PEN-L
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

RE: neomercantilism, trade



Charles wrote:

<<<To answer in brief, there is significant anthropological evidence that in
hunting and gathering and gardening based societies there is not the
distinction between rich and poor we know, for example in indigenous
American societies. These societies did not have private property in the
sense I mean here. Unlimited acquisativeness is not "human nature" as
perhaps implied in one of your questions.

 On the other hand, capitalism especially has increased technological
development enormously, such that there is , well, a lot of stuff produced
shall we say.

Marx and Engels' idea was that a kind of combination of the old communalism
with the new level of technology would mean the "lots of stuff" distributed
without classes, without rich and poor, would mean no poverty or material
want in the sense that we mean poverty today. Everyone would be guranteed
all the material basics of living.

This does not mean that new problems would not emerge, such as global
warming or exhaustion of fossil fuels or issues we cannot anticipate now.
These problems would require new efforts, discoveries and solutions, but the
old problems of class societies would not be among the new ones.>>>

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

I am trying to think this through.  Let me summarize my understanding of the
discussion.  Your original argument was that the elimination of "private
property" would eliminate "material want."  There are several assumptions
here.  First, eliminating "private property" would result that all were
"guaranteed the material basics of living."  The next assumption is that if
we "guarantee the material basics of living," we will eliminate "material
want."  I assert, to the contrary, that "material want" is relative, and
that guaranteeing the material basics provides no assurance that
acquisitiveness will be eliminated.  You argue that we have evidence of
hunter-gatherer societies in which acquisitiveness is not a feature.  You
further argue that we can wed the consciousness of a hunter-gatherer society
to our modernized society.

Do I have this right?

David Shemano









Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]