[lbo-talk] quote

[Michael Dawson]

> 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.

Gosh, Ian, this sure looks like an adversarial argument you're working on
here.

Either way, you're missing the point because you're missing the level of
analysis.  Marx wasn't making an observation of the sources of
individuality.  He was making a point about the strength of weak ties, the
changed and strengthened kind of social order, which happens regardless of
any individual's particular plans.  If Bill Gates doesn't use Microsoft to
maximize shareholders' returns, he's out, no matter who he is.  You're
trying to claim advancement over Marx, but you're comparing your apples to
his oranges.