From: Carrol Cox <cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
Subject: M-TH: Scope and Limits of e-mail. Was: Wives in common[y]
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:48:55 -0600 (CST)


Charles,

I was making a very narrow claim about one small passage in the Manifesto,
not to be taken as a comment on or even in reference to the fundamentals
of Marxism. On the whole, I think it is best to keep e-mail posts fairly
short, and that when a post triggers some other thoughts, to change the
subject line and signal one's turn, rather than trying to pile on one's
whole philosophy of life and world view in one rush. We do, unlike
Marvell's lover, have world enough and time -- unfortunately, since it is
the longevity of capitalism that is providing us the time. 

(Posts which, like those of Lou Proyect's and Mark's posts on energy etc,
give information are one exception to this rule of thumb on length.)

Carrol

Charles Brown writes:

> 
> >>> Carrol Cox <cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> 03/26 6:20 PM >>>
> 
> Charles Brown writes:
> 
> <<- Actually Marx and Engels use is sort of the obverse or reverse or
[SNIP]

     By the way, I misspoke to Malgosia. Community of women means
community of "owners" and community of "owned", for , for there to be
multiple or a community of women for a each single man, any single women
would have to be part of the "community of women for several men. The
"solution" to the puzzle is exactly on an issue malgosia asked a lot of
questions about: Ownership is implicit if the "community" only goes one
way. Ownership is obliterated by "community" going both ways. In other
words, community of women does imply, as Malgosia said an owning community
of men as well as an owned community of women.  The only way to negate
ownership is reciprocal community between men and women. I hope
Magosia reads this.
    Regards, Charles>>



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