At 4:17 PM 7/23/96, Doug Henwood wrote: >At 2:05 PM 7/23/96, Blair Sandler wrote: > >>Absolutely right, but this kind of "production" doesn't seem to have much >>to do with the "production of goods" -- or anyway, that's my question. What >>is gained and what is lost by referring to "nature" as a "good?" What >>insights are opened up to us and what understandings are precluded or >>occluded? > >Well, Marx said that there are two factors of production, labor and nature, >and that under capitalism both are appropriated, exploited, and otherwise >abused. So calling nature a "good" is the intellectual part of the >commodification of nature. If you have no problem with that, then I suppose >you have no problem calling nature a "good." > >Doug Actually, I *do* have a problem with the concept of "exploiting nature," which I wrote about in my dissertation, and will forward to you later, but I have a ton of work to do before I leave town for a week, so it will have to wait. This is all an open question for me, and certainly you are making good points that nonetheless fail to convince me of the general point. Perhaps I'm just fuzzy brained and internally inconsistent. Blair [EMAIL PROTECTED]
