>Yes, but aren't you forgetting something? The old man also held that
>we live under a mode of production that is based upon alienated
>rather than self-fulfilling activity. We are suspended between the
>poles of possessing rather than enjoying and consuming passively
>rather than creating. This dilemma can't be solved primarily on an
>individual basis, i.e. through a choice of lifesyle. It requires a
>collective i.e. revolutionary political solution, which may just
>involve a little self-sacrifice, and perhaps a conflict between the
>necessities of such action and individual enjoyment and success. The
>old man, whose radicalism cost him an academic appointment when he
>was a young man, who lived much of his life in semi-slums with
>creditors beating down his door, who had beg and borrow constantly
>to stay afloat, was painfully aware of the problem.
No shit. Really?
I mean how clear do you have to make stuff? Do I have to open every post with a catechistic recitation of first principles? This is the kind of thing that gives Marxism a bad name.
Doug