Economics and Politics: Against Vulgar

Marxism
Macpherson concludes his argument in The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Hobbes
to Locke, with the following lament:
The question whether the actual relations of a possessive market society can be abandoned or
transcended, without abandoning liberal political institutions, bristles with difficulties. In the measure that
market society could be abandoned, the problem of cohesion would be resolved, for the problem was
defined as the need for a degree of cohesion which would counteract the centrifugal force of market
relations. ut there would still be the problem of finding a substitute for that recognition of a fundamental
equality which had originally been provided by the supposed inevitable subordination of everyone to the
market. !ould any conceivable new concept of fundamental equality, which would be consistent with the
maintenance of liberal institutions and values, possibly get the wide acknowledgment without which, as I
have argued, no autonomous theory of political obligation could be valid"
One cant help but wonder, which particular liberal institutions and values does Macpherson have
in mind here that would reuire maintenance because the!re in dire need of preserving" #ts clear
enough from the context the! must have to do with promoting and reinforcing the $concept of
fundamental eualit!% among men& 'ever mind the fact that the (ind of eualit! both he and
)obbes envisage is misdirected* reactive rather than pro+active ,$constructive% is a better term-,
but more on that later& Also never mind that Macpherson is undul! beholden here to the political,
as though the onl! true measure of the relative well+being of a human societ!& 'o mention
whatever is made of the economic relations which happen to underpin the lot, no relationship of
an! (ind between the two either established or argued for& All were told is that in the event that
$the mar(et societ! could be abandoned% .m! emphasis/& & & we could proceed thus and thus,
towards socialism, # suppose& #ts as clinical and saniti0ed a treatment as it gets, going nowhere
and as(ing for nothing& 'o reference whatever is made to human suffering, the direct and
immediate conseuence of mar(et relations trumping the political ones, to include our so+called
liberal institutions and values&
And indeed, what liberal institutions and values could Macpherson possibl! have in mind here
other than the celebrated rule of law, Anglo+1axon edition, and the institutions charged with
upholding it" 1omehow, he appears deaf to the postmodernist critiue of a democratic societ!
which posits the rule of law and the attendant institutions as 2ust another veneer, nothing but a
charade whose sole purpose is to perpetuate the illusion that alls well in the state of 3enmar(
whereas nothing could be further from the truth&
Again, never mind that its precisel! those ver! institutions and values which must be uprooted,
not maintained, for propagating untruths and promoting false consciousness& Macpherson ma!
be excused on the first count since postmodernism was a latter+da! development, but what about
Marx"
1trange as it ma! seem, there ma! be merit, if onl! from strategic standpoint, to (eeping the
societ!s economic forces and the resulting mar(et relations under wraps, as it were& )owever
much it ma! be the case that both shape and color the political and contribute to general social
unrest in terms of both detracting from social cohesion and undermining the sense of social
eualit! 4 both fundamental aspects of Macphersons anal!sis and indices of social health, the
health of a political communit! 4 theres something to be said for addressing the economic and
the political separatel!, which is to sa!, for treating both aspects, to the extent possible, as
conceptuall! apart&
5est we forget, Macpherson too( it upon himself to be the modern+da! spo(esperson for
)obbess pro2ect, the pro2ect of instilling the sense of political obligation on the part of the citi0en
to his or her respective sovereign b! anchoring same in a set of duties the sovereign was
supposed to discharge with respect to its sub2ects& 6rom the get+go, the pro2ect was defined as
through+and+through political, both in conception and possible ramifications, and the uestion of
legitimac! was of uttermost importance: legitimac!, that is, as regards the validit! of the state to
serve as an overarching institution overseeing the political communit!, provided of course it
discharged all its contracted and reciprocal obligations in earnest and in good faith&
#n effect, therefore, Macpherson here is merel! being true to his master and his masters grand
plan& 1eeing that the old+time sentiment, which t!picall! expressed itself in a sense of political
obligation of sorts, was on a decline, that we ma! be experiencing nowada!s a crisis insofar as
political obligation is concerned, Macpherson as(s the most natural of uestions: can the state be
salvaged under the circumstances and if not, what possibl! could ta(e its place" 7he overriding
concern is, as what it has alwa!s been with )obbes, the state and how to preserve it, its
uncertain future in the sea of uncertaint!&
# dont see wh! this perspective should be particularl! disturbing, nor do # see wh! it should be
particularl! disturbing to a doctrinaire Marxist& #f Macpherson can demonstrate that the state had
run its natural course, that its no longer commanding the (ind of lo!alt! and sense of obligation
necessar! for its viabilit! as an institution, if he can show it had lost its legitimac! for whatever
reason or reasons, reasons unconnected to Marxism or whatever economic considerations, so
much the better& A Marxist and an anarchist in me, # couldnt have been happier* thered be no
better time to celebrate& After all, we can alwa!s pile on and drive in the final nail into the heart of
the beast, the more nails the merrier&
#n the seuel, #ll consider the Macpherson solution to no+state solution&