never have anticipated. I remember the dialectic ofpro- and anti-Hegelian currents in French theory sitting next to someone at a dinner party, and he said that he was across the writings ofa wide range ofthinkers. She is best known, working on queer theory. And I said: What's queer theory? He however, for her second book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the looked at me like I was crazy, because he evidently thought that Subversion ofIdentity ( J 990), which has proved as influential as I was a part of this thing called queer theory. But all I knew was it is controversial in its analysis of ' sex', 'gender' and 'sexuality' that Teresa de Lauretis had published an issue of the journal as forms of enforced cultural performance. In particular, it has Differences called 'Queer Theory' . I thought it was something she been read by many as standing at theforefront of the new 'queer had put together. It certainly never occurred to me that I was a part theory' - a tendency within gay and lesbian studies which of queer theory. foregrounds same-sex desire without specifying the sex of the I have some problems here, because I think there's some anti­ partners, in the hope of escaping the theoretical constraints of feminism in queer theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerald A. Cohen (1941-2009) an Intellectual Journey Through Radical Thought
    Gerald A. Cohen (1941-2009) An intellectual journey through radical thought Fabien Tarrit Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne France Abstract: The philosopher Gerald A. Cohen, who once was a Chichele Professor at Oxford University, between 1984 and 2008, died on the 5th of August last year. His thought, known as a radical one and explicitly intended as serving the liberation of humanity, suddenly appeared on the intellectual theatre in 1978 with the publication of Karl Marx‟s Theory of History: A Defence. This book can be seen as doubly original. On the one hand it defends historical materialism on the basis of methodological foundations (analytical philosophy, logical positivism, functional explanation) that are usually known as contradictory with Marx‟s method. On the other hand, it initiated a school of thought, Analytical Marxism, which debate also took on economics, sociology, history… Later, after a long-lasting debate, still in search of intellectual radicalism, he gradually departed from Marx‟s theory, both for theoretical reasons in terms of logical consistency, and for empirical reasons in terms of correspondence between theory and empirical facts. He then gradually turned on theoretical discussions in political philosophy that flourished around John Rawls‟ Theory of Justice. This was not an immediate shift, since beforehand he appropriated the libertarian concept of self-ownership in order to associate it to a Marxist approach. In doing so, he intended, on the basis of John Locke‟s theory, to use a libertarian argument as a tool for critical theory. Cohen then gave up this concept before entering the normative debate around issues on social justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Pandemic Suspension Alexei Penzin
    Pandemic suspension Alexei Penzin The Lisbon earthquake of November 1755 was the most Negative Dialectics (1966), presenting it as a ‘visible dis- devastating natural disaster of the eighteenth century, aster of the first nature’ that ‘sufficed to cure Voltaire and probably the first disaster on such a scale in modern- of the theodicy of Leibniz’.6 Although Adorno purports ity. It was an event that profoundly disturbed many En- to echo Voltaire, his argument that the disaster was ‘in- lightenment philosophers.1 Kant wrote three scientific significant in comparison with the second, social one studies that attempted to explain it from the standpoint [Auschwitz], which defies human imagination as it dis- of natural history, and some commentators have hypo- tils a real hell from human evil’, rather intensifies and thesised that its reverberations can be detected in his modernises Rousseau’s argument that ‘the sufferings famous elaboration of the aesthetic category of sub- nature imposes on us are less cruel than those we add on lime.2 Besides writing a poem about the earthquake, ourselves’.7 Voltaire employed it in his famous Candide as an example These examples demonstrate how the philosophers of a horrific and meaningless natural disaster that dis- of the Enlightenment applied their ‘signature’ ideas and proved Leibniz’s optimistic theodicy of ‘pre-established concepts to the Lisbon earthquake. They also indicate harmony’, for the obvious reason that it would be im- how philosophers ‘capitalise’ on events with this order possible to incorporate into even the most sophisticated of notoriety in their drive to symbolic ‘primitive accumu- plot of divine providence.3 Rousseau wrote a letter to lation’.
    [Show full text]
  • Radical Philosophy Review
    RPR Volume 10 • Number 1 • 2007 Radical Philosophy Review Journal of the Radical Philosophy Association Radical Philosophy Review (ISSN 1388-4441) is published biannually by the Radical Philosophy Association (RPA) in cooperation with the Philosophy Radical Philosophy Review Documentation Center. An individual subscription to this peer-reviewed journal includes membership in the RPA. More information about the Association is available online at www.radicalphilosophy.org. Volume 10 • Number 1 • 2007 • Subscription rates are $69 for Institutions and $42 for Individuals. Please add $8 shipping to all addresses outside the U.S. • Single/back issues are available to Institutions for $35 and to Individuals for $21. • VISA, MasterCard, and Discover cards accepted. Editors’ Introduction Membership & Subscriptions Eduardo Mendieta & Jeffrey Paris ——— iii All correspondence regarding subscriptions, renewals, memberships, and address changes should be addressed to: Philosophy Documentation Center Articles P.O. Box 7147, Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-7147 Tel. 800-444-2419 (US & Canada); 434-220-3300 • Living Labor in Marx ——— 1 Fax: 434-220-3301; E-mail: [email protected]; Mario Sáenz Web: www.pdcnet.org • Feminist Dialectics and ——— 33 Marxist Theory Radical Philosophy Review accepts unsolicited articles of no more than 10,000 Kathryn Russell words, review essays of no more than 5,000 words, and book reviews of no more than 2,000 words. Authors interested in writing review essays and book reviews are • Listening to Zapatismo: ——— 55 encouraged to contact the Managing Editor for copies of recently published books. A Reflection on Spiritual DeRacination Editorial & Submissions Patricia Huntington All editorial correspondence should be addressed to: Jeffrey Paris Reviews Managing Editor, RPR Department of Philosophy • Reclaiming Identity, by ——— 79 University of San Francisco Paula M.
    [Show full text]
  • Rp17 Reviews.Pdf
    1972 l&nin. London, Ncw Left Books Mamilieim, K. 19721c\E'ol(lgy :l~ London, Routledge & Kegan Paul AltJlUsser, L. 1969 For Marx, London, Penguin; 1974 Elements Marx, K. 1968 'Theses on Feuerbach' in Selected Works London, Lawrence d'autocritig~, Paris, HacheUe and Wishart; 1973 Grundrisse London, Pcnguin Arato, A. 1972a 'Lukacs' Theory of Reification', Telos 11, pp25-66; Merleau-Ponly, M. 1962 The Phenomenology of Perception, London, 1972b Notes on 'History and Class Consciousness', Philosophical Forum Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1974a Adyentures of thc Dialectic, London, Vol. JII, pp386-400 Heinemann; 1974b The PI"OSe of the World, London, Heinemann Colletti, L. 1973 Marxism and Hegel London, New Left Books Paci, E. 1972 The Function of the Sciences and the Meaning of Man, Fecnberg, A. 1971 'Heificationand the Antimonies of Socialist Thought' Evanston, Northwestern Univcrsity Press Telos Phillips, D. 1974 'Epistemology and the sociology of knowledge', Theory and l- ~Vol.l Glucksmann, A. 1972 'A Ventriloquist Structuralism', New Left Review Piccone, P. 1972 'Dialcctic and Materialism in Lukacs', ~ 11, ppl05-33 72, pp68-92 - Ranciere, J. 1972 'Althusser and Ideology', Radical Philosophy 7 Goldrnann, L. 1971 Reflections of 'History and Class Consciousness' in Revai, J. 1972 Review of Georg Lukacs' 'History and Class ConSCiousness', Mes7.'Uos (ed. ) AspE'cts of Histo!'y and Class Consciousness London, Merlin Theoretical Practice No. 1 Hindess, B. 1972 'The "Phenomenological" Sociology of AUred Schutz', Sartre, J":P. 1949 The Psychology of the Imagination London, Rider; E£Q.!]pmy and Society Vol.l ppl-27; 1973a 'Transcendentalism and History', 1957 Being and NOUJinilllg§ji, London, Methuen; 1960 Critique de la Raison E.£Quomy and SO("i('ty Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • The Analytical Foundations of Contemporary Political Economy: a Comment on Hunt
    THE ANALYTICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL ECONOMY: A COMMENT ON HUNT Herbert Gintis I do not disagree with E. K. Hunt's admirable description of analytical Marxism, nor do I differ strongly with his characterization of its differences with traditional Marxism. These differences are deep and fundamental, to the point that rational choice Marxism can indeed be considered hostile to many of traditional Marxism's most basic tenets. In this essay I will neither attempt to defend analytical Marxism against Hunt's critique nor will I endorse this critique. I am not analytical Marxist, although I have sympathy with some of its positions. Nor am I a traditional Marxist, having made my peace with Marxism in my joint work with Samuel Bowles, Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought (1986). Marxism, I believe, has given us many important insights into the operation of society, but has no monopoly on truth. Rather than take sides, I propose here to elucidate the differences between the two, and offer an perspective missing in Hunt's critique: the venerable opposition between neoclassical and Marxian economic theory is antiquated and is increas­ ingly of purely historical interest This is true because both Marxism and neoclas­ sical economics are disintegrating in the face of contemporary political and theo­ retical concerns. Coming years will involve vast changes in all of economic theory, blurring the old distinctions, validating some concerns traditionally held by Marx­ ists, others
    [Show full text]
  • Marxism and the Continuing Irrelevance of Normative Theory (Reviewing G
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2002 Marxism and the Continuing Irrelevance of Normative Theory (reviewing G. A. Cohen, If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? (2000)) Brian Leiter Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brian Leiter, "Marxism and the Continuing Irrelevance of Normative Theory (reviewing G. A. Cohen, If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? (2000))," 54 Stanford Law Review 1129 (2002). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK REVIEW Marxism and the Continuing Irrelevance of Normative Theory Brian Leiter* IF YOU'RE AN EGALITARIAN, How COME YOU'RE SO RICH? By G. A. Cohen. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. 237 pp. $18.00. I. INTRODUCTION G. A. Cohen, the Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at Oxford, first came to international prominence with his impressive 1978 book on Marx's historical materialism,1 a volume which gave birth to "analytical Marxism."'2 Analytical Marxists reformulated, criticized, and tried to salvage central features of Marx's theories of history, ideology, politics, and economics. They did so not only by bringing a welcome argumentative rigor and clarity to the exposition of Marx's ideas, but also by purging Marxist thinking of what we may call its "Hegelian hangover," that is, its (sometimes tacit) commitment to Hegelian assumptions about matters of both philosophical substance and method.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 April, 2006 Vita Allen W. Wood Academic Address: Philosophy
    April, 2006 Vita Allen W. Wood Academic Address: Philosophy Department, Bldg 90 Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-2155 Telephone 650-723-2587 Fax 650-723-0985 E-mail: [email protected] Education: B. A., Reed College, 1964; Major: Literature and Philosophy (Thesis: "Nietzsche and Christianity"). M. A., Philosophy, Yale University, 1966. Ph. D., Philosophy, Yale University, 1968 (Thesis: "Kant's Moral Religion"). Academic Employment: Teaching Assistant in Philosophy, Yale University, 1966-1967. Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Cornell University, 1968-1972. Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Michigan, 1973. Associate Professor of Philosophy, Cornell University, 1973-1980. Professor of Philosophy, Cornell University, 1980-1996. Visiting Professor of Philosophy, University of California at San Diego, 1986. Professor of Philosophy, Yale University, 1996-1999 Visiting Professor of Philosophy, Yale University, 1999-2000. Professor of Philosophy, Stanford University, 1999-2001 Ward W. and Priscilla B. Woods Professor, Stanford University, 2001-present. Isaiah Berlin Visiting Professor, Oxford University, 2005 Academic Honors: William F. Stout Scholarship, Reed College, 1960-64 Woodrow Wilson Fellowship, Yale University, 1964 Yale-Wilson Fellowship, Yale University, 1965-66 Woodrow Wilson Dissertation Fellowship, 1967 Sterling Fellowship, 1967 Cornell Society for the Humanities Summer Fellowship, 1970 John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, 1983 Fulbright Fellowship, 1983 (declined) Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship, 1983 (declined) National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship, 1992 American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2002 Publications: 1 Books: Kant's Moral Religion. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1970. Kant's Rational Theology. Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1978. Karl Marx. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981. Hegel's Ethical Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
    [Show full text]