On 12/6/05, Ted Winslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Shemano's idea of a fulfilled life isn't Marx's. As conceived > by Marx, such a life requires fully developed capabilities on the > part of both oneself and others; you can't buy it. Marx's idea of it > appropriates insights from, among others, Goethe and Shakespeare. > http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/power.htm > > Ted
--------------------------- I read nothing in David's thought experiment that led me to believe what he wrote was *his* idea of a fulfilled life. Who gets to decide what constitutes a fully developed life anyway? Certainly KM isn't the only substantive theorist of the good life so why should anyone living in the 21st or 22nd century even pay one bit of attention to 19th century theorists of normative psychology-sociology in choosing how to live? To imply that people can't live fulfilling lives under capitalism because of the ubiquitous commodification that goes on 24/7/365 is worse than snobbery; it smacks of the worst forms of authoritarianism; another boring variation on the theme of so-called false consciousness. That is not to say that capitalism shouldn't be replaced so that everyone has a substantive chance at having fulfilling lives and an equitable share in the bounty of nature, technologies and knowledge, art etc. produced by the division of labor etc, it's just that a deep and *political* pluralism pervades the very exploration of human fulfillment; there is obviously more than one way to live a happy life. The non-overcomeability of pluralism with the concomitant deep disagreements as to what constitutes human fulfillment and fully developed capacities is an enduring feature of human life, get over it. There is no final type of society towards which our species is inexorably being swept, even behind the backs of the producers.
