Re: the right and the good

Dear all,

If we go back to Marx, we find repeatedly the stress on free human
development as the ultimate goal, as in the "the development of each as the
condition for the development of all."  Human need is itself subject to
historical, social developments.  The other stress we find in Marx is on
forces of production.  The two are intimately entwined. 

For Marx, the existing social relations (property relations) constrain
those forces (just as the feudal relations constrained them) as shown in
the periodic crises of capitalism. (Thanks here to David Schwartzman for
pointing out the importance of forces of production in the form of energy
potential -productive power - for increased growth).  

At those moments of crisis, when people become both desperate and angry
about the breakdown in production, it becomes possible to move society
forward to a stage where the forces of production can be freed, expanded,
and further developed to serve the collective interest instead of fettered
in order to serve the private interest of capitalists.  The analogy is with
the time when the capitalists were the revolutionary agents who burst
asunder the constraints or fetters of the feudal relations of production
and revolutionized them and with them all of society: political relations
and social relations). 

 Implicit in all this is the aim of ongoing social development through
ongoing development of the forces of production (which in turn determines
what gets defined as "resources," doing away with the notion of "fixed"
resources) and ongoing development of science (our knowledge of nature,
including human "nature," and the social sciences) and technology (ongoing
development of the forces of production).  Such ongoing development
provides both "necessities" (socially defined)and freedom from onerous
labor. Through such ongoing development, we continue to develop ourselves
-- ongoing human development centered on the ongoing development of our
productive powers. New forms of technology transform our lives in the most
revolutionary way as Marx was fond of repeating.  Life with airplanes and
computers and phones is very different from life within isolated rural
villages where the rains create mud make transportation impossible (no
paved roads, no automobiles) and where there is no electricity (as is the
case in some remote villages today).  

With greater powers of production come the freedom to develop new things
and new ways of living -- these cannot be predicted; but the likelihood of
that happening can be predicted, provided we commit part of our surplus to
investment in education, science, research, development, technology, etc.
With productive powers seen as serving human beings and not capital, human
beings themselves can find meaning and purpose in contributing to the
ongoing development of society (humankind), i.e. to furthering human
development or the development of society in very direct ways through
creative employment and development of our human intelligences.  [Nex
paragraph is a quote from Marx you might skip if you're on intimate terms
with the Early Writings)

For Marx, "Only through the objectively unfolding richness of man's
essential being is the richness of subjective human sensibility (a musical
ear, an eye for beauty of form -- in short, senses capable of human
gratifications) either cultiveated or brought into being.  For not only the
five senses but also the so-called mental senses -- the practical senses
(will, love, etc) -- in a word, human sense -- humanness of the senses --
comes to be by virute of its object, by virtue of humanized nature.  The
forming of the five senses is a labor of the entire history of the world
down to the present.  ...Thus, the objectification of the human essence..is
required to make man's sense human, as well as to create the human sense
corresponding to the entire wealth of human and natural substance.
Established [socialist] society produces man in this richness of his being
--- produces the rich man profoundly endowed with all the senses -- as its
enduring reality." (Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, 1844).  

By objectification of the human essence Marx means something like
production or creative work that yields some objective thing that serves
human beings (contributes to human life and human development -- the human
senses or capacities for appreciating humanized nature) in some way. THis
is not the same thing as glorification of mindless work, but it is
something like glorification and appreciation of creative ability to
contribute (socially or cooperatively) to human society and human
development. A society organized around this principle would be a socialist
society.     

Sorry if this post is too long and replete with quotations; I couldn't 
resist.

Roz  

At 10:44 AM 11/30/99 -0500, John_R_Groves@ferris.edu wrote:
>Dear Ed: your response is one I expected and is current in the literature 
>in
>political philosophy. THere the idea is that while some agreement on "the
right"
>is possible, people's ideas of what the "good" is vary widely and are not
>subject to rational analysis. In response I will borrow the next move in 
>that
>debate and say we need at least a minimal conception of
good/self-realization if
>our pol phil is to be a rational one. How can we plan to acquire x when we
don't
>know what x is?
>
>By a minimal conception of the good is meant goods that are necessary
whatever
>other good one wants. Health might be a good example. Whatever one wants,
health
>is a necessary condition of getting and enjoying it. So socialized health
care
>might be a goal for a wp.
>
>All for now,
>
>
>Randy Groves
>
>