> This is a fundamental Marxist point to me: the independent
> apparently isolated individual is a precipitate of an "ensemble of
> social relations". You seem to be saying "I disagree with M. because--
> I agree entirely with M's central point".
>
> Miles
-----------------------
To repeat: I'm disagreeing that the spontaneous interconnections of individuals happens independently of their knowing and willing which is what he asserts in the first sentence. The interconnections presuppose their interdependence... If everything in society happened independent of our knowing and willing society itself would be unintelligible to the individuals who create 'it' [confound the grammar of subject-predicate!].
The ways in which we know society affect society. There's no substantive evidence that people in KM's time thought of themselves as isolated monads, chances are the vast majority of them still thought of themselves as sons and daughters of god. See Castoriadis contra Engels as well as Arthur Ripstein's work for the skinny on agency, unintended consequences and narratives of description/self-description as I'm too lazy/chilling to scan in the relevant bits on a Sunday.
-- "C'mon Mr. Krinkle, tell me why" [Primus]