There is for me a fundamental truth in this position. With the particular kind of consciousness that we, as humans, have developed we should be arranging our social systems for the benefit of all humans. Rationalising a consistent unequal distribution is to place greater value on some rather than others that is not justified on a species-wide level.
While I see the truth of this position I am often thrown by the 19th century language that carries a greater burden of meaning today. It appears to exclude a concern for the energetic load that current production levels require and the harm that this does to our world. It did not of course have to concern itself with the explosion in the world population brought on by the modernisation of production and the extraction of resources on unprecedented scales.
I agree we must see the possibilities within the existing reality but I would really like to see a development of the Marxist approach to the huge challenges that await any form of social relations.
This is the first of your essays that I have read so apologies if you have written about this elsewhere!
I hate the term modern. It means nothing. Humans are just supposed to be not be PRODUCTIVE 🤮 Those are words created my horrible people to uphold feudalism/capitalism.
Lovely, but definitely euro-centric marxist and missing the fact this kind of society has existed for centuries prior to the eurotrash invasion of the the western hemisphere.
That would be interesting. I just did a skim of the Seven Interpretive Essays, it appears to be excellent support for my contention Indigenous cultures in the western hemisphere had very sophisticated and generally superior functional structures wrecked by eurotrash invasions.
There is for me a fundamental truth in this position. With the particular kind of consciousness that we, as humans, have developed we should be arranging our social systems for the benefit of all humans. Rationalising a consistent unequal distribution is to place greater value on some rather than others that is not justified on a species-wide level.
While I see the truth of this position I am often thrown by the 19th century language that carries a greater burden of meaning today. It appears to exclude a concern for the energetic load that current production levels require and the harm that this does to our world. It did not of course have to concern itself with the explosion in the world population brought on by the modernisation of production and the extraction of resources on unprecedented scales.
I agree we must see the possibilities within the existing reality but I would really like to see a development of the Marxist approach to the huge challenges that await any form of social relations.
This is the first of your essays that I have read so apologies if you have written about this elsewhere!
I hate the term modern. It means nothing. Humans are just supposed to be not be PRODUCTIVE 🤮 Those are words created my horrible people to uphold feudalism/capitalism.
Lovely, but definitely euro-centric marxist and missing the fact this kind of society has existed for centuries prior to the eurotrash invasion of the the western hemisphere.
hence the line to Mariátegui
Thanks for the reference, I was not aware of this writer.
i’ll see if i can swing an introduction to him this week
That would be interesting. I just did a skim of the Seven Interpretive Essays, it appears to be excellent support for my contention Indigenous cultures in the western hemisphere had very sophisticated and generally superior functional structures wrecked by eurotrash invasions.