Jim Devine Ted Winslow wrote: All the "useful, concrete" labour of communism would, however, be "modes of giving free scope to his own natural and acquired powers".
The "useful, concrete" labour of capitalism is the opposite of this. Jim: but it still would be useful, concrete labor. That was my point. ===== Cbc: Useful perhaps, but not labor. Homo S has been around for about 200+ K, but labor only goes back about 10or 12K with the beginning of agricultural. Prior to that time what we now call "labor" was indistinguishable from the other activities filling the day. This, incidentally, touches on my reasons for arguing socialist should not try to present a "scenario" or "model" or "plan" for a future socialist state. We can speak of some of its general goals as a form of the critique of capitalism, but scenario's presuppose the ability to predict human activity and response under totally different conditions and after events & struggles which are equally unpredictable. The abolition of labor as a goal makes sense precisely because it would be nothing new. Assuming (what is by no means certain) that we can overcome capitalist relations and capitalist power, our descendants will have a great horselaugh at any recipes for the future we concoct. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
