Marx, on the other hand, has *some* passages that are rife with that sort of analysis. But it's not because he draws a straight line. it's that he was so freakin attached to aristotle, he never shook himself free of Aristotle's Physus.
At 04:27 PM 4/22/2010, Alan Rudy wrote:
>well said.
>
>
>On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem with the catastrophists isn't that they are wrong about
> > immiseration leading to revolution. It's that they think you can draw
> > a straight, consistent, ahistoric line between "objective" economic
> > conditions and "subjective" revolutionary transformation. As if
> > history is ruled by necessity and progress. Most counterarguments,
> > however, do nothing but reverse the polarity, thinking that high
> > levels of prosperity and equality are the requisites for socialism. As
> > far as I know, neither side can predict the future, but both seem to
> > insist that the "objective" is determinative.
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
>--
>*********************************************************
>Alan P. Rudy
>Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
>Central Michigan University
>124 Anspach Hall
>Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
>517-881-6319
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)