>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.
I'll try it in a short, nonrambling sentence or two. Is it possible for a simple society to produce complicated technology? Can you make a computer chip without large universities, large states, and large enterprises?
I'm not sure what that kind of question has to do with building the rocking chair that will take us to socialism, so perhaps you can explain that.
Doug