On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > Arguments for or against a "planned economy" are politically irrelevant. > They are merely so much pedantry. >
Dunno. If we ever get a revolution, these arguments will become relevant. If we-the-people are ever in a position to decide such things, which will probably be decided on an emergency basis, do you really want there to be no body of discussion for them to draw on? I actually find discussions human nature more problematic. Not there is not human nature. No matter how carefully we raise a parrot or a chimpanzee, it will never be able to take part on discussions on Pen-l. (Though a parrot might well be trainable as a Fox News anchor or as a speaker for certain small Marxist groupsicals.) But we don't know much about how plastic human nature is. We know that humans are drastically different in different circumstances, but we know very little about HOW that difference correlates with differing environments. In the absence of knowledge humility is justified. (Yes, I know. One always admires the virtues one lacks.) Political viewpoints should be agnostic about human nature. Marxism for the most part is agnostic, avoiding most discussion of human nature. To the extent Marxism talks about human nature it large in terms of need rather than of ground states. For example Marx argues for a human need for freedom, or least humans can most fully flourish and develop when free, not that humans are born free.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
