Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >Taking a second look at Doug's questions, it seems that they are just
> >another version of the technological determinism of many 2d & 3d
> >international marxists. A _really_ vulgar marxism. Build the forces of
> >production and you can get to socialism in a rocking chair.
>
> Right. That's exactly what I said:
>
> >But how completely can you separate "technology, medicine,
> >knowledge, etc." from the modes of social organization - large-scale
> >enterprise, to name just one - that make it possible? And how can
> >you lift the bits you like from non- or precapitalist societies?
> >Isn't it fetishizing both technology and social organization to
> >treat them as so easily separable, even in thought?
>
> Maybe I'm just so vulgar that I can't see the vulgarity as clearly as
> you do. After all, I got a big childish kick out of the equine jism
> pie.
Actually, on third look it still does lool to be "exactly what you said." You ask a long rambling question, and the reader can only make wild guesses at the affirmative positions assumed as a basis for the question. And it seems to me the question you asked only makes sense on the assumptions of technological determinism. If the assumptions are different, explain them.
Carrol