In a message dated 7/24/2004 1:04:02 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Or to put it another way, to reject Marx's distinction between
productive and unproductive labor (by placing on it the burden of practical
economics or political economy) you will completely lose the main point of
Marx's whole life's labor, that capitalism is a _historical_ phenomenon. That it
is _different_. And it is different (among other reasons) because of the
difference between the two types of human activity which our Walgreens' clerk
has exhibited for us. That distinction could not have arisen except in a
capitalist economy. And it probably can't be translated into empirically
confirmable/disconfirmable statements about the "actual" economy -- but one
cannot let that interfere with developing one's historical and cultural
understanding of the distinctions in living human activity involved.<
Carrol
Comment Poetic.
I understand my historical connection. You are correct on the entire spans
of the polemics concerning electoral politics and Marx Capital Volume 1 . . . in
my opinion.
Profound piece.
Nothing anarchist about it.
Very working class . . . very proletarian . . . very communist.
Melvin P. |
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Marvin Gandall
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Carrol Cox
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece andie nachgeborenen
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Carrol Cox
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Yoshie Furuhashi
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Marvin Gandall
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Carrol Cox
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Yoshie Furuhashi
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Devine, James
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Carrol Cox
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Waistline2
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Michael Hoover
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Michael Hoover
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Yoshie Furuhashi
- Re: Thomas Frank op-ed piece Michael Hoover
- Diminishing Expectations Carrol Cox
- Re: Diminishing Expectations Doug Henwood