mhese at mail.hh.provi.de
Fri Jun 9 00:00:00 MDT 1995
>I don't know what the expression "good/bad exploitation" means.
The questions has been discussed earlier, whether exploitation is good or bad.
>> >>I think an answer can be best derived from historical materialism.
>> >>A society, which doesn`t serve the overall need of the mankind will
>> >>according to Marx and Engels (ME) die upon their inherent contradictions.
>> >>These contradictions are economical and may be covered by ideology for some
>> >>time. But sooner or later they show up and, with the help of a
>> >>class, will be solved by formating a new society. Thus ME are humanists
>> >>a strong portion of optimism. Humanists because they argue with "the
>> >>all mankind" and not nature, religous categories ... .Optimistists because
>> >>think, that - broadly spoken - "the best will win".
>I think that the above is a far more simplistic expression of the meaning
>of historical materialism than I have given. "The best will win" sound
>like pure romanticism to me.
Is complexity a value in itself or a special ingredient necessary for
marxist thinking ?
What concrete is wrong with this "simplistic" description ?
Does the historical materialsm not describe a progress in history in the
sense that living circumstances are becoming better ?
What is your point against my argument, that historical materialsm is
humanistic and optimistic ?
In Germany there is a qoute: not to see the wood because of the many trees
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism