Now, I don't know if this is all correct, but you do see one merit of the class-based view of history when you see it makes a demand upon thinkers to inflect a notion like rights through a disparate set of circumstances of subjects, rather than just apply them anywhere and everywhere. The proceedings in Parents Involved v. Seattle read like an interrogation as to why minorities weren't bourgeoisie enough. Roberts' questions especially seemed not just ignorant of economic and something like class reality but also willing to manipulate this distinction under the notion of rights. When he says "the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race"--!!!--he presupposes that race is at the same time bound up in conditions that can make it resist efforts to stop discriminating and that these conditions actually don't apply if we look at the subject right--that is, if we consider someone who is not a bourgeoisie subject a bourgeoisie subject. This duplicity is more than ignorance, it is willful ignorance, and it is the type of action that Marx knew could happen with the language of rights.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Marx, economics and law, continued
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment