Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 14:52:39 -0500
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: M-TH: "A fisher or hunter is averse to society"


>	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?  

Well, of course. Why would Hawaiians, for example, become farmers when they
could get all the food they needed from the ocean or the forest? 

>What supports the people who are developing technology and
>*not* hunting and gathering?  

Social surpluses support such people. Agricultural societies were the first
to generate a surplus. It was this surplus which allowed classes to
develop, including those of Aztec or Incan society. But in feudal
societies, there is not much of an impetus toward tool-making because
production for use-value does not follow the same dictates as production
for exchange value. When you are producing commodities, labor time is of
the essence. By introducing machinery, the commodity can be produced more
rapidly. It is only in capitalist society that commodity production becomes
generalized. This creates the foundations for science and technological
research. 


>Why is it untrue that increasingly
>interdependent economies create increasingly interdependent social relations
>(logically, if they were not interfered with by capitalism)?  

This is true, but I wouldn't use your value-free formulation. I would say
that imperialist nations rape and pillage the third-world.

>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?  

Didn't you read my critique of Mander? Why are you asking such stupid
questions? I advocate an environmentally-sensitive planned economy on a
world scale that makes heavy use of networked computers. Right now I am
opposed to multinational corporations killing the Yanomami and the Ogoni.
The two goals are not mutually exclusive--in fact, they are dialectically
related.


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?  

My approach to farming is very close to that being followed in Cuba today.
For more information, check the Global Exchange web page.


>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? 

Under socialism, our clocks will run forward as always. The natives' PC's
will probably be made in those countries that are already heavily
industrialized. By the way, "native" is a racist term that belongs to
Tarzan movies, but I'm sure that's why you used it. Shamans will probably
find PC's useful as a way of maintaining records of all the different
plants with healing properties. By the way, Brazil's first major export in
the 18th century was medicines from the Amazon, which came from plants
identified by these very same shamans. I know that you lack intellectual
curiousity, Mr. "enlightened one", but Cockburn-Hecht's book on the Amazon
rainforest spells this out in detail. I do watch Star Trek a lot,
especially the one with Kate Mulgrew. I absolutely love her and the Borg 7
of 9 character. I also watch X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and
Millennium, which is not so nearly as good.


Louis Proyect











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