As a utopian, Marx doubtless dreamt thoughts too great for men. For example, if we literally abandoned a division of labor within the social collective, who would be held accountable for the ensuing mediocrity of the tradesmen, the professions, the rulers, or warriors?
And yet, given Marx’s system-building imagination, I submit that he was neither hedgehog nor fox. (I agree that Berlin, who I also admire, was basically foxy). In contrast, Marx was a forceful, vicious intellectual lion. A creature wedded to no particular terrain other than his own.
At bottom, Marx transcended both categories: that’s what geniuses tend to do. They combine detailed specializations with wandering holistic, unifying visions so compelling, challenging, intriguing — that both competent scholars, and regular curious citizens, are never quite the same.
They shake things up, for better or worse. And the experimental “social science” paradigm-shift Marx left behind we are arguably still recovering from. But I digress. . .
As a utopian, Marx doubtless dreamt thoughts too great for men. For example, if we literally abandoned a division of labor within the social collective, who would be held accountable for the ensuing mediocrity of the tradesmen, the professions, the rulers, or warriors?
And yet, given Marx’s system-building imagination, I submit that he was neither hedgehog nor fox. (I agree that Berlin, who I also admire, was basically foxy). In contrast, Marx was a forceful, vicious intellectual lion. A creature wedded to no particular terrain other than his own.
At bottom, Marx transcended both categories: that’s what geniuses tend to do. They combine detailed specializations with wandering holistic, unifying visions so compelling, challenging, intriguing — that both competent scholars, and regular curious citizens, are never quite the same.
They shake things up, for better or worse. And the experimental “social science” paradigm-shift Marx left behind we are arguably still recovering from. But I digress. . .