smooth

I finally found that discussion and I responded to you there. You paraphrased marx, and according to this, "I haven't read Marx in I don't know how long, and without context I'll have some fun with this." -- http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...97&postcount=8

You weren't sure of yourself that you were interpreting what he was writing about.
"We" never had a discussion on that, and you are the only who said Marx' theory is basically 'we are what we do, how we work' and you never mentioned anywhere in that post that it wasn't a 'true' evolutionary theory.

If's odd, he published his theory on the economy at the same time Darwin was publishing Origin. He wanted to dedicate it to Darwin, but didn't receive a warm welcome. A number of analogous points are in both works. I don't know how you conclude that it's not a true evolutionary theory, though, as you haven't articulated your reasoning on that.

I actually didnt' say in my first post that changing economies will change humans, that's Marx. But in the master's I just finallly finished I argued that perhaps the youth deviance I witnessed in my ethnography was due in part to the lack of economic opportunities and formal social structures. Beaurdieu (sp.), long after Marx and still trying to grapple with the tension between agency vs. structure, would write about habitus. Recently, Williams Julius Wilson speculated on the lack of habitus and its effects on urban black youth violence in chicago. there's actually a long trajectory of deviance research coming from chicago. In fact, my discipline has it's roots in what sociologists and criminologists refer to as the "chicago school." They drew correlations between human behavior (deviance, in particular) and the ecology they were developing within. And if you remember your biology, you might remember what biomes were. The program I'm in views that as too deterministic, at least it used to when it was founded, and emphasized the social ecology.

But basically, the only reason I brough marx up at all was to respond to someone's notion that we would have to change the way we think before we could enact any kind of economic change in this thread. So I posed that if Marx' theory of historical materialism was correct, and given the fact that we're changing economic relations right now, both globally and locally, then our relations to one another are going to change and result in new concepts about ourselves.

Some people can take historical materialism without the notion that we move in ever increasing steps of progress. I personally think he made a fundamental error in his logic there on the nature of progress due to his view on human beings (he being a product of a particular social context, himself). But then Weber thought we were progressing too, but toward rationality and beaucracy...which then it'd become more cyclical, as Michel would say All of them thought we were marching forward in a linear fashion. I'd say it's more wavish myself.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman