[lbo-talk] quote

[Autoplectic]

On 5/8/05, Michael Dawson <mdawson at pdx.edu> wrote:
> > 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.

--------------------

YAWN.

I'm done w/this one..............