snitsnat wrote:
>
> At 06:45 PM 6/17/2005, Carrol Cox wrote:
> > Values are not inherent
> >in the nature of things, i.e., no metaphysical status _and_ no physical
> >status (as do atoms). They are social relations. But that does not make
> >them any less binding.
>
> do you honestly think that sociologists think they are anything but social
> relations. do you think a woman who has repeatedly talked about how
> property is a set of set relations that define for us how to act and treat
> people, things, and ideas is someone who holds a theory that values exist
> "out there" free of society.
>
> fuckmedead dead dead dead!
>
> now, where you'll get pissed is how the social interaction rituals which
> shape this social relation we call property is _thoroughly_ fucking laden
> with values.
We seem to need a distinction that had never occurred to me before: between social relations as they are conceived in my post and PERSONAL relations, labelled "social relations," in your post. Property is indeed a social relation, but you don't even touch on what that relation is; you merely describe the culture which legitimizes that relation. In fact, I think the habits and reactions you go on to describe would probably exist even in a social order in which property (by which, of course, I mean means of production) had been abolished.
Carrol