Notes 1 Introduction, Marxist Ethics within Western Political Theory 1. Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois, Vol. 1 (Paris: Garnier, 1961), 28. My translation. 2. For (1) see Hans-Jorg Sandkuhler and Rafael de La Vega’s introduction to their collection Marxismus und Ethik (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1974), i–xix; T. B. Botomore and Patrick Goodes’s introduction to their collection, Austro Marxism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978); Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1971); Lucien Goldmann’s survey of both the German and French literature as it existed in 1959 in “Y-a-t-il une sociologie Marxiste?” in Recherches dialectiques (Paris: Garnier, 1959), 28–32. For key German contributions in the latter half of the twentieth century, see Ernst Bloch, Natural Law and Human Dignity (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986), 10–44, 81–208; Jurgen Habermas, Zur Rekonstrktion des Historischen Materialismus (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1976); For (2) see Georg Lukács, Der Historische Roman (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1955); The Historical Novel (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983); for Lukács’s Marxist account of the his- torical novel, see Norman Arthur Fischer, “Historical Fiction as Oppositional Discourse: A Retrieval of Georg Lukács’s Popular Front Revival of Walter Scott’s Historical Novels,” Atlantic Journal of Communication 15:1 (2007): 161–177; “The Modern Meaning of Lukács’s Reconstruction of Scott’s Novels of Premodern Political Ethics,” in Michael Thompson (ed.) Georg Lukács Reconsidered (London: Continuum, 2011), 128–150. “Goya, a Novel about Art and the Aesthetics of Depicting Individuals Defined by Immersion in History,” in Vladimir Marchenkov (ed.), Between Histories: Art’s Dilemmas and Trajectories (New York: Hampton Press, 2013), 57–75. See also George Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1941). For (3) see Erich Fromm (ed.), Socialist Humanism (New York: Anchor-Doubleday, 1966). For (4) see Allen W. Wood, “The Marxian Critique of Justice,” in Marshall Cohen, Thomas Nagel, and Thomas Scanlon (eds) Marx, Justice and History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980); Steven Lukes, Marxism and Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Phillip J. Kain, Marx
Transcript
Notes
1 Introduction, Marxist Ethics within Western Political Theory
1. Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois, Vol. 1 (Paris: Garnier, 1961), 28. My translation.
2. For (1) see Hans-Jorg Sandkuhler and Rafael de La Vega’s introduction to their collection Marxismus und Ethik (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1974), i–xix; T. B. Botomore and Patrick Goodes’s introduction to their collection, Austro Marxism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978); Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1971); Lucien Goldmann’s survey of both the German and French literature as it existed in 1959 in “Y-a-t-il une sociologie Marxiste?” in Recherches dialectiques (Paris: Garnier, 1959), 28–32. For key German contributions in the latter half of the twentieth century, see Ernst Bloch, Natural Law and Human Dignity (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986), 10–44, 81–208; Jurgen Habermas, Zur Rekonstrktion des Historischen Materialismus (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1976); For (2) see Georg Lukács, Der Historische Roman (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1955); The Historical Novel (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983); for Lukács’s Marxist account of the his-torical novel, see Norman Arthur Fischer, “Historical Fiction as Oppositional Discourse: A Retrieval of Georg Lukács’s Popular Front Revival of Walter Scott’s Historical Novels,” Atlantic Journal of Communication 15:1 (2007): 161–177; “The Modern Meaning of Lukács’s Reconstruction of Scott’s Novels of Premodern Political Ethics,” in Michael Thompson (ed.) Georg Lukács Reconsidered (London: Continuum, 2011), 128–150. “Goya, a Novel about Art and the Aesthetics of Depicting Individuals Defined by Immersion in History,” in Vladimir Marchenkov (ed.), Between Histories: Art’s Dilemmas and Trajectories (New York: Hampton Press, 2013), 57–75. See also George Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1941). For (3) see Erich Fromm (ed.), Socialist Humanism (New York: Anchor-Doubleday, 1966). For (4) see Allen W. Wood, “The Marxian Critique of Justice,” in Marshall Cohen, Thomas Nagel, and Thomas Scanlon (eds) Marx, Justice and History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980); Steven Lukes, Marxism and Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Phillip J. Kain, Marx
Notes190
and Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988); Milton Fisk, The State and Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); R. C. Peffer, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); G. A. Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), If You’re an Egalitarian How Come You’re So Rich? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000); Rescuing Justice and Equality (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008); Lawrence Wilde, Ethical Marxism and Its Radical Critics (New York: St. Martin’s, 1998); Paul Blackledge, Marxism and Ethics: Freedom, Desire and Revolution (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2012); Bill Martin, Ethical Marxism (Chicago and Lassalle, IL: Open Court, 2008). For (5) see Jose Miranda, Marx Against the Marxists (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1980).
3. For the centrality of ethics in political theory, see John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993). For immoralism in Marxism, See Allen W. Wood, “Justice and Class Interests,” Philosophica 13:1 (1984): 9–16.
4. Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois, Vol. 1, 28. My translation.5. Plato, The Republic of Plato, trans. Francis Cornford (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1945); Aristotle, Politics (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1988); Cicero, The Republic and the Laws (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); St. Augustine, The City of God Against the Pagans (New York: Penguin Books, 2003); St. Thomas Aquinas, On Law, Morality and Politics (Indianapolis: Hacket, 2002); Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Harmondsworth: Penguin 1968); John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought) Peter Laslett (ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (New York: Hafner, 1963); Immanuel Kant, Metaphysical Elements of Justice (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965); Thomas Paine, “The Rights of Man,” in Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (New York: Norton, 1988); Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (London: Penguin, 1986); G. W. F. Hegel, Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952); John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty,” in On Liberty and Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971). For an earlier attempt to link Marxism to the history of Western political philoso-phy, see Phillip J. Kain, Marx and Modern Political Philosophy (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1993).
6. From 1978 to his passing last year, no writer has probed more deeply into the nature of philosophical liberalism than Ronald Dworkin. He was an edu-cator to the nation in his many articles in The New York Review of Books, and his books and articles, including Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978); Freedom’s Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996); “Liberal Community” in Schlome Avineri and
Notes 191
Avner de-Shalit (eds) Communitarianism and Individualism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000); Justice in Robes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008); Justice for Hedgehogs (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011); Religion without God (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013). Other classic works on the deepening of liberal ethics include John Rawls, A Theory of Justice; Political Liberalism; Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007); Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic, 1974); Stephen Holmes, The Anatomy of Antiliberalism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993); Passions and Constraint: On the Theory of Liberal Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995). Some key texts are gathered in Avineri and de-Shalit, Communitarianism and Individualism.
7. For a synthesis of Marxism and liberalism, see Jeffrey Reimann, Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).
8. Charles Taylor has been a major figure in North American communitari-anism since 1975, and particularly important for Marxist communitarian-ism because of his use of Hegelian communitarian ethics, beginning with Hegel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975), “Atomism,” in Avineri and de-Shalit, Communitarianism and Individualism; “Hegel’s Ambiguous Legacy for Modern Liberalism”; in Hegel and Legal Theory, Drucilla Cornell, David Rosenfield, David Gray Carlson (eds) (New York: Routledge, 1991); Sources of the Self (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989); A Secular Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007); “Some Conditions for Viable Democracy,” in Charles Taylor, Democracia Republicana / Republican Democracy (Santiago, Chile: LOM Editiones, 2012). Other classic works of the revival of communitarian ethics include Alasdaire MacIntyre, After Virtue (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981); Michael Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996); Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (New York: Norton, 1995); Roberto Unger, The Critical Legal Studies Movement (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986); Unger, What Should Legal Analysis Become? (New York: Verso, 1996); Benjamin R. Barber, Strong Democracy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); Barber, A Passion for Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996); Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (New York: Basic, 1983); Walzer, Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994); Robert Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986); Raz, Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).
9. For opposite accounts of group identity ethics see Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition,” ed. and with an Introduction by Amy Gutmann (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Andrew Peyton Thomas, The People v. Harvard Law (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2005).
Notes192
10. For the Greek background to Marxism, see George E. McCarthy, Dialectics and Decadence: Echoes of Antiquity in Marx and Nietzsche (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1994), 3–124; Alan Gilbert, “Marx’s Moral Realism: Eudaemonism, and Moral Progress,” in George E. McCarthy (ed.), Marx and Aristotle, (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1992).
11. For solidarity, see Sally J. Scholtz, Political Solidarity (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006).
12. For liberty as freedom from obstacles and coercion, see Mill, “On Liberty,” 5–12. For the terminology of negative liberty, see Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty” in Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). For negative liberty and its relation to substantive claims of equality, see Dworkin, Freedom’s Law, 214–223 and Sovereign Virtue, 120–183. For the historical background, see Guido de Ruggiero, The History of European Liberalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1959), 350–356. For key texts in the debate between liberals and com-munitarians on liberty, see Avineri and de-Shalit, Communitarianism and Individualism.
13. For an analysis of antiliberal communitarianism, especially what he considers its right political form, see Holmes, Anatomy of Antiliberalism.
14. Wood, “Justice and Class Interests,” 9–32; Fisk, The State and Justice, 104–114. For group identity ethics, see Iris Marion Young, Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
15. Bloch, Natural Law and Human Dignity, 10–44, 181–208.16. An example is Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, 259–265. See also Isaiah
Berlin, “John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life,” in Liberty.17. Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row,
1957).18. For the juxtaposition of the communitarian ethics of Burke and Marx, see
Waldron, Nonsense upon Stilts, 77–95, 118–136.19. Quentin Skinner, “The Republican Ideal of Political Liberty,” in Gisela Bock,
Quentin Skinner, and Maurizio Viroli (eds) Machiavelli and Republicanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 300, 301, 305–309. See also Quentin Skinner’s works: Liberty before Liberalism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Hobbes and Republicanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); “On Justice, the Common Good, and the Priority of Liberty,” in Chantal Mouffe (ed.) Dimensions of Radical Democracy (London: Routledge, 1992), 211–222. For other important works in the republican revival, see J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the North Atlantic Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975); Phillip Pettit, Republicanism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), Maurizio Viroli, Republicanism (New York: Hill and Wang, 2003); David Hacket Fischer, Liberty and Freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Richard Dagger, Civic Virtues: Rights, Citizenship, and Republican Liberalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Charles Taylor, “Some Conditions for Viable Democracy”; Cecile Laborde, Republicanism and Political Theory (New York: Blackwell, 2008); Vicky B. Sullivan Machiavelli, Hobbes and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England (New York:
Notes 193
Cambridge University Press, 2006). For a survey of recent themes and work in republicanism, see Nortimer Sellers, “Republicanism: Philosophical Aspects,” International Encylopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (2nd edition) (Elsevier, forthcoming).
20. For a classic example of a strong communitarian republicanism, see Rousseau, Social Contract, 14–16. For a recent noncommunitarian republican, see Phillip Pettit, Republicanism. For fundamental republican commitment to public-spirited orientation to the common good, see James Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceania and a System of Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 8.
21. Skinner has noted a resemblance between Marxism and republicanism. See Liberty before Liberalism, x.
22. Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 3–24; Christopher Lasch, “A Response to Feinberg,” Tikkun 3:3 (1984): 41–42.
23. Karl Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen 1843 bis Januar 1845,” in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Vierte Abteillung, Band 2 (East Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1981), 91–115, 276–278.
24. Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1985); Friedrich Engels, Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1984; Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens.
25. Standard, or explicitly rights-based liberalism, in turn increasingly came to be identified with such American works as Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Ronald Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, and John Rawls, A Theory of Justice.
2 Roots of Marxist Republican Democratic Ethics
1. See Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 25; Harrington, Commonwealth of Oceania, 8. Viroli, Republicanism, 3–19.
2. Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 154–186.3. Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 19–24, recognizes the communitarian ele-
ment in republicanism and sees it as crucial. Pettit, Republicanism, 6, 27–30, disagrees with much of the communitarian side of republicanism, but under-stands its claim to be an essential part of republicanism. Pettit also disagrees that democratic participation is as central as some republicans have made it.
4. See Ronald Dworkin, “Liberal Community.”5. Isaiah Berlin, Freedom and its Betrayal: Six Enemies of Human Liberty
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), 45.6. See, for example, Skinner, Liberty before Liberalism.7. See Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 16; Benjamin Barber, “The Reconstruction
of Rights,” The American Prospect, 2 (1991): 35–46.
Notes194
8. Lenin, State and Revolution, Evgeny Pashukanis, Law and Marxism (London: Ink Links. 1978); Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. 3 The Breakdown (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978).
9. Marx’s notes on Machiavelli, Montesquieu, and Rousseau are in “Exzerpte und Notizen 1843 bis Januar 1845.”
10. Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity; “Preliminary Theses on the Reform of Philosophy,” in The Fiery Brook (New York: Anchor, 1972).
11. Ibid., 1–12; Karl Marx, “Okonische und Philosophische Manuscripte,” in Marx, Texte zu Methode und Praxis II (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1970), 36–37.
12. Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, 213, 244; Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 3, 12, 38, 47, 89, 541; Rousseau, Social Contract, 27, 36, 39, 48.
13. Bok, Skinner, and Viroli, eds, Machiavelli and Republicanism; Shklar, Political Thought and Political Thinkers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 244, 246, 253; Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov, “Introduction to Machiavelli,” Discourses on Livy, xvii-xliv.
14. Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, 12515. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 278; Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, 131.16. Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, 131–132.17. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 278; Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, 114,
115.18. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 276; Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, 16.19. Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 25.20. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,”107; Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois, Vol. 1,
23, 27; Spirit of the Laws, 22, 25.21. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 108; Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois, 1, 34,
Spirit of Laws, 31; “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 108, De l’Esprit des lois, 1, 46, Spirit of the Laws, 43.
22. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 109; Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois, 1, 162; Spirit of the Laws, 155.
23. C. E. Vaughan, “Introduction to Rousseau,” Political Writings Vol. 1 (New York: Wiley, 1972), 50–71; J. L. Talmon, The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy; (New York: Praeger, 1960), 38–49l; Isaiah Berlin, Freedom and Its Betrayal, 27–49; Shklar, Political Thought and Political Thinkers, 262–293. For a republican inter-pretation see Graeme Garrard, Rousseau’s Counter Enlightenment: A Republican Critique of the Philosophes (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003).
24. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 91; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 67, Social Contract, 15.
25. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 91–92; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 68–69, Social Contract, 15–16.
26. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 94; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 82–83, Social Contract, 26.
27. Berlin, Betrayal of Freedom, 27–49.28. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 94; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 85, Social
Contract, 27.29. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 95; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 86, Social
Contract, 28.
Notes 195
30. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 96; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 97–98, Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question” 1, in Karl Marx Early Writings (New York: Penguin, 1975), 224; “Judenfrage,” in Karl Marx, Die Frühschriften (Stuttgart: Kroner, 1955), 199. This article is Marx’s 1844 review of Bruno Bauer’s Die Judenfrage, republished. In both the 1843 excerpt and in the published “Judenfrage,” Marx omits the two very same passages. Between “his being” and “of substituting,” he omits “Of altering the constitution of man for the purpose of strengthening it,” and between “he must” and “take humanity’s” he omits “in a word.”
31. Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, 1–12; “Preliminary Theses on the Reform of Philosophy,” 156.
32. Lukács, The Young Hegel, 4, 35, 55, 146–167.33. Of the vast literature on this topic, both in regard to modern communitar-
ians and liberals and to the Kant – Hegel debate, I would cite Benjamin Barber, The Conquest of Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 3–21, for the communitarians, and Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, 147 for the liberals. Letting Kant and Hegel speak for themselves, I would choose Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1956) 49, and Hegel, Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 33.
34. Jürgen Habermas, Zur Rekonstruction des Historischen Maaterialismus. (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1976). See my “Jürgen Habermas’ Recent Philosophy of Law and the Optimum Point between Universalism and Communitarianism,” in Radical Critiques of the Law, ed. Stephen Griffin and Robert Moffat (Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1997), 67–82.
35. See my “Hegelian Marxism and Ethics,” Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory 8:1–2 (1984): 112–138; “Lucien Goldmann and Tragic Marxist Ethics.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 12:4 (1987): 350–373.
36. Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1971), 23.
37. Georg Lukács, “Moses Hess and the Problems of Idealist Dialectics,” in Lukács, Tactics and Ethics (New York: Harper and Row, 1975).
38. For the republican Hegel, see also Charles Taylor, “Hegel’s Ambiguous Legacy for Modern Liberalism,” 65; Steven B. Smith, Hegel’s Critique of Liberalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).
39. Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State,” in Early Writings, 87; “Kritik der Hegelschen Staatsphilosophie,” in Fruhschriften. For an alternate account of Marx’s political writings of 1843–1844, see Paul Thomas, Alien Politics (New York: Routledge, 1994).
40. John P. McCormick, Machiavellian Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 6–9, links Machiavelli and class theory. Miguel Abensoure, Democracy against the State: Marx and the Machiavellian Movement (London: Polity Press, 2011) links Machiavelli and Marxism.
41. Skinner, “The Republican Ideal of Political Liberty,” 300–301, 305–309; Hobbes and Republican Liberty, Viii-xi; Liberty before Liberalism.
42. Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State,” 91. Several of the points that follow appeared in my “Marx’s Early Concept of Democracy and the
Notes196
Ethical Bases of Socialism,” in Marxism and the Good Society, ed. Lyman Legters, et. al. (New York: Cambridge, 1981), but did not explore their link to republicanism.
43. Ibid., 100, 101.44. Ibid., 124–125.45. Ibid.,127, 138.46. Ibid.,160, 174.47. Ibid.,177.48. Ibid., 182–183.49. Ibid., 197.50. See Jacques D’Hondt, Hegel en son Temps (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1968),
99–120; Shlomo Avineri, Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 62–80, for the elements of monarchism that Hegel rejected in the Prussian State.
51. See especially Taylor, “Hegel’s Ambiguous Legacy for Modern Liberalism,” 64–77.
52. Ludwig Feuerbach, “Uber Das Wesen des Christentums in Beziehung auf den Einzigen und sein Eigentum, in Werke, Vol. 4 (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1975), 69–80.
53. For Feuerbach, see especially the Vorläufige Thesen zur Reform der Philosophie, in Kleine Schriften (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. 1966), 128. For the relation between Rousseau, Feuerbach, and the young Marx, see Richard Hunt, The Political Ideas of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1968).
54. Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 10.55. Ibid., 167.56. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 106; Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois, Vol 1,
12, Spirit of the Laws, 10.57. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen” 109; Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois, Vol 1,
163–164, Spirit of thhe Laws, 156–157. Marx omits the sections in brackets.58. Bernard Manin, The Principles of Representative Government (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997), 1–7.59. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,”109; Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois, Vol. 1,
166–167, Spirit of the Laws, 159. In Marx’s note, there is a break between pub-lic business and the people, and the “le” in the latter is not capitalized.
60. Rousseau, Du contrat social, 171, Social Contract, 57–58.61. Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 156.62. Rousseau, Social Contract, 94.63. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 101; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 160, Social
Contract, 86.64. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,”100; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 126, Social
Contract, 57–58.65. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 94; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 79–80, Social
Contract, 24–25.66. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 95; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 94. Social
Contract, 33–34.
Notes 197
67. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 99; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 121. Social Contract, 54.
68. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,”100–101; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 158–159, Social Contract, 85.
69. Manin, Principles of Representative Government, 1–7.70. Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State,” 119–120.71. Ibid., 129, 131.72. Ibid., 141.73. Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity, 33–43, 65–73.74. Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), 121–
141; also see Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987), 23–44, for an account of a more reflective and liberal Hegel.
75. Jacques D’Hondt, Hegel en son Temps, 111–118, has shown how Hegel and oth-ers identified this conservative traditionalism with the Swiss antirepublican monarchist Karl Von Haller.
76. Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996), 6, 42–81.
77. Hegel, Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 286–28778. Rousseau, Social Contract, 26–27.79. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 364–366; Montesquieu, Spirit of the
Laws, 156–166.80. Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State,” 186; “Kritik der Hegelschen
Staatsphilosophie,” 137.81. Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State,” 187.82. Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State,” 119–120.83. Rousseau, Social Contract, 50–54.84. Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State,” 191.85. See Lucio Colletti, “Introduction to Marx,” Early Writings, 40–43; Zenon
Bankowski, “Anarchism, Marxism and the Critique of Law,” in David Sugarman, Legality, Ideology and the State (New York: Academic Press, 1983), 273–280.
86. Marx, “JQ1,” 225–226.87. Whereas Jeremy Waldron, “‘Introduction to Karl Marx’s ‘On the Jewish
Question’” in Nonsense upon Stilts, 119–136 sees only antiliberalism, Ernst Bloch, Natural Law and Human Dignity, 181–207 sees a theory with deep roots in Western ethics.
88. Marx, “JQ1,” 225–226.89. Marx, “Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State,” 87–90, “Kritik der
Hegelschen Staatsphilosophie,” 47–50.90. Marx, “JQ1,” 234.91. See Bankowski, “Anarchism, Marxism and the Critique of Law,” 273–280.92. See George McCarthy, Dialectics and Decadence, 67–69.93. Marx, ”JQ1,” 221.94. Ibid.95. Ibid., 225.
Notes198
96. Ibid., 225–226.97. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 96; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 97–98, Social
Contract, 35–36; JQ1,” 224; “Judenfrage,” 199; In both the 1843 excerpt and in the published “Judenfrage,” Marx omits the two very same passages. Between “his being” and “of substituting,” he omits “Of altering the constitu-tion of man for the purpose of strengthening it,” and between “he must” and “take humanities” he omits “in a word.”
98. Hal Draper, Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution Volume II: The Politics of Social Class (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1978), 115–168.
99. Bloch, Natural Law and Human Dignity, 183–208.
3 Historical Unfolding of Marxist Republican Democratic Ethics
1. Norberto Bobbio, Which Socialism? (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), 65–84; Nicos Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism (London: New Left Books, 1980), 251–265.
2. Lucio Colletti, “Introduction” to Marx, Early Writings, 35–46.3. Bernard Manin, Principles of Representative Government, 1–4; see Isaac
Kramnick, “Introduction” to Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, The Federalist Papers (New York: Penguin, 1987), 36–47; Joshua Miller, The Rise and Fall of Democracy in Early America, 1630–1789: The Legacy for Contemporary Politics (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991), 31, 81–104.
4. Karl Marx, “First Address of the General Council on The Franco-Prussian War,” “Second Address of the General Council on The Franco-Prussian War,” in “The Civil War in France,” in Marx, The First International and After. See Rubel and Manale, Marx without Myth, 261–267.
5. Marx, “Civil War,” 187.6. Marx, “Civil War,” 212. Bobbio, Which Socialism? 63–64, has disputed how
seriously Marx took this. David Held, in Models of Democracy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), 126–131, has probed the extent to which Marx’s writings on the Commune present a vision of the political emancipa-tion of labor.
7. Marx, “Civil War,” 210.8. Ibid., 212.9. Karl Marx, “Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy,” in First
International and After, 333–339.10. Marx, “Civil War,” 209.11. Rousseau, Social Contract, 85; Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 156–166.12. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 100–101; Rousseau, Du contract social, 159,
Social Contract, 85. From “unless it has been ratified” to “deserve to lose it” are omitted in Marx’s 1843 excerpt.
Notes 199
13. Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 156.14. See Marx, “JQ1.”15. David MacGregor, Hegel, Marx, and the English State (Tornonto: University of
Toronto Press, 1992), 204–233.16. Marx, “Civil War,” 211.17. Ibid., 209.18. Ibid., 210.19. Marx, “Conspectus of Bakunin’s Statism and Anarchy,” 333–338.20. Marx, “Civil War,” 212.21. Lenin, State and Revolution, 40–44.22. Rousseau, The Government of Poland, trans. Wilmoore Kendall (Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merril, 1972); “Considérations sur le Gouvernement de Pologne, et sur sa réformation projetée en avril 1772,” in Rousseau, Du contrast social (Paris: Garnier, n.d.).
23. Rousseau, Government of Poland, 31; “Le Gouvernement de Pologne,” 359, 362.24. Rousseau, Government of Poland, 35–36; “Le Gouvernement de Pologne,”
362. In the opening sentences Rousseau draws upon the assonance of cor-rompre (corrupt) and tromper (trick) to underline the contrast between the two weaknesses. It is impossible to capture this in English, but Kendall’s transla-tion of tromper as “put upon” also weakens the sense, and I consider “trick” to be a more accurate translation.
25. John Stuart Mill, “Representative Government,” in Utilitarianism, On Liberty and Representative Government (London: J. M. Dent, n.d.); Edmund Burke, “Speech to the electors of Brighton of November 3, 1774,” in Burke’s Politics: Selected Writings and Speeches on Reform, Revolution and War, Ross J. S. Hoffman, and Paul Levack, eds. (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1967), 114–117; James Madison, Federalist Papers, 122–128. See Manin, Principles of Representative Government, 1–7.
27. For Burke’s idiosyncratic view, see Alfred Cobban, Rousseau and the Modern State (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1937), 64.
28. See John Christman, ed, The Inner Citadel: Essays on Individual Autonomy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).
29. See Rawls, Political Liberalism, 204–206; Dworkin, “Liberal Community,” Freedom’s Law.
30. For the debate over thick and thin shared standards, see Michael Walzer, Thick and Thin: Moral Arguments at Home and Abroad (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994).
31. See the related debate about abstract principles of justice versus pluralistic democratic practices in Jurgen Habermas, “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason,” and John Rawls, “Reply to Habermas,” Journal of Philosophy 11:3 (1995): 109–180.
32. Lenin, State and Revolution, 40–44.33. Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 157, De l’Esprit des lois, Vol. 1, 164.34. Rousseau, Social Contract, 57–58.
Notes200
35. Marx,“Exzerpte und Notizen,” 99; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 121. I have used my own translation, but see Social Contract, 54.
36. Lenin, State and Revolution, 39–43.37. See Lewis Henry Morgan, Ancient Society; Engels, OFPPS; Karl Marx,
The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx, ed. Lawrence Krader (Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1972). Engels’s letter to Kautsky is cited in Michelle Barrett’s “Introduction” to OFPPS, 8.
38. Morgan, Ancient Society, 49–61.39. Ibid., 8–9, 19–27, 550–554.40. Raphael Samuel, “British Marxist Historians 1930–1980.” Part one, New Left
Review 20 (1989): 87.41. Ibid., 88. When Gordon Childe put Morgan’s 1877 account in 1940s terms,
Morgan’s rough equation of savagery, barbarism, and civilization with the ages of stone, bronze, and iron changes into Childe’s equation of the three ages with Paleolithic, Neolithic, and bronze. Certainly, “stone” and “Paleolithic” continue to roughly correspond between 1877 and mid-twentieth-century archeological work. The big difference is that Childe can equate “barbarism” with a Neolithic early Bronze Age, and the coming of “civilization” with such great Bronze Age civilizations as the Minoan or Mycenean in ancient Greece, which Morgan in 1877 did not even know about. See Gordon Childe, What Happened in History (London: M. Parrish, 1960, 1–17); “British Marxist Historians,” 59.
42. Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 39–40; Plato, Laws. For an account helpful for evaluating the compatibility of populism and republicanism, see Shklar, Political Thought and Political Thinkers, 244–293.
43. Livy, The Early History of Rome (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1971), 159–166.
44. Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City (Garden City: Doubleday, n.d.).45. Engels, OFPPS, 207–210, 214–217,46. Ibid., 187–190.47. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 143. Marx intermingles in various ways German
and English. Whenever any German appears, as here, I label the quote my translation.
48. Ibid., 150. My translation.49. Ibid., 172.50. Ibid., 180.51. Plutarch, The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (New York: Modern
Library, n.d.), 24–48, 74–92.52. George Thomson, Studies in Ancient Greek Society Volume Two: The First
Philosophers (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1955), 208–245.53. Engels, “The Mark,” in Frederick Engels, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific:
With the Essay “The Mark” (New York: International Publishers, 1972), 91.54. Morgan, Ancient Society, 549.55. M. I. Finley, Politics in Ancient World, 44–45. Finley is discussing Cleisthenes’s
allegedly tribal reforms, and their analysis by the French historian Denis
Notes 201
Roussel, ribu et cité (Annales litteraire de l’universite de Besancon, 1976), whose skepticism about the importance of tribes, particularly in ancient Greece, Finley finds convincing.
56. Marx calls Morgan a “Yankee Republican” in Ethnological Notebooks, 206.57. For Athens, Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1987) is a contender, but neither Marx nor Morgan had access to it, since it was not discovered until 1890. See P. J. Rhodes, “Introduction,” Athenian Constitution, 10.
58. Plutarch, “Theseus,” in The Rise and Fall of Athens (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1960), 30, The comparison of Numa and Lycurgus in Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, 94, 339–340; Livy, Early History of Rome, 52, 67, 81, 89, 105, 113, 114.
59. Engels, OFPPS, 142–151.60. Morgan, Ancient Society, 256–276; Marx and Engels, “Preface to the second
Russian edition of The Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in Teodor Shanin, ed., Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and the Peripheries of Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review, 1983), 138–139.
61. Plutarch, “Lycurgus,” in Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, 49–56, “Aristides,” in Rise and Fall of Athens, 111.
62. Morgan, Ancient Society, 243–247; Engels, OFPPS, 137–139.63. Engels, OFPPS, 151–152.64. See Ellen Meiksins Wood, Peasant-Citizen and Slave (London: Verso, 1988) for
an account closer to Engels than to Morgan.65. Morgan, Ancient Society, 254.66. Ibid., 258.67. Ibid., 266–269.68. Ibid., 257.69. Ibid., 216.70. Ibid., 257–258.71. Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 154–162; Plutarch, “Solon,” in Rise and Fall
of Athens, 47; “The Comparison of Poplicola with Solon,” “Pelopides,” in Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, 131, 362.
72. Morgan, Ancient Society, 5–6.73. Ferdinand Tönnies, Community and Society (New York: Harper and Row,
1957), 190–197; Otto von Gierke, Natural Law and the Theory of Society 1500–1800 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957), 162–194.
74. Morgan, Ancient Society, 267.75. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 204. My translation.76. “Er hatte sagen sollen das political hier Sinn des Aristoteles hat=stadtisch u. poli-
tischer animal=stadtburger,” ibid., 196. My translation.77. Ibid., 205. My translation. This is essentially a comment on Ancient Society,
245–246.78. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 206. My translation.79. Ibid., 206. My translation.80. Ibid., 207. My translation.
Notes202
81. Ibid., 207.82. Ibid., 208; Morgan, Ancient Society, 251.83. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 208; Morgan, Ancient Society, 252; Aristotle,
Politics, 1284, b35–1285, b33. According to Emilio Gabba, Dionysus and the History of Archaic Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 153–157, 222, Dionysus described the Roman reges by comparing them to those Greek rulers who were not tyrants.
84. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 208; Morgan, Ancient Society, 252.85. Rousseau, Social Contract, 35–38.86. Livy, Early History of Rome, 82–89; Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent,
123–167.87. Morgan, Ancient Society, 260, 259.88. Ibid., 259; Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 209.89. Ibid., 209–210. My translation.90. Homer, The Iliad, Richmond Lattimore, trans. (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1959), 90.91. Morgan, Ancient Society, 260–262.92. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 210. My translation.93. Morgan, Ancient Society, 264–269.94. Ibid.95. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 213. My translation.96. Ibid., 213. My translation.97. Ibid., 212. My translation.98. Ibid., 214; Morgan, Ancient Society, 271. My translation.99. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 216. My translation.
100. Ibid., 216. My translation.101. Ibid., 217; Plutarch treats both Cleisthenes and his successor Aristides in
“Aristides,” Rise and Fall of Athens, 111. My translation.102. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 217. My translation.103. Ibid., 229.104. Morgan, Ancient Society, 316; Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 228.105. Morgan, Ancient Society, 297; Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 223.106. “Er hatte sagen sollen das political hier Sinn des Aristoteles hat=stadtisch u.
politisches animal=stadtburger,” Ethnological Notebooks, 196. My translation.107. Morgan, Ancient Society, 298; Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 224.108. Morgan, Ancient Society, 306; Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 226.109. Morgan, Ancient Society, 305; Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 227.110. Hegel, Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 152–154; Von Gierke, Natural Law and the
Theory of Society, 1500–1800, 162–194; Tönnies, Community and Society.111. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 229–230. My translation.112. Ibid., 230. My translation.113. Ibid., 230. My translation.114. Plutarch, “Numa,” Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, 74–92. For Numa,
also see Ovid, Metamorphosis (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1955), 364–365.115. Morgan, Ancient Society, 330–331; Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 231.116. Ibid., 231. Livius Tatius was the Sabine ruler.
Notes 203
117. Rousseau, Social Contract, 26–27.118. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 232.119. Ibid., 231.120. Ibid., 232. My translation.121. Ibid., 232.122. Morgan, Ancient Society, 271–176.123. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 230–231. My translation.124. Ibid., 231.125. Ibid., 231.126. Ibid., 229. My translation.127. Marx,“Exzerpte und Notizen,” 276; Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, 19.128. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 276; Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, 21.129. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 276; Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy,
48–49.130. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 277–278; Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy,
118–119.131. Rousseau, Social Contract, 94.132. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 101; Rousseau, Du contrat social, 1968, 160,
Social Contract, 86.133. Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, 173–174, 172–173.134. Marx, “Exzerpte und Notizen,” 110–111; Montesquieu, De L’Esprit des lois,
vol. 1, 182–183; Spirit of the Laws, 174.135. George Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens, 1.136. Ibid., 74. See also George Thomson, Studies in Ancient Greek Society:
Prehistoric Aegean (New York: International Publishers 1949), 362–363; Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1972), 134.
Partnership, Politics,” in Manfred B. Steger and Terrell Carver, eds. Engels after Marx, (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999), 34–35.
149. Frederick Engels, “The Mark,” 77–78, 78–79; OFPS, 183–189.150. Engels, “The Mark,” 84–85; OFPS, 213–217; Der Urspring der Familie, des
Privateigentum, und der Staats (Heidelbert: Verlag Tredition GmBH, n. d.), 107, 145.
Notes204
4 Roots of Communitarian and Liberal Marxist Property and Justice Theory
1. Liberal egalitarian theorists have dominated in the field of justice ethics, beginning with John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, and continuing with his Political Liberalism, and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001); The Law of Peoples (Harvard University Press, 2001); and Collected Papers (Harvard University Press, 2001). For a republican and communitarian account, see Michael J. Sandel, Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009). For the libertarian response, see Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia and Jan Narvon, You and the State (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008). For communitarian accounts of justice see Alasdair Macintyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press 1988), Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (New York: Basic, 1983). For a survey of some of the justice issues that come up for group identity theories see Anne Phillips, Which Equalities Matter (Methuen, MA: Blackwell, 1999), 20–43.
2. MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?3. For a communitarian republican who is willing to mandate global solidarity,
Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 160–167.4. For the primacy of justice, see F. M. Cornford, From Religion to Philosophy
(New York: Harper and Row, 1957), 8–11. For the primacy of economic justice, see George Thomson, Studies in Ancient Greek Society, 333–347. For a summary of the recent debate in feminist group identity theory over unifying theories of justice, see Anne Phillips, Which Equalities Matter, 44–73.
5. Aristotle, Ethics, 171–190; Aristotle, Politics, 296–298.6. Aristotle, Ethics, 171–190; Aristotle, Politics, 296–298.7. George E. McCarthy, Marx and the Ancients (Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield, 1990).8. Marx, Grundrisse, translated by Martin Nicholaus, (Harmondsworth,
Middlesex: Penguin, 1973), 109; “Critique of the Gotha Program,” in David McLellan, ed., Selected Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 569–570.
9. Karl Polanyi, Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), 136–140.
10. Polanyi, Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies, 148–149.11. Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaus, 109; “Critique of the Gotha Program,”
569–570. Polanyi, Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies, 105–115, 152–154.
12. Francois Quesnay, “Natural Law,” in Ronald Meek, ed. The Economics of Physciocracy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), 54–55.
13. Marx, in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Werke, Vol. 32 (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1959–1968), 553.
Notes 205
14. See my “The Structure of Marx’s Economics: The Abstract and the concrete,” in Economy and Self.
15. For the centrality of exploitation see Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality, 144–164 Reimann, Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy, 214–220; G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London: Duckworth, 1984), 31–98.
16. Therefore, I go only part way with Michael Walzer’s communitarian expan-sion of justice in Spheres of Justice, 6–10.
17. Aristotle, Politics, 305–317.18. See Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia; Stephen R. Munzer,
“Property as Social Relations,” in Stephen R. Munzer, ed. New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 200; Jeremy Waldron, The Right to Private Property (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990); Duncan Kennedy, “The Stakes of Law: Or Hale and Foucault,” in Sexy Dressing etc. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993); Joseph William Singer, Entitlement (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000); John Christman, The Myth of Property: Toward an Egalitarian Theory of Ownership (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel, The Myth of Ownership (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Jan Narveson, You and the State; Eric T. Freyfogle, On Private Property: Finding Common Ground on Ownership of Land (Boston: Beacon Press, 2009).
19. Thus Rawls’s “A Kantian Conception of Equality,” in Virginia Held, ed., Property, Profits and Economic Justice (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1976) would create a theory of justice by his denial of Nozick’s theory of property, whether he called it one or not, and Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 150–182, would create a theory of justice by affirming his theory of property against what he considers Rawls’s overextended theory of justice, whether he called it justice or not.
20. Note the exact similarity between what expanded scope property theorists argue against and what Rawls argues against Nozick in “A Kantian Conception of Equality” and “The Basic Liberties and their Priority” in Political Liberalism, 289–370.
21. Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 167–173.22. Ibid., 174–182; Locke, Two Treatises of Government.23. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 270–271, 331–333.24. Ibid., 288–289, 270–271.25. Ibid., 288–289.26. A. M. Honoré, “Property, Title and Redistribution,” in Property, Profits and
Economic Justice, 88–92: C. B. MacPherson, The Rise and Fall of Economic Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 76–91; Duncan Kennedy, “The Stakes of Law: Or Hale and Foucault,” 83–93; Joseph William Singer, Entitlement, 95–139. For social relations theories of property in recent legal thinking, particularly critical legal studies, see Munzer, “Property as Social Relations,” 38–44.
28. Rousseau, Du contrat social, 73–77.29. G. W. F. Hegel, Hegel’s Philosophy of Right 40–49; Karl Marx, “Vorwort,”
Zur Kritik der Politischen Okonomie (Berlin: Dietz Berlag, 1971), 15–18; “Einleitung” Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Okonomie (Frankfurt: Europaische Verlagsanstalt, n.d.), 5–19.
30. Eric Hobsbawm, “Introduction” to Karl Marx, Pre-capitalist Economic Formations (New York: International Publishers), 12–13.
31. Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaus, 490; Hobbes, Leviathan, 188.32. Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaus, 473.33. Ibid., 490.34. Ibid., 485.35. Ibid., 491–492.36. Adam Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1978), 398.37. Locke, Two Treatises on Government, 291–296, 299–302; Hobbes, Leviathan,
188; Rousseau, Social Contract, 120–121; Hegel, Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 139; Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 174–182.
38. Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, 150–153.39. Hobsbawm, “Introduction” to Marx, Pre-capitalist Economic Formations, 25,
37.40. Hobbes, Leviathan, 212–213, experienced a similar difficulty about going
from (1) to (2) in his discussion of the distribution of property.41. Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaous, 492.42. Hobsbawn, “Introduction” to Pre-capitalist Economic Formations, 25, 37.43. Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaus, 472.44. Ibid., 472–473.45. Ibid., 474.46. Marx, Precapitalist Economic Formations, 88, 97.47. Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaus, 477.48. Ibid., 483.49. Ibid., 483–484.50. Honoré, Property, Title and Redistribution, 88–90.51. Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaous, 476.52. Ibid., 476.53. Ibid., 475.54. De St. Croix, Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World; M. I. Finley, Politics
in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 1–23; Plutarch, “Coriolanus,” “Tiberius Grachus,” in Makers of Rome (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1965), 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 30, 33, 161, 172; “Theseus,” “Solon,” Cimon,” in Rise and Fall of Athens, 41, 47, 54–55, 62–63, 157; “The Comparison of Aristides and Marcus Cato,” in The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, 432 ; Livy, Early History of Rome, 50, 54, 65, 67, 74, 75, 81, 82, 94, 85, 87, 88, 89, 105, 114–115, 161–163, 168, 170–171, 173.
55. Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaus, 474. See Livy, Early History of Rome, 73, 81, 105; Plutarch, Rise and Fall of Athens, 160–206; “Coriolanus, Makers of
Notes 207
Rome, 26; “The Comparison of Tiberius and Gaius Grachus,” in Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, 1019–1021.
56. Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaus, 475; see Ellen Meiksins Wood, Peasant-Citizen and Slave (London: Verso, 1988), 28–35, for a class critique of ancient Greek communities.
5 Historical Unfolding of Communitarian Marxist Property and Justice Theory
1. For Marx’s gradual move between 1867 and 1883 to the new theory, see Haruki Wada, “Marx and Revolutionary Russia,” in Teodor Shanin, ed., Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and the Peripheries of Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review, 1983), 44–48. For Marx’s late writings, see Kevin Anderson, Marx at the Margins (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).
2. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks. Marx’s concrete interventions into Russian poli-tics, including his letter and drafts of a letter to the exiled Russia Narodnik Vera Zasulich, his letter to the Russian newspaper, Otechestvennye Zapiski, and Marx and Engels’s 1882 preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto, all in Late Marx and the Russian Road; Engels’s: “The Mark” and OFPPS. Engels’s two prefaces are in Dirk J. Struik, ed., The Birth of the Communist Manifesto, (New York: International Publishers, 1980). For Marx’s original drafts and letter, see “Lettre à Vera Zasulich (Première Projet, Deuxième Projet, Troisième Projet, Quatrième Projet et Lettre à Vera Zasulich), in Marx/Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Erste Abteilung, Band 25 (East Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1985), 219–242. The drafts were originally published in a Russian edition in 1924 and a German edition in 1925. Shanin follows the original numbering of the drafts, but disagrees with it.
3. Marx, “Drafts of a Reply: The First Draft,” in Late Marx and the Russian Road, 107.
24. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 120. My translation.25. Ibid., 121. My translation.26. Ibid., 126, 277. My translation.27. Ibid., 127–128.28. Ibid., 127–128.29. Ibid., 129.30. Ibid., 132. My translation.31. Ibid., 133. My translation.32. Ibid., 178.33. Ibid., 258.34. Honoré, “Property, Title and Redistribution,” 86–87.35. Marx, Ethnological Notebooks, 263–265, 274.36. Ibid., 275. My translation.37. Ibid., 282. My translation.38. Ibid., 135. My translation.39. Ibid., 135. My translation.40. Ibid., 135.41. See Wada, “Marx and Revolutionary Russia,” 64–65, for the dispute over
when the various drafts and the letter were actually written.42. See Kevin Anderson, “The MEGA and the French Edition of Capital, Vol 1:
An Appreciation and a Critique,” Beitrage zur Marx-Engels-Forschung Neue Folge (1997), 131–136; “The Unknown Marx’s Capital, Volume 1: The French Edition of 1872–75, 100 Years Later,” Review of Radical Political Economics XV.4 (1983): 71–80.
43. Stanley Moore, Marx on the Choice between Socialism and Communism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 53; Lenin, State and Revolution, 95–96. See Marx, Das Kapital: Kritik der Politischen Okonomie (Hamburg: Meisner, 1867), in Marx/Engels Gesamtausgabee, Zweite Abteilung, Band Sechs, Volume 1 (1987); Das Kapital Kritik der Politischen Okonimie Hamburg 1883 in Gesamtausgabe Zweite Abteilung, Band Acht, Vol 1 (1989);
Notes 209
Das Kapital Kritik der Politischen Okonimie Hamburg 1890 in Gesamtausgabe, Zweite Abteilung, Band Zehn, Vol. 1, 1991). For a comparison of the four German editions and the French edition, see “Verzeichnis von Textstellem der Franzosischen die niche die 3. Und 4. Deutsche Ausgabe aufgenomment wurden?” in Gesamtausgabe, Zweite Abteilung, Band Zehn, Vol. 2, 732–83. Also see Anderson “The MEGA and the French Edition of Capital, Vol. 1.”
44. Marx, Le Capital, (Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1969), 567. The change appears in Capital I, Volume 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (New York: Random House, 1976), 929. As Anderson notes in “The Unknown Marx’s Capital Volume 1,” 71–74, this translation, like all English translations, is based on Engels’s fourth German edition of 1890, in which he attempted to complete his insertion of the changes in Le Capital that he had begun to incorporate in his third German edition of 1883. Anderson believes that all these later German editions and all existing English translations fail to really incorpo-rate all the significant changes in Le Capital. Le Capital was published in January 1875; see Wada, “Marx and Revolutionary Russia,” 48. Moore, Marx on the Choice, 53.
45. Marx, Le Capital, 565. See Anderson, “The Unknown Marx’s Capital Volume 1,” 75.
46. Marx, Capital I, 734,47. Moore, Marx on the Choice between Socialism and Communism, 89.48. Marx, “The Reply to Zasulich,” in Late Marx and the Russian Road, 124; Le
Capital, 529; Capital, Vol. 1, translated by Ben Fowkes (New York: Random House, 1976), 876. On this point, see Anderson, “The Unknown Marx’s Capital Volume 1,” 77, Marx, “The Reply to Zasulich,” 124. See Das Kapital 1867, 1872. As Anderson notes in, “The MEGA and the French Edition of Capital, Vol 1,” 132, the 1883 edition of Das Kapital did not incorporate the changes from the French edition.
49. Marx, “The Reply to Zasulich,” 124. See Das Kapital, 1867, 1872. As Anderson notes, “The MEGA and the French tranlation of Capital Volue 1” 132, the 1883 Das Kapital did not incorporate the changes from Le Capital.
50. Marx, “A Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestvennye Zapiski,” in Late Marx and the Russian Road, 136.
51. Marx, “The Reply to Zasulich,” 124; Wada, “Marx and Revolutionary Russia,” 64–69; Teodor Shanin, “Gods and Craftsmen,” all in Late Marx and the Russian Road, 12–19,
52. Marx and Engels, “Preface” to the second Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party in Late Marx and the Russian Road, 139.
53. The changed sentence in Le Capital is in Chapter 26, “Primitive Accumulation.” The issue is taken up again, however, in Chapter 32, “The Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation,” including one of the other major changes in the France translation. Although Marx links the chapters in the letter to Otechestvennye Zapiski, he unaccountably obscures his linking of the two chapters by describing the concluding parts of Chapter 32 as being at end of the chapter, “the” grammatically referring to the chapter on primitive accumu-lation, Chapter 26. However, both the description that he gives as well as the
Notes210
accounts in the drafts of the letter to Zasulich make clear that Marx is linking the new theory of property found in both chapters as altered in Le Capital.
54. Marx, “Letter to the Editorial Board of Otechestvenye Zapiski,” 135.55. Marx, Capital I, Chapter 32, 929–930.56. Raya Dunaevskaya, Rosa Luxembourg, Women’s Liberation and Marx’s
Philosophy of Revolution (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities, 1982), 175–179, thought that Marx was both more critical of and more favorable to communal property than Engels, that Marx definitely sketched a non-Western communal property route. But she does not take into consideration that Germanic prop-erty, which both Marx and Engels saw as communal, was also Western.
57. Karl Marx, March 14, 1868 letter to Engels, in der Briefwechsel zwiischen K. Mars and F Engels (Stuttgart, 1913). Marx refers specifically to Maurer’s book of 1856, which is G. L. Maurer, Geschichte der MarkenVerfaassung in Deutschland (Erlangen: Enke, 1856). Shanin continues to label this the “First Draft”—as I do—because of the historical textual scholarship which has labeled it such, but in fact, he considers it to be the second draft.
58. Marx, “Drafts of a Reply, February/March 1881: The ‘First’ Draft,” in Marx and the Russian Road, 107. See Shanin, note 1 to Marx and the Russian Road, 125.
59. Marx, “Drafts of a Reply, February/March 1881: The ‘Second’ Draft,” in Marx and the Russian Road, 102. Marx is comparing chapters 26 and 32. Shanin, 125, considers this to be the first draft.
60. Marx, “Drafts of a Reply: The ‘First’ Draft,” 107.61. Ibid., 107–111.62. Marx, “Third Draft,” 118.63. Marx, Das Kapital, in Werke, Volume 23 (East Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1974),
791. My translation.64. Marx, “‘Second’ Draft,” 102.65. Marx, “First Draft,” 120–121.66. Ibid., 121–122.67. Ibid., 109.68. Ibid., 109.69. Marx, “Third Draft,” 120.70. Ibid., 120.71. Marx and Engels, “Preface” to Second Russian edition of the Manifesto of the
Communist Party, 138.72. For the Jeffersonian thesis and attempts to revive it throughout the nineteenth
century, see Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 133–142, 168–200,73. Engels to Marx, December 15, 1882, in Marx and Engels Correspondence (New
York: International Publishers, 1968).74. Engels, “The Mark,” 77–78.75. Ibid., 79–82.76. Ibid., 79–82.77. Ibid., 82.78. Ibid., 82–83.79. Ibid., 89–93.
6 Conclusion, Republican Marxism within Western Liberal Ethics
1. The former move is more common, but Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, 266–278, seems to be an example of the latter.
2. For a full discussion of these issues, see G. A. Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality, 144–164; If You’re an Egalitarian How Come You’re so Rich?, 134–147; Rescuing Justice and Equality.
3. A theory of justice close to communitarian Marxism was developed within Critical Legal Studies, but it was often presented as divorced from liberal-ism. See Unger, Critical Legal Studies, 109–117. In contrast Critical Legal Studies property theorists Duncan Kennedy, “The Stakes of Law: Or Hale and Foucault,” 83–93, and Joseph William Singer, Entitlement, 95–139, are less committed to the bifurcation.
4. See Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 150–163.5. For a survey of debate about Marxism and justice up to the fall of Russian and
East European communism, see Rodney Peffer, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice. Peffer defends the view that Marx and Marxism have a theory of justice in some standard Western form. Two of the main critics from 1970 to 1990 of that view are Fisk, State and Justice, and Wood, “Justice and Class Interests.” For the debate in the last decade, see Callinicos, Equality, 26–40; Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality, 144–164; If You’re an Egalitarian How Come You’re so Rich? 134–147.
6. Marx, “CGP,” 568–569; Lenin, State and Revolution, 95–96.7. Marx, “CGP,” 568.8. Ibid., 569.9. See Stanley Moore, Marx on the Choice between Socialism and Communism,
30–51.10. On liberal equality see Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue, 1–10; Taking Rights
Seriously, 226–227; and Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition, 228–276.11. See Reimann, Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy, 214–220.12. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, 268–280.13. Ibid., 280.14. For an interpretation closer to the standard one, see Robert Paul Wolff,
Moneybags Must Be so Lucky: On the Literary Structure of Capital (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), 39–60. For the general issue of
Notes212
subversion of equality by some forms of liberty, see John Roemer, Free to Lose (London: Century Hutchinson, 1988), 14–27.
15. For more on exploitation, Hegelian methodology in Marx’s economics, and Rubin and Rosdolsky, see my Economy and Self: Philosophy and Economics from the Mercantilists to Marx (Westport and London: Greenwood Press, 1979); “Ethics, Economics, and the Transition to Socialism,” in Norman Fischer, N. Georgopoulos, L. Patris eds, Continuity and Change in Marxism (Atlantic Highlands and Sussex, England: Humanities and Harvester, 1982); “The Ontology of Abstract Labor,” Review of Radical Political Economics, 14:2 (1982): 27–32; “A Response to Diquattro,” Review of Radical Political Economics, 14:2 (1984): 205–211.
16. I. I. Rubin, Dialektik der Kategorien, (Berlin: VSA, 1975), 48–49.17. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, 163–177.18. Ibid., 174–175.19. I. I. Rubin, Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value (Detroit: Black and Red, 1972),
117.20. Karl Marx, Das Kapital. Reprint of first 1867 edition (Tokyo: Auki-Shoten,
1959), 21. My translation.21. Roman Rosdolsky, The Making of Marx’s Capital, Vol. 1 (London: Pluto Press,
1997).22. Marx, “Preface” to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, in Selected
Writings, 388–392; Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaus, 83–87. The German origi-nal is Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie (Frankfurt: Europaische Verlaganstalt, n. d.).
23. For a critique of libertarianism on this point, see Reiman, Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy, 214–222.
24. Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia; Rosdolsky, The Making of Marx’s Capital, 179.
25. Marx “Urtext” in Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, 904; see Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaus, 238; Rosdolsky, The Making of Marx’s ‘Capital’, 183.
26. What I call the “Urtext” could be regarded as a kind of Grundrisse for the Grundrisse. See Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, 871–967.
27. Marx, “Urtext,” 951.28. Marx, Grundrisse, trans. Nicholaus, 238.29. Ibid., 514.30. For libertarian analysis of capitalist and other market societies, see Jan
Narveson, “Deserving Profits,” in Robin Cowan and Mario J. Rizzo, eds, Profits and Morality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).
31. Marx, “Results of Immediate Processes of Production,” in Capital, Volume One, 1033. This is the title that Ben Fowkes, editor and translator of Capital, Volume One, prefers to give to what is also known as the long unpublished “Sixth Chapter” of Das Kapital. See Resultate der unmittelbar Produksion prozesses: Das Kapital 1, Buch der Produkionsprozess des Kapital, VI Kapitels (Frankfurt: Neue Kritik, 1969).
32. Ibid., 1020.
Notes 213
33. Ibid., 1003.34. See Gary Young, “Doing Marx Justice,” in Kai Nielsen and Steven C. Patten,
eds, Marx and Morality (Guelph, Ontario: Canadian Association for Publishing Philosophy, 1981), 251–268.
35. The best discussion of liberal justice in Marx remains Stanley Moore, Marx on the Choice between Socialism and Communism, 30–51.
36. For a comparison of liberal and other forms of justice, see James Sterba, Justice for Here and Now (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
37. E. P. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters (New York: Penguin, 1977), 245–269; Erich Fromm, Marx’s Concept of Man (New York: Continuum, 1966), 69–79; Jurgen Habermas, “Überlegungungen zum evolutionären Stellenwert des modernen Rechts,” in Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus, 260–270; Reimann, Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy, 213–228.
38. Holmes, Anatomy of Antiliberalism and Passions and Constraint: The Theory of Liberal Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); Karl Marx, On Freedom of the Press and Censorship, translated with an introduction by Saul K. Padover (New York: McGraw Hill, 1974).
39. Maurizio Viroli, Republicanism, 108; Duncan, Marx and Mill: Two Views of Social Conflict and Social Harmony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
40. On the republican side, see Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent; on the Marxist side, see Fisk, The State and Justice.
41. For a key liberal approach, see Rawls, Political Liberalism, 294–299; Dworkin, “The Moral Reading and in Majoritarian Premise,” in Freedom’s Law, 1–38. For key republican approaches see Dagger, Civic Virtues, 25–40; Pettit, Republicanism; 80–109; Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 11–26. For the debate in group identity theory see Okin, Justice, Gender and the Family, 41–73; Stanley Fish, “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing Too,” in There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech and It’s a Good Thing Too (New York: Oxford, 1994), 102–119. For a critique of antiliberal tendencies in group identity theory, see Nat Hentoff, Free Speech for Me but Not for Thee (New York: Harper Collins, 1993), 55–98.
42. For republican unity see Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 123–142; M. N. S. Sellers, American Republicanism: Roman Ideology in the United States Constitution (New York: New York University Press, 1994), 77–82. For Dworkin’s defense of liberal limits see Freedom’s Law, 7–12, 17, 22, 25. For group identity frag-mentation see Okin, Justice, Gender and the Family. For generalized critiques of antiliberalism see Stephen Holmes, Anatomy of Antiliberalism, 101, 132, 164; Judith Shklar, “The Liberalism of Fear,” in Political Thought and Political Thinkers, 3–20.
43. See Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction,” in Early Writings. For the debate in Marxism over the com-patibility of universalist and unifying themes with class perspectives see Thompson, Whigs and Hunters, 258–269, and Christopher Hill, Liberty Against the Law (Allen Lane: The Penguin Press, 1996), 325–341. For the debate out-side of Marxism about the compatibility of group identity and universalistic
Notes214
values see Charles Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition;” and Michael Walzer, “Comment.”
44. See my articles defending a libertarian interpretation of freedom of speech “Democratic Morality Needs First Amendment Morality,” in Freedom of Expression: 30th anniversary May 4 Memorial Volume, ed Thomas Hensley (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2001), 170–174; “First Amendment Morality versus Civility Morality,” in Christine Sistarte, ed, Civility and its Discontents (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2004), 155–168; “How the Shadow University Attack on First Amendment Defenses of Private Speech Paved the Way for the War Party’s Attack on Public Speech,” Social Philosophy Today, 26 (2011): 39–51.
45. Benjamin R. Barber, Strong Democracy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 139–162, and Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 133, set these two impetuses far apart.
46. Holmes, Anatomy of Antiliberalism, 157, 176.47. Skinner, Liberty before Liberalism, 59–99; Pettit, Republicanism, 80–109;
Dagger, Civic Virtues, 25–40; Habermas, Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge: M. I. T. 1998), 463–516.
48. Holmes, Anatomy of Antiliberalism, 49, emphasizes, for example, that Schmitt’s antidemocratic antiliberalism could take the form of the unreasoned and even unspoken consent of crowds to their leaders, as in fascism.
49. Ibid., 155.50. See Judith Shklar on republicanism and Rousseau in Political Thought and
Political Thinkers, 262–293.51. Holmes, Anatomy of Antiliberalism, 176–186; Shklar, “Liberalism of Fear,”
52. See MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, 334–337.53. Holmes, Anatomy of Antiliberalism, 200.54. Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 3–19.55. On most, but probably not all, accounts of the relation of the good to the right
or just, this concept of global solidarity would certainly be seen as part of the good. For a full discussion of neutrality and the good see William Galston, Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues and Diversity in the Liberal State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 79–97; Rawls, Political Liberalism, 173–211; Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1986), 110–162.
56. See my “First Amendment Morality versus Civility Morality.”57. Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 79–90.58. Rosa Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution and Leninism or Marxism (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966).59. For the priority of liberty see Rawls, Theory of Justice, Revised edition,
176–185.60. For Republican censorship see Sandel, Democracy’s Discontent, 71–90; Cass
Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (New York: The Free Press,
Notes 215
1993), 167–240. For group identity censorship see Fish, “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech,” 102–119.
100and Attica, 98–9and communal property, 132–4compared to Roman Republic, 94creation of constitution, 89development of state institutions, 74and direct lawmaking, 59
and equal rights, 74equality and negative liberty, 84fall of, 79–80, 84and five types of Basilius, 86and France’s political communes,
58and gens society, 76, 77–83, 88–91,
95, 98–102, 102as ideal society, 3and Iroquois property, 14and private property, 132–5and property divisions, 83, 132–3recall and rotation of delegates, 66and republicanism, 42and rulership, 86–9, 99, 102and Spartan war, 102, 133transition to classical democracy,
Habermas, Jürgen, 30, 177Harrington, James, 12Hegel, G. W. F.
and common principles, 43–4and concept of form, 169and concept of law, 3, 35and constitutional law, 43ethics of, 10, 31German communitarianism, 91–2influence of, 84mediation of common principles, 43and Moralität, 30, 31
Lenin, Vladimirantiliberalism, 22, 179–80and civil wars, 184and communitarian democracy, 22criticism of, 184deconstruction of the state, 48distinction between socialism and
communism, 163, 164on Paris Commune, 63and republicanism, 56, 71, 72State and Revolution, 71
and individual property, 124–5influence of Ancient Society, 72–3,
138, 140, 143influence of German philosophers,
11influence of Greek authors, 85interest in Russian politics, 137introduction of classes, 88and Iroquois, 76–7, 86on labor, 167–8, 174–5, 175–6as Left Hegelian, 31letter to Kugelmann, 112–13letter to Zasulich, 137, 138, 147,
and communal property, 148and economic justice, 184economic production and
distribution, 135and egalitarianism, 167and expanded scope, 120, 122, 125expansion of equality, 162and exploitation theory, 167and fetishism, 169general ownership of, 9–10, 14, 173and individual property, 151lack of access to, 171limit to private property, 187limitations to, 119and material solidarity, 183multiple stages of, 109–10and natural law and dignity, 53and negative liberty, 14, 119, 120,
122, 135, 155, 168, 177, 184, 186, 187
and private property, 143, 155–6, 161, 169, 173, 177, 187–8
and property relations, 184public ownership, 164and rights to property, 161separation of producer, 148–9social or state ownership of, 2, 3workers excluded from ownership,
176Mill, John Stuart
concept of liberty, 3on distribution, 111ethics of, 16opposition the mandate system, 67,
68, 69Representative Government, 66republicanism of, 177values of republicanism, 70
Mommsen, Theodor, 91Montesquieu
and citizen participation, 61
and communal identity, 80and concept of suffrage, 37–8, 39,
44defense of Plato, 74and gens, 98on Greek republicanism, 98importance of replacing delegates, 66influence of, 13, 45, 56, 84influence of ancient democracy and
