Phil,
I gave you the exact citation, the exact edition, and referenced the
section.
Go read it.
BTW, please check out Murray Bookchin's work, then maybe . . . nah . . .
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Graham <phil.graham@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: dominance "over" nature
> At 11:15 AM 4/24/01 -0700, PD wrote:
> >"It is not the unity of living and active humanity with the natural,
> >inorganic conditions of their metabolic exchange with nature, and hence
> >their appropriation of nature, which requires explanation or is the
result
> >of a historic process, but rather the separation between these inorganic
> >conditions of human existence and this active existence, a separation
which
> >is completely posited only in the relation of wage labour and capital."
> >(Grundrisse, Vintage 1973, 489).
>
> This is entirely decontextalised it is a critique of a narrowly
> "economistic" position of political economists: you need to consider the
> contemporary usage of:
>
> appropriation of nature
> metabolic interchange
> inorganic conditions of human existence (i.e. nature)
>
> to even begin to comprehend what is being said. Clearly you do not.
>
> Now go away, will you.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In particular, throughout this section Marx repeatedly refers to "natural
> >conditions" as man's "inorganic being" which could hardly speak more
clearly
> >that he did not consider man's relationship to the environment from the
> >perspective of a living system of which man is a part. Yet this is the
> >fundamental insight of the science of ecology.
> >
> >Paul H. Dillon
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:59 PDT