Re: Beef and revolution in Central America

[dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx (Doug Henwood)]

At 9:08 AM 4/25/96, Brian Carnell wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Apr 1996 21:48:32 -0400, dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx (Doug Henwood)
>wrote:
>
>
>>You're such a bonehead, Brian. 1) Work is an essential part of being human;
>>abolishing it is both impossible and undesirable.
>
>Ah, so now you're not just a Marxist, but you're an essentialist as
>well?  Odd, since I thought most Marxists were into post-modernist
>interpretations...

Every word you write reveals what an ignoramus you are; Marxists and
post-modernists do overlap a bit here & there, but they also can be quite
hostile to each other. Try reading David Harvey or Ellen Wood on the
subject before unleashing another bit of your wisdom.

>anyway, if indeed work is an "essential" part of
>being human simply give me a good reason to believe it is.  I see
>nothing about work that makes it an essential part of being human.

If we don't work, we die. Some individuals may be able to live off the work
of others - the disabled have an excuse, while rentiers have none. But
aside from mean necessity, humans thrive on the creative transformation of
their environment. Work under capitalism is often deadening and dangerous,
which is an important reason many of us are Marxists.

>First, I'd like you to provide some evidence for the claim that
>several hundred years ago people worked shorter hours.

This is an incontrovertible historical fact. Early capitalist England had
to lengthen the workday by legal compulsion. For the historical numbers,
see Juliet Schor's The Overworked American.

>This is what I find most amusing about Marxist rhetoric.  Of course
>how much productivity increase relative to the U.S. did we see in
>Communist countries?  And of course ordinary workers hold an awful lot
>of that stock.  Plus the productivity increase benefitted everyone via
>lowered prices.
>
>But assume that 80 percent benefitted only the rich, and 20%
>benefitted the workers.  So what.  We've seen the lack of productivity
>under Communist systems, and if one has to reward stockholders,
>managers and creditors to get 20% of the gain of a large productivity
>increase, I'll take it.  Even with all of this exploitation, the
>average U.S. worker still has a much higher standard of living than
>any of these workers in the Communist countries (would *you* like to
>be a worker in China?)

I know your imagination is a bleak, impoverished place, but try this: the
USSR and the US are not the only two models for organizing human society.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---