>>CB: To me it's an inference. Capitalism is a mode of production from , for example, "The wealth of the nations in which the CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION PREVAILS...". And he defines capitalism by labor power as a commodity, or the wagelabor-capital relationship. The latter relationship is a property relation.<<
WL: I am actually smiling because you basically state that defining the mode of production as a set of property relations is AN INFERENCE. However, he who does not accept your particular understanding of this INFERENCE is outside '"THE MARXIST" definition as you understand it. Well, some things in life are self evident and man today lives as the result of a shape of re/production, with the property relations within. Thanks for the material from the Communist Manifesto, which I read and have read perhaps 300 times and make it a point to read as a way of life. This of course does not prove your Marxist definition of the mode of production as a set of property relations, which you state is only an inference. Nor are you required to prove an inference . . . by definition. I agree . . . I am definitely outside "the Marxists" and have no desire to join this particular interpretation of an inference. Hey . . . just having a little fun. You ask for evidence of my thesis which I will present. You ask for answers to 13 other question which I presented. You ask for evidence of the Malthusian essence of many questions concerning population growth and the carrying capacity of the earth and I presented why I believe these presentations fail to understand the property relations and the origin of need as a condition, precondition and result of the bourgeois mode of production. You ask for proof - validation, of my concept of blood and anemia and I gave the phone number and product information to solve - cure, the anemia associated with sickle cell anemia. I can prove to any sickle cell sufferer that the shape of the cell does not cause the anemia by purifying the blood rather than seeking to change the shape of the cell. The point is approach and the concept of fundamentality. What is fundamental in a distinct process, since all of reality is a complex web of interactions? I have a question for you? Please answers the 13 question you asked others or make comment. I have a particular interest in how you understand the working class and the meaning of the concept proletariat. There is another issue involved concerning the language of Marx and its English rendering. What is the full name of Marx Capital Volume 1? Is the concept "the process of capitalist production" or "the shape of production on the basis of bourgeois property relations?" This is just an inference. >>>Over the weekend, I ran into a running buddy of yours at the Workers World forum. His name is Abdul. Also, Nelson Peery spoke at the reopening of the Midwest Labor Library and forum on the National Negro Labor Council. Peery said that it was Paul Robeson, not Stokeley Carmicheal who coined "Black Power" << WL: Yea . . . Abdul has some extraordinary experience from the prison sense and is perhaps the most authoritative person I personally know to describe the internal evolution of prison relations and the various social groups and their role. I was either 15 or 16 when I first met Abdul and will be 53 this year. I missed him much when he went to prison. He is extraordinary healthy or was such when I last saw him. He has a vision about how we can live under extreme conditions and a working knowledge of properties and the metabolic process of man - eating. Nelson is the man and his book "The Future Is Up To Us" is extraordinary. His ability to speak directly to the workers in a coherent communist fashion is extraordinary. Yea . . . Nelson was our direct link with the history of the CPUSA as flesh, although many of us grew up in the old CPUSA's bookstore and frequenting Debs Hall and hanging out or in contact with old anarchist like Freddie Perlman. I even hung out will some of the more active folks in IS - International Socialists, who were active combatants in our Local Union. What unites us is activty not the idea in ones head. This is not to imply you stated otherwise or behave otherwise. I trust Nelson's vision and articulation of our history. Not on face value but after about 30 years of validating things for myself. I did not understand the concept of the "new proletatiat" when it was first advanced - almost 15 years ago, but was very clear that I was second generation auto worker and most certainly not of the lowest strat of the working class called the poverty stricken proletatiat. By 2030 no one will debate the character and shape of the proletariat or the impact of a qualitatively different technological regime. The projections are frightening. Image China with as many cars on the road as in the American Union. Today I do not live from sell my labor power and there are many millions of people like me who are not members of the capitalist class or regarded as bourgeoisie in our material relations. Really. My basic pension and medical is more than what 70% of the people make in Texas working 60 hours a week. My brother's pension will be twice the size of mine, but then again he is at the apex of the industrial union structure. None of this includes the 401(K). I believe that the "Marxist" in our history have basically been political syndicalist and fundamentally wrong in their strategic vision of the social revolution of the proletariat - not an abstract working class. There is a material difference between the working class in general and the proletariat, although we use these concepts in a flexible manner. Depends on the context of the sentence and what one is actually talking about. Peace. Waistline _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
