shag wrote:
>
> i reread what you responded and i see the short circuit. i couldn't quite
>> here's what *I* mean by homo oeconimus:
>
> the assumption is that, without ever having to think about my brother and
> his needs, i can be my brother's keeper simply by thinking about and
> attending to my own needs, desires, wants. adam's smith brewer does not
> brew beer because he loves humankind so and wants to fill them with beer.
> he brews beer in order to meet his needs -- whatever that might be, only he
> can know what those needs, desires, wants are.
What Marx called the "abstract -- isolated -- human individual exists in capitalism, and most if not all capitalist ideology stems from the premise that that individual is The Human Individual.
BUT BUT -- I am not convinced that your homo oeconimus has any social existence but is _purely_ a creature of ideology, existing only in thought.
I won't argue it, but I think you should considere the possibility.
Carrol