Abraham Rotstein, Weekend Notes XXII
Shaw (5)
[2] P. thinks that the Shaw chapter should lead up to the postulate of the reform of human consciousness. That is what the chapter would be based on. It would be at the end and perhaps this could only be done by a poet who was 100 years old.
The Shavian consciousness is based on the consciousness of the reality of the society. One would have to watch out for the Eastern philosophy (The Simpleton of the U.I.)
Shaw wanted us to know that he had taken his wisdom from Marx. Is that so? He wasn't a believer in democracy. […]
Text in English to type
Shaw's anti-democracy may be a step towards the reality of society [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
Paul Medow (2)
[23] Paul has used Schumpeter's second chapter of his theory of economic development and applied it to two neo-mercantilist countries, Japan and Russia.
[…]
In ethics he wants to use Fromm's and P.'s position on the market and in economics he wants to establish Schumpeter.
[…] A.F. Burns in the Rockefeller report uses Schumpetarian economics … […]
[24] … Adam Smith … Mandeville, the becs, [25] [26] [27]
Freedom and Technology (6)
[28] One is thrown back on the reality of society. Both the freedom question and the technological question involve the question of what is society.
The reality of it runs over the recognition that we cannot contract out. […]
Jaspers gives support to the idea of our civilization being technological but doesn't link to the freedom.
Our argument runs over the incoherence of our value system … […]
P. would like to use the Jaspers but the curious thing is it hardly comes near our subject. It is all abstract and vague. On the social history of the machine, he thinks that technology is [29] mankind's second breath and will last for another six thousand years. P. believes this.
It would have to be written that the technological civilization cannot go on as it is forever and we need a society which can stop technological progress and science. A market system cannot do this and is utterly hopeless. (One must be careful not to cut across the next fifty to one hundred years and go on to two hundred and fifty years. We should keep our on the ground).
The question is where these thoughts take you. Even today, such ideas as Konnan's take you to setting limits to the technological civilization, e.g. the idea that it's okay for the Russians to proceed on this line but we had enough.
The idea of the West something to the rest of the world and how to industrialize would make some sense for 1958. Owen never got beyond 1838. We cannot carry our ideas too far in any ne direction because then we would not be able to have the total argument of the book which would be weighty.
One would certainly hope that the Asiatic world would build better than we and advance by one step.
P. sees that the G.T. is one the few books of an enlightened character for nationalism.
We regard socialism as a matter of humanism. This is a theological, but Owen expresses it with tremendous force although he is a rational atheist. Also Marx takes the same position and so does Hippolyte.
[30] Humanism however, is much broader than socialism and might even be conservative.
P. would like, in the Marx chapter which he is writting, to make clear the world importance of the present situation: freedom and the reality of society and the relationship to technological civilization.
This incidentally clarifies the Owen, Hegel, Marx and Shaw positions as having a relevance to freedom in a technological civilization, while the connection of these great thinkers is presented in a simple form.
That G.B.S. was a socialist is fortunate, but it was primarily justice he was after, and a genuine full of life. He thinks you might have it more easily in a different type of society. P. doesn't know. It is a good idea to have a great poet artist and writer to show what one is talking about.
With Marx, … […]
Owen keeps to the machine and postulates … […]
At this point Marx … […]
[31] In what sense does Marx partly elaborate and partly contradict Owen? He included Owen in his Hegelianism which is how he got to history. We would end by proving in the early Marx that he was attempting a reality of society and this leaves the question over for Shaw etc. Between Owen and Marx (who added Owen to Hegel) we have an argument.
We do nothing but exploit our Owen and fix Marx in relation … […]
Owen's strong side is technology rather than freedom se we take up technology. In the Marx chapter we would take up the idea that it is not realized how much the 19th century owes to Owen. He was prophetic when he said the machine might cause serious trouble.
But it is less clear how much Marx owed to the other side. Owen had serious ideas on the nature of the transformation and the reality of society hinges on this and it is no contradiction to say that Owen was vague on freedom.
In Marx freedom is strong. German idealistic philosophy was about nothing else and he used Hegel.
This permits us to take up the social history of the machine on the one hand and freedom on the other.
Owen did have valuable ideas on the social transformation, namely the transition and the change in the value system.
Moving to Marx there is the human content and he linked it [32] to Hegel. In Marx the transformation of society is really based on a religion of humanism and society … […]
Engel's idea of necessity is from several angles a quibble.
Marx never … […]
Marx put everything on history … […]
Has freedom been safely transmitted … […]
The Borkenau book on Marx (in German) only goes back to the theses of Feuerbach but they block this problem.
We might … […]
The problem of socialism is high on the optical list and the capacity of North America … […]
[33] Owen proposed socialism without tears. He raises two questions: technology and the moral question. … […]
We start with the technological civilization which is something concrete … […]
Owen said “society” and that is a moral change and the machine forces it.
To Hegel Marx added British socialism and the working class movement. (Owen means something in England. Here nothing means anything.)
We drew a portrait of Owen because … […]
We are safe as long as the problem of socialism … […][1] [35] history of the last hundred and fifty years. […] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]
Marx (5)
[47] [46] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]
Robert Owen (7)
One cannot overlook the Gotha program affair. M.P. has an article in Encounter and it is on the Gotha program - the distinction of communism and socialism and the transition. The whole is Owenite and is of the greatest interest.
The discovery was overlooked that it was his thoughts that determined the ideology and program of the social democratic world and passed into communism and made a realistic idea. That was the transition to socialism for society as a whole and secondly that the success would hinge on that part which was socialized. That hinges on the Villages of Union. Nobody thought of this meaning of it and this must be said.
We attach a very great importance to this idea. It is one of the idea that was most fruitful in the history of socialism. It completely contradicts the discussion of Owen as a Utopian.
[57] [58] [59] [60]
Interdisciplinary Project (9)
[61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]
Metaphysics of Everyday Life (2)
[67] [68] [69] ↑
Comments on my "Not by Organization Alone", Draft #4
[70] [71] [72]
Notes
"The Capitalist Manifesto" (2)
[73]
Absolutes
Adam Smith
[74]
Editor's notes
- ↑ p. 34 is a little sheet of paper with “Essence of” and “The Early Marx” written.