[lit-ideas] Re: Marx and Freud's validity only as 'limiting case' Darwinism (was: Re: Guess - Answer
- From: "veronica caley" <molleo1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:19:08 -0400
"Or it could be that people don't give up their prejudices easily,"
Yes, like the one about Marx being totally wrong. As a matter of fact,
about some things, he was totally correct. Namely, that when men's labor
became too expensive, then a capitalist needs to go to women and children. In
this country, many immigrant children work with their parents.
Until child labor laws were passed, it was common even more common.
Women in this country usually make less than men. But still, wages aren't low
enough. So two more steps are necessary. One is mechanization, the other is
to take work over seas for cheaper labor, no environmental laws, etc.
I recently watched while they were demonstrating on TV how Japanese are
developing robots to care for the elderly.
In the meanwhile, one might get through a whole day and never speak to
another being, except perhaps by computer, as we are doing. ATM, self check
out at grocery store is the next step. Outsource labor to the consumers.
Veronica
----- Original Message -----
From: Andy
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 1:54 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Marx and Freud's validity only as 'limiting case'
Darwinism (was: Re: Guess - Answer
Or it could be that people don't give up their prejudices easily, if at
all, and will make a case no matter what the evidence. The unexamined life is
well worth living for probably most people. Reality can be such bother.
Still, gotta read the book...
--- On Mon, 8/3/09, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Marx and Freud's validity only as 'limiting
case' Darwinism (was: Re: Guess - Answer
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 4:49 PM
--- On Mon, 3/8/09, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As an undergraduate, I took a course on sources of 20th
> century thought that focused on Marx, Darwin and Freud.
Interesting combo of figures and to me they give rise to the
following question: to what extent is all that is valid or important in Marxist
and Freudian thought encompassed and put on a better intellectual/theoretical
footing by neo-Darwinism?
It seems to me that it can be argued that the answer is 'to every
extent'. Let's say I'll take this initial position for the sake of argument,
and that challenges are welcomed.
(Speaking of anecdotage, years ago when I ran this up the flagpole
with a friend from college, she replied that her old tutor, Prof. Sir Terrence
of Eagelton, used to say the same thing.)
On a sidenote, Andy might want to read "The Red Prussian" to see the
case for the prosecution against Marx (e.g. he was an selfish egoist who
actually saw the working class principally as a means to his own advancement).
Donal
Conscientous Objector To The Class War
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
