Yes, the remark was meant as taking exception to Leigh's comment. Gut-checking somebody by discounting the importance of theory, its "practical significance in the world" can be done by anyone to anyone and usually is. It's just another version of "work within the system, and you can make a real difference in people's lives." Or "join the Peace Corps." Or Mayor Daley's "What trees do they plant?"
I don't agree that the point is to more "equilaterally distribute the wealth now." I don't even know that there is any point to discussing more equitable distribution of wealth now. Not going to happen, or more precisely, will only happen episodically, as the rate of return allows it, thereby creating the basis for even more unequitable distribution. And you've got it wrong, it's not any individual secretary who can do more or better than any student of the Grundrisse; it is the class of secretaries who can do better than the class of capitalists, once the class that includes secretaries takes over... and doing better will require, I am certain, reading the Grundrisse. -----Original Message----- >From: Leigh Meyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: May 22, 2007 3:29 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Kucinich's wife and the American Monetary Institute > >On 5/22/07, s.artesian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Gee, reads a bit like the old "If you're so smart, why >> ain't you rich?" dismissal, doesn't it? >> > > >I think that barb was aimed at me Doug... >Oh right, you and Lou Proyect junkfile my mail, so you won't see this. >Censorship begins at the inbox, I alway say. > >sartesian, the point isn't to get 'rich'... whatever that means. > >The point is how does one more equilaterally distribute the wealth >*now*, not when you get done reading a book, *now*, and, as has been >said in one of the industries I've worked in, music, then you 'fix it >in the mix'. > >Read Grundrisse then, there will be more free time after the wealth >has been redistributed. > >Albeit, the Doug Henwoods of the left, the people who invest in, earn >an income from, an inherently inequitable system even as they rail >against it, will be hard pressed as to what to do for a living. > >Leigh
