| View Blog
|
|
|
|
I try to be very clear concerning the principles of the social-democracy I advocate. The
principles of socialism and of democracy must inform the possible practices of both
socialism and of democracy. In principle, I advocate both anarchism and democracy;
I accept that these two principled aspirations are possible as concurrent aspirations.
Some people believe that liberty and democracy are opposed, but I do not believe this.
"Although it is quite in accordance with Karl Marx's own manner to take an historical view
of his work, such an approach presupposes a vantage-point made available by
developments beyond the stage reflected in the Marxian system -- in other words, it
assumes that the Marxian categories are no longer quite applicable to current history.
For obvious reasons this is an admission which orthodox Marxists find it hard to make,
while others may wonder why this particular scruple should arise in the first place. Its
emergence is due to the fact that Georg W. F. Hegel and, following him, Marx took a view
of history which is not the familiar positivist one. They saw history as a process whose
meaning reveals itself by stages, the succession of the latter reflecting man's growing
awareness of his role in creating the historical world. To comprehend its past mankind
must raise itself to a higher level; hence our ability to understand our predecessors
suggests that we have reached a new altitude. This consideration originally presented
itself to Hegel as a consequence of his discovery that philosophical systems had a
tendency to age: they appeared to be historical, not merely in the sense of being
conditioned by circumstances (no one had ever doubted this), but in the more alarming
sense of tending to evaporate with the circumstances that attended their birth. Hegel
tried to meet the difficulty by establishing an intrinsic relationship between the philosophy
of history (his own) and the history of philosophy: his system, if not guaranteed to withstand
the flux of time, was at any rate promoted to a special dignity by its ability to give an account
of the process which had swallowed up all its predecessors. A philosophy which traced
the unfolding of the logos through all its stages, from inanimate nature, via human history,
to the realm of spirit, could assign their proper place to the various philosophical systems,
including that in which the process had eventually culminated: Hegel's own. The categories
of logic were also those of history, or the historical process exemplified the march of
reason: no matter how it was put, the philosopher retained his hold on the totality of the
system, which was identical with the world. In Hegel's philosophy -- unquestionably the
greatest speculative construction of all time -- the history of logic and the logic of history
have the same goal: the gradual unfolding of the Absolute Idea comes to a climax at the
point where the human mind discovers the identity of mind-matter. The universe yields
its secret to Reason because it is itself the creation of Reason.
"It is today widely taken for granted that the gradual disappearance of these metaphysical
certainties has introduced a relativist element into the philosophy of history -- on this
account frequently described as 'historicism' by an influential academic school. If it is not
always apparent whether the target aimed at by these writers is the Hegelian absolutism
or the post-Hegelian adoption of a purely human standpoint, it is at any rate evident that
they are not happy with an approach which seeks to comprehend both the history and the
logic of intellectual phenomena. Since this criticism is directed against thinkers so widely
different in their political outlook as G. W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx and Benedetto Croce, it
clearly reflects a genuine philosophical difficulty. Those who take a different view of what
is entailed by the philosophy of history are thus under an obligation to define their own
standpoint. This, however, is best done by letting the results speak for themselves."
-- George Lichtheim
The welfare of the individual, and the welfare of the community are not so antithetical as
those who advocate capitalism like to believe.
Private property in the natural environment does not make the private proprietors as
responsible for the conservation of the natural environment as so many ideological
capitalists would like for us to believe.
"In manners, tranquillity is the supreme power."
-- Madam de Maintenon
|
|
Posted by rallen2 on 2008-04-19 10:52:30 | Rating: | Views: 55
|
|
| |
|
|
Email This to a Friend 
