As i read marx, he viewed capitalism as a progressive force that abolishes old cultural vestiges. From that point of view, pre-capitalist cultural forms are impediment to progress. Where Marx and bourgeois political economy parted company was the future - bourgeois pundists saw capitalism as th eend of history, Marx did not.
>From taht point of view, yes, cultural resistance to capitalist innovation
and the preservation (in various ways) of pre-capitalist social-cultural
instituions is generally a bad thing - Eastern European development with
its informal 'shadow' economy (a verstige of pre-industrial social
instituions) is a good case in point.
Unlike the multi-culti crowd that cherish cultural differences (in the way they cherish exotic animals in a zoo) - I do not see "indigenous culture" as a sacred cow - if anything, it is the "noble savage"/ "golden communitarian past" crap peddled by the right.
>moreover, there are ways of explaining poverty that have little to do with
>those who are impoverished. that you want to locate explanations of poverty
>_in_ those who are impoverished, and whether this explanation proceeds
>through biological or culturalist definitions makes little difference here,
>then you explicitly reverse the order of explanation which is central to any
>leftist, let alone marxist, understanding of poverty and inequality.
Angela, with all due respect, I think this distinction is but a pc crap - moralising instead of explanation. The only use of the distintion in/out those who are impoverished comes when one is very conscious about blaming a "proper" social group. Otherwise, the distinction makes little sense, as it creates a serious difficulty in explaining the reproduction of capitalist exploitation without the evidence of any explict coercion. If the workers are not forced to the satanic mills at gunpoints or by the threat of starvation - then how do we explain what amounts to their willingness to participate in the reporduction of their own oppression - if not their own cooperation. An if they cooperate, in a way, in their own exploitation - we need to explain whac causes them to do so (absent the use of force) - social-cultural institutions come very handy in that explanation. Burawoy in his _Manufacturing Consent_ makes a good case for that.
wojtek
PS. I plead ignorance to what originated this thread - I do not have much time lately to watch internet debates (reality calls) - so I apologize for jumping into the middle of a discussion.