My essay was quite well received but it made me feel queasy, and the more I thought about it the queasier I felt. To put it bluntly Marx saw 'Justice' as a bourgeois concept and indeed as a con. that 'the rule of law', "contracts", and indeed the whole edifice of "liberal democracy" meant nothing to him because they were the means by which the 'ruling class' legitimised their rule and maintained their power. I did write a 'counter-blast' essay based on the premiss that Marx could not be criticised within the paradigm of 'liberal thinking' - ie. I didn't want to agree with his arguments but I couldn't help but admire them! The book was beautifully written, incredibly accessible to the lay-reader ( a big plus for me, have you ever tried reading Jurgen Haabermas?!?), cogently and tightly argued. I couldn't! I got my hands on a pristine copy from the university bookshop ( I still have it, though it's now well-thumbed!) and I spent a week reading it, taking notes and desperately trying to think of counter-arguments. So I wanted to hate it, rubbish it, show it up as the propaganda of the 'running dogs of capitalism'! I was a committed socialist with anarchist leanings (a huge dichotomy there which I didn't see at the time!) and deeply in thrall to Marx, Marxism, Marxists and Marxians. I came to the book with preconceptions - Nozick was neo-liberal and Hayekian. It is really only know, at the age of 44, that I realise quite how much Bob Nozick's master-work has shaped my thinking on the state, politics and society over the past 22 years. This book had a huge impact on me when I read it at the age of 22 as a post-grad student of political philosophy.
0 kommentar(er)
