Date: Wed, 4 Feb 98 13:47:22 EST
From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-TH: "A fisher or hunter is averse to society"








		C. Proyect,




	At least I have the guts to say that Marx was wrong where I think
he was wrong.  You simply insinuate that Marx was "tainted".  You are
mud-slinging and wriggling. 


	I'll take an opportunity to make a point:  When Marx developed the
extremely useful labor theory of value, he made a logical mistake with the
concept of "reproduction."  He assumed that as labor effectiveness went
up, the need for "reproduction" went up in lock step.  This is not true. 
Capitalist societies can produce material wealth faster than workers'
wages need go up to prevent a crisis. 


	You see, I did not question Marx's Marxism or try to insinuate
that impure, liberal thinking had tainted him, I just said that he is
logically wrong - not evil, not mislead by liberalism, not genocidal or
racist, just logically wrong, not entirely wrong, but wrong enough to
count. 


	Now why don't you go ahead and make an argument: Does hunting and
gathering have the potential to provide as comfortable a living as
agriculture?  What supports the people who are developing technology and
*not* hunting and gathering?  Why is it untrue that increasingly
interdependent economies create increasingly interdependent social relations
(logically, if they were not interfered with by capitalism)?  How many
people can go back to the "old ways" on this "spaceship earth" of
yours?  Will the Sioux give their rifles back and start hunting with bows
again?  Why is a culture based on the possession of land not fraught with
counter-revolutionary peril?  Isn't some land more valuable than other
land?  In the new social order, will our clocks run backwards?  How will
the natives' PC's be made?  Will the shamans conjure them from the forest?  
Do you watch "Star Trek" a lot? 




	peace




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---