"womanhood" and abortion

d-m-c at worldnet.att.net d-m-c at worldnet.att.net
Wed Nov 25 10:36:06 PST 1998


Charles made a wonderous, stupendous correction:


>Regarding property, I was recently reading
>something on it for another thread. In reading
>your discussion below I was thinking
>that property is best considered as
>relationship between people regarding
>things not a relationship between people
>and things

Yes Yes EXACTLY. I was typing right after I woke up and should have said that. It's both: a relationship between people regarding thing. It is also a relationship between people and things, though, especially under capitalism. Commodity Fetishism and all that


>Also, I find "historically constituted"as
>a good "cousin" to use with "socially
>constructed."

Yes, yes of course. It's my discipline coming out. But I was careful to point toward history in that post. But I like socially constructed for strategic purposes; I want to emphasize people. Historical leaves people out; doesn't have to, but it does in some versions of it. I'm sure you know what I mean. History then appears to operate behind our back and over our heads. But again, political disciplinary reasons for that.


>I you are interested,
>I have some other thoughts on
>the rules (or culture) that governs
>our conduct as you describe. Have
>you considered how the systems of
>rules change ? This opened up a new
>idea for me recently , after considering
>this puzzle for a long while.

Yes, yes. Oh this is excitin' Charles. Very interested. This stuff is great for use in the classroom. I also like to use the little ditty the real estate agents give you about 'how to sell your house' Basically, make it look like no one lives there: neutral paints, nondescript decor, clean it all up, make it smell good.

Anyway, what you point to: this THIS is what it is all about; this is what, *ultimately* matters and why we should bother at all. I'm working on an article right now developing the argument that marxist theories need to be considered on the basis of whether or not they explain social change adequately on an ontological/epistemological level. I'll tell you more if'n you'd like. But don't worry I don't leave people out; I connect the abstract discussion w/ actual work done involving a community fight against a radioactive nuke dump

Oh and do tell me about what you were reading. An article? A list exchange?

Snit



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list