Andrew Ure vs. Adam Smith

It was brought to my attention after class that I was a little misguided about what Andrew Ure thought of the factory system, and how he was different than Adam Smith. Smith, who wrote prior to French and American Revolutions, was responding to what he thought was an outdated economic system that was still controlled by the state and craft guilds. He was therefore concerned with how workers could be liberated from this system. He felt positively about the development of the factory system, and thought that machines benefited workers because it made them more productive.
Andrew Ure, who wrote in the 1820s and 30s, was a political economist (not a moral economist) like Adam Smith. He was a proponent of industrial capitalism as embodied in the factory. Though he thought machines were dehumanizing for workers, he was more concerned with how workers could be controlled within the factory than with how they could be liberated. So, the question for Smith was how to liberate workers, whereas for Ure, it was about how they can be constrained more effectively.

Socialism before Marx

A couple of weeks ago a few of us stayed after class to discuss pre-Marxist socialism. Generally, socialism before Marx falls into two categories: socialism from above and socialism from below. The main proponents of socialism from above were Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte. Saint-Simon was a Frenchman who wanted to preserve the progress of revolution without the mass uprisings and disorder. He advocated common ownership of goods, but did not believe in democracy. He was an authoritarian, and wanted a society ruled by experts working for the state. Comte, his follower, also thought that society should be managed by experts. His motto was order and progress.
Socialism from below, on the other hand, was mainly a British phenomenon. The Luddites in Britain broke the machines that they thought were displacing the traditional role of the craftsman. The most organized socialist movement, Chartism, had a network of small groups scattered across England, and even published their own newspaper to disseminate socialist ideas. This group presented the Great Charter to parliament in 1848 calling for universal male suffrage, secret ballots, and salaries for members of parliament.
Marx was very influenced by the Chartists, and his idea of socialism is closely aligned with their agenda. However, he rejected socialism from above: he thought workers, not the state, should bring about the communist revolution. He also wanted the workers, not experts, to rule the state. Marx also rejected Luddism and moral economy: he believed capitalism was a necessary step toward liberation, and that capitalist production and technology make people more productive.

Revolutions and Adam Smith

We will be dealing with the following questions in discussion tomorrow:
Describe the differences between the industrial and French revolutions. What is the definition of the word "revolution"?
How does Smith's system of conflicting social classes end up functioning as if led by an "invisible hand"?
What is Smith's view of morality? How would you compare it to Kant and Wollstonecraft?

Hegel's Master/Slave Dialectic

Our reading from Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind can be divided into two related parts. In part one, Hegel begins with a discussion of self-consciousness, which is easiest to talk about in terms of "Person A" and "Person B" (although Hegel does not use this terminology). Hegel argues that Person A's self-consciousness only exists because he is "recognized" by Person B (paragraph 178). Person A doesn't see Person B as a self-consciousness in his own right, but only as a reflection of himself; in other words, Person B isn't real to Person A (179). Person A and Person B need each other for recognition, but are not yet aware of this (182-184). Because they are unwilling to acknowledge that their self-consciousnesses are interdependent, they engage in a life and death struggle in an effort to achieve autonomy (187). This struggle to the death is necessary because it puts both Person A and Person B's status as a conscious being at risk. Because Person A and Person B realize that in killing one another, they actually kill themselves, they decide the struggle to the death is futile.

So, Person A (now the Master) decides to enslave Person B (now the slave) in an effort to assure that he is recognized by another. Hegel argues the master is an independent being who lives only for himself, while the slave, or bondsman, is dependent and lives for another (189). The bondsman is considered a thing to the master and is subordinate. At the same time, the master forces the bondsman to make things that the master can enjoy (190). However, because the bondsman has the creative power to make things, over time he becomes more independent through his work. He thus finds recognition away from his master, and finds a "mind of his own" (195-96).

For those of you who want to read more about Hegel and his historical context, check out Susan Buck-Morss, "Hegel and Haiti," Critical Inquiry, Vol. 26, No.4 (2000). You can access this online by logging into JSTOR through the Gelman Library website.

Burke, Hegel, and Responses to the French Revolution

Here are some things to consider prior to coming to section tomorrow.

Why does Burke dislike the French Revolution? Take into account that Burke wrote the Reflections in 1790, prior to the mass executions during the Terror.
Would Burke approve of the conservative settlement at the Congress of Vienna in 1815?
How is Hegel inspired by the revolutions in France and in Haiti?
Why is the bondsman more successful than the lord at gaining recognition?
Are we all in lord/servant relationships?

A word of advice about Hegel: his writing is a little convoluted, but his ideas are relatively simple. Try to at least get the main idea of each paragraph.

PS--Sorry for the late posting tonight. My internet access at home has been really patchy over the last two days!

Wollstonecraft: 18th-century libertine?

I found the following article interesting in light of the fact that in Vindication, Wollstonecraft seems to focus on the restraint of desires and passions in favor of reason and education. It seems that Wollstonecraft was actually more of a rebel than the Vindication would suggest!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/wollstonecraft_01.shtml

Also, check out this short review of a book that links Rousseau with Robespierre and the English Romantic writers including Mary Wollstonecraft.

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0511036248

Writings of the Revolutions

Consider these questions when reading the documents from the American and French Revolutions, as well as Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women.

How does each author define the nation? Who should be included and why?
What differences between the American and French Revolutions emerge from the documents? Similarities? What is the goal of the Revolution in each case?
How do Wollstonecraft and Robespierre radicalize revolutionary thought? Is there a difference between a radical and an extremist?
What sort of comparisons can you make between this week's reading and Kant?