On 2/16/04 4:52 PM, in article ,
"Michel Boucher" > wrote:

> Bromo > wrote in
> :
>
>> On 2/16/04 9:58 AM, in article
>> , "Michel Boucher"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Marx argued that capitalism was not possible if people could not
>>> be constrained to work. This was the problem of most colonies
>>> where the natives could live freely off the land. Private
>>> ownership of all subsistence resources was capitalism's answer.
>>> Obviously, if only two hours a day of not particularly gruelling
>>> labour is necessary to produce subsistence level resources and
>>> that these resources are available without the obligation of
>>> binding agreements to work 12 hours to earn 6 hour's worth of
>>> wealth, then no one could be constrained to work for a pittance
>>> in unsanitary and unsafe conditions.
>>
>> Marx had an explanation for everything, didn't he?
>
> Actually, he was remarkably terse on many topics that have been
> widely attributed to him, and cogent on many topics that are ignored.

He had explanations for many things - some of which may have validity, some
of which has been largely discredited. For instance, the economic theory of
history may explain a few things, but is rather limited or be a stretch for
other things.

>> I don't buy
>> his explanations very much, because there was no capitalism to
>> speak of when the first farms were created
>
> Marx was writing about the 19th century. I think you will find that
> by that time mercantilism and its ******* child capitalism had
> already spread their oleaginous presence throughout the planet.
>
> Why do you think he spoke (once) of ownership of land as theft?

To support the hunter gatherer lifestyle?