See Martha Gimenez, "Marxism, Human Nature, and Social Change," Review of Sean Sayers, *Marxism and Human Nature* (London: Routledge, 1998), MR, December, 1999.
rc-am wrote:
> we had some of this discussion as i recall some time back on whether or not
> marx had a physiological definition of labour.
I must have missed that thread.
Do you mean someone claimed that if we x-rayed a woman pulling on a cord we could tell whether she was doing it for fun or as a factory job for pay? Or did we have to measure her metabolism?
Wow!
Carrol
P.S. You really can't argue with someone who can identify his most casual daily impulses as "instinct" and hence representative of human (even *male*) nature.