|
In a message dated 6/22/2004 4:41:39 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Comment
The first sentence should read
"It gets deeper because Comrade MARK - an unyielding champion
against tyrants, advanced a specific proposition concerning what he called the
bureaucracy. "
One concept of democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the
Marxist presentation of the origin of "needs" and these needs appear as very
real commodities that serve as the basis of reproduction.
What exactly is being reproduced that serve as the sphere of
activity in which labor power is sold and purchased? In the realm of theoretical
Marxism this is called "mediation" - a word I personally hate, because it
explains nothing.
Everything is wrong in Comrade Mark J presentation of the
question of the underlying energy grid of a mode of production. Of course no one
can prove we are hitting the thermo dynamic barrier today because it is not
provable. On the other hand, anyone can on any given day prove that "something"
is going to happen tomorrow.
The underlying components of an energy grid that sustains a
mode of production is extremely important. How an energy infrastructure is
deployed in the production of material wherewithal deserves critical attention.
Here is where Mark J ran a foul. Consumption ideology and
"theory" runs rampant in the imperial centers and is no more than an effort to
protect the way of life of the more prosperous segments of classes in American
society. We do not have to trade in cars for bicycles.
Is not the question "where are you going in the first place?"
Or NEED.
If you need a car as individual transportation to go to work
to reproduce the infrastructure that produce cars as individual transportation,
then this is a property relations. Or what is the same . . . the
reproduction of a unique need created as the result of bourgeois property and
sitting at the basis of reproduction, as the basis of the bourgeois property
relations that proceed the unique need.
Well . . . actually the automobile is a produce of techology
and human invention. We are not talking about an abstract car in the real world
but a commodity who production . . . reproduces its own effect.
Yes, this is mediation in the Marxist sense but unless one
specifically defines what they are talking about . . . we are not talking about
anything.
It is not that society should ride bikes but rather . .
. where are you going if you are not going to work to produce commodities that
reproduce a host of social consequences.
We have arrived at a point in the material power of production
where a heck of a lot of people do not have to work as we have conceived work.
Technology has rendered their labor superfluous and we are still struck in old
categories and rotten bourgeois ideology.
The configuration of our society and earth itself is subject
to radcial change.
What we face is more intense than in the days of Marx.
It is not that the philosopher's have only conceived the world
and our task is to change it. We face another question.
In what direction do we change the world?
Everyone agree we need change because we are in a brewing
revolutionary crisis. The reactionaries know the purpose is to change the world.
Finding our place in history is more than a notion.
Melvin P.
|
