Yes, the "means of production." I would suggest that on this question it would be prudent to go back a bit before Herr Marx to Mr. Hodgskin's argument about co-existing labour. The "means of production" are not, in fact, machines or raw materials but the simultaneous labour of other workers. If one follows Marx through all the convolutions of the fetishism of commodities, I think one will arrive back at a perhaps more subtle interpretation of Hodgskin's co-existing labour, but one whose subtlety makes it too FUCKING easy to reduce to a vulgar materialist "substance". Marx equivocated on this point, so either reading is plausible.
But just because Marx equivocated, doesn't mean that we have to. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:05 PM, <[email protected]>wrote: > > If you define class struggle as struggle for control of > means of production, the environmental movement is a kind of > class struggle. It is the struggle for control over and > benefit from the earth's natural resources, which are means > of production. -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
