+
From: f1221@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:44:07 +0900
At 1:52 PM 98.12.16, Unleesh@xxxxxxx wrote:
[...]
> I kinda got the notion that D&G were being "campy" when they used the
> "primitive, barbarian, capitalist" rubric ... Frankly, I don't see any basis
> for subsuming the experiences of noncivilized peoples around the world into
> any general type of "primitive" .. i don't see an anthropological basis for
> this ... what was the basis for their anthropology? certainly not Levi-
> Strauss, I hope, the armchair anthropologist who seemed more interested in
> generalizations than ethnographic empiricism ... i mean, when we use the word
> "primitive", do we mean nonState societies : precivilized agricultural,
> horticultural, pastoral, and hunting-gathering peoples? How the hell are you
> going to subsume all these people into one framework? And then the Barbarians
> refer to peasant societies, ie. civilized agriculturalists, along with their
> interactions with the Imperial Center and the nomadic pastoralists? (and let
> us not forget there is a huge difference between the nomadism of the
> pastoralists and the nomadism of hunter-gatherers).
>
> i would say it depends upon the particular society in question. i would say
> that some noncivilized cultures definitely did offer more flows than
> capitalism ... but again, we're going to have to be more precise to really do
> accurate schizoanalyses on these questions ...
Maybe an example of a >noncivilized culture< offering >more flows than
capitalism< would be helpful.
And, by the way, if you object to subsuming >precivilized agricultural,
horticultural, pastoral, and hunting-gathering peoples< into one framework,
do you think >capitalism< is always one and the same ? Or, to put the
question differently, United States = Germany = Japan ?
sY
-Yamazaki
