David Gordon

The learning associated with the hidden curriculum is likely to be unconscious. This raises questions about the moral standing of the hidden curriculum, which seems to violate two basic rights of the pupils: (1) the right to decide for themselves what they wish to study; (2) the right to be aware of the forces that have influenced them. Seeing as hidden curricula are unavoidable components of all education, this raises questions about the morality of education itself. It is thus the task of the school to raise the hidden curriculum to the consciousness of the pupils, in order to protect them from its influence. ‘Raising the hidden curriculum to consciousness’ can be interpreted in different ways. The strategies associated with the relevant interpretations are problematic. However, their implementation is essential for the moral education of the pupils.

N. M. L. Nathan's argument that IDP utilitarianism, if universally adopted, is inconsistent, does not succeed. The argument requires that if an IDP utilitarian has only self-regarding desires, then none of these desires can be informed. This rests on a partial misuse of the expression satisfaction of desire. For an individual attempting to realize his self-regarding desires, the satisfaction of the satisfaction of a desire is unmeaning. The naming of an object of the desire is an intrinsic part of the phrase satisfaction of desire. Further, contrary to Nathan's claim, this suggestion does not trivialize IDP utilitarianism.

The last two decades have seen Marxism's academic renascence. In fields as diverse as law, literary criticism, history, and philosophy, Marxism once again captivates no small number of scholars. In part, this reassessment is driven by the efforts of a group of philosophers and economists to reconstruct Marx from the ground up on a more rigorous basis. The work of these "Analytical Marxists" -- who include G.A. Cohen, Jon Elster, and John Roemer -- is given a sustained examination and critique in David Gordon's Resurrecting Marx. The charge of the Analytical Marxists that capitalism is inherently exploitative and unjust is the primary subject of Gordon's book. Gordon takes issue with that contention; he argues that the Analytical Marxists' withering criticism of classical Marxism is essentially correct, but that they fail to replace it with a superior theoretical edifice. Gordon also analyzes the Analytical Marxists' reformulation of the Marxian notion of exploitation, the implications of their rejection of the labor theory of value, their differences over what rights people have, and their arguments for the compatibility of markets with socialism.