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