Re: M-TH: Virus hoaxes and the health of capitalism

[Michael Pugliese]

Oh Podwell, why not call Doug, Deadwood like you usually do?
And on viruses, my sympathy, but the resources, Doug and I forwarded (the
CIAC page and and the about.com page on Urban legends and computer viruses)
should be consulted, before you or anyone else sends out a bogus computer
virus alert!!! ("Danger Will Robinson, Danger!!!) the next time.
                                    Michael
a/k/a "petty-bourgeois empiricist" along with Doug.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hugh Rodwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 12:25 AM
Subject: M-TH: Virus hoaxes and the health of capitalism


> Headwood wrote:
>
> >Congrats, Hugh! You've fallen for two hoaxes in one message (and I'm
> >not even counting the death agony of capitalism.
> >
> >If you don't believe me (and why should you?) check out
> ><http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/wobbler-hoax.html> and
> ><http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/perrin.exe.hoax.html
>
>
> Big deal.
>
> Viruses are real, and a friend of mine has just had a real fucker putting
> her computer (PC of course) out of action for two weeks and thwarting the
> best efforts of a computer  professional neighbour to put it to rights.
>
> Lots of us have been screwed by Word macro viruses.
>
> If the warning is fake, no harm done -- it might even help by raising
> alertness. If it's not, then it's worth getting the news out fast.
>
> And once more Doug seems to be telling us Capitalism's never been
healthier.
>
> All that happened was that Dracula got a little fresh blood during the
> Asian/Russian/Latin American crisis.
>
> Or is dear old Basilisk-Eyes, Mr Hardhead Critical Observer telling us
that
> the present speculative bubble is not hot air and bloated credit this
time??
>
> Seems to me he's confusing units of capital (ie financial conglomerates,
> the multinationals) which are surviving and thus expanding -- capital must
> expand to stay alive -- with capitalism as a social system, a mode of
> production. But then, he never was a Marxist, so what's new?
>
> And disagreeing with someone's perspective and political principles (or
> lack of them in this case) has got nothing to do with "believing". If Doug
> makes an empirical claim about a virus, why shouldn't I believe him? I
> mean, the whole of his bloody book is a chain of empirical claims. Facts,
> facts, facts! Mr Gradgrind would be very proud of him. Trouble is, it
> explains fuck all about capitalism, what it's doing and where it's
heading.
>
> Except to lull us into thinking that it's never been stronger, of course,
> and that our best political hope is a weaker capitalism with a kinder,
> gentler regime. Maybe Doug should run for president.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hugh
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---




     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---