>I, and perhaps, Rob, am suggesting that in obscuring the form of
>labor (disguised as an an equal labor market exchange between capital and
>labor), capitalism also obscures the nature of work, changing it from a
>natural expression of humanity to a disutility. btw, I assert that the old
>fat guy agrees with this take--not that that is dispositive, or anything.
Yeah, what you said.
>What do you think? Is it important to argue that
>work-as-utility-not-to-mention-creativity is the natural state of humanity
>that
>can be returned to only by getting rid of capitalism? Or do you argue
>there is
>no such thing as a natural state, only that created by social relations (and
>perhaps assertions about natural states are diversions)? So replacing
>capitalism won't take us back to some essence, just on to something better.
>And what do make Marx's position to be on this question?
Assertions about natural states should be approached with caution - there being no human-historical state-of-nature if this be defined as an absence of human culture. But assertions that no natural predeliction pertains are equally to be approached with caution - we are, inter alia, natural beings.
>Yes. The tension between creativity and quantitative productivity plays out
>differently in different social systems, depending on the development of the
>
>> that doesn't
>> mean we can escape these references (they're necessary to any statement;
>> without them, any critique would be unintelligible for us), but it does
>> mean we should notice the mechanisms by which historical specificity is
>> re-asserted as human nature, naturalised through the figure of the
>> "non-social man".
>
>Right. I think that's what I said with reference to capitalism. Non-social
>man, that phony creation, hates work. He does a job to survive and for the
>money for "leisure" activities.
All fine in my book!
Cheers, Rob.