Re: [OPE-L] Enrique D. Dussel's writings online

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Apr 06 2005 - 22:47:07 EDT

At 11:12 AM -0700 4/6/05, Ian Wright wrote:
>Classical authors, perhaps including Marx, assumed the distinction
>between machinery and labour was unproblematic, a kind of common-sense
>humanism of the time.

Ian,  there is a lot to think through in your message. Very quickly:
I meant to suggest that by taking the forms of social labor into
which individuals are born as ontologically fundamental Marx was not
committed to common sense humanism or Robinsonades.   I do not think
that is incompatible with saying that the whole still exists only in
rem, that is, in concrete individuals.

Moreover, in giving the form of social labor explanatory privilege
Marx was putting man above all else in and against nature, not
raising him above it as certain forms of humanism did.

And Marx was not all humanist in his understanding of the sources of
wealth. Note Carchedi's distinction between value and wealth
(highlighted by Postone, Murray E.G. Smith and Marx himself)

At any rate,  may I ask for an explanation of what you mean by common
sense humanism of the time.

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 07 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT