Well that says it all, don't it? Your antiquarian, eurocentric nickers are showing........
I don't think he had the techne required to build the
> Parthenon though. You don't say enough about these "proletarians" to
> indicate whether they do.
======================
Who built the Pyramids yaddah yaddah yaddah........Do you really think the know-how for creative transformations of nature was even more concentrated amongst elites way back then than it is now?
You do say enough, though, to demonstrate
> that you don't understand what Marx means by the "complete emptiness"
> of the "fully developed proletariat".
========================
As I never intended to make any exegetical comments on KM's terminology directly, how can you even make such an inferential leap, and perhaps more importantly, what/who gives you the authority to determine whether or not I'm capable of critical interpretation[s] of various aspects of KM's anthropology? You can no more control the interpretations of KM than you, me or the Federal Reserve can control the money supply............
>
> The quotes around "idea" are meant to point to the Hegel/Marx idea of
> humanity as the being with the potential to become a "universally
> developed individual", the idea I've just again been elaborating. This
> isn't the only one. It's different from yours for example.
>
> Ted
================================
Compressing the lives of 6 billion -currently living- persons into the term *humanity* as *universally developed individual* is an EXTREMELY problematic narrative/explanatory project, grammatical problems aside a la Wittgenstein. Why is it whenever you bring that issue up all I can think of as an example is the Borg from Star Trek?
Ian