Re: utopianism??

[Waistline2]

[was: RE: [PEN-L:29857] Re: Re: Re: "Russia turns to yuan"]
>>Shortage of oil? Not in this world. The shortage is in our vision and
>imagination.
>
>Melvin P.

<Louis P:>
Even under socialism, there would be dwindling supplies of oil just as
there are dwindling supplies of water. Unless Melvin's "vision and
imagination" includes serious and *measurable* proposals for how to
conserve energy, water, etc., we can't be taken seriously as an alternative
to the bourgeoisie. 125 years ago there was little difference between the
bourgeoisie and Marxism over how to relate to nature. It was seen as both
an unlimited tap for natural resources and a sink for industrial waste. We
can no longer think in these terms. Socialism must first and foremost
consider ways in which farming can be sustainable. This involves
reintegration of the city and the countryside, just as Marx calls for in
the CM.<


<when you advocate "measurable proposals," are you saying that we need to develop "recipes for the cook-shops of the future"? I thought you were against utopianism.>
------------------------
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
 


Comment


I was not comfortable with simply replying that capital is destroying species as an acknowledgment of the shortage of blue fish. What we perceive as the word "shortage" is in fact "the process of the destruction of society." There is not a shortage of Native Bands of peoples but rather what is taking place is their continuing destruction. This approach is rather abstract but needed.

Every question of the biosphere and man as the interactive ingredient is a question of destruction and reconstitution. There is no shortage of water on earth. There is a need for conservation because of the destruction of society and productive forces taking place. There is no shortage of oil but a need for conservation because of the destruction of society and productive forces taking place. Capital will not begin the construction of a new infrastructure because it is not yet profitable or utilize various forms of energy to drive the infrastructure. "If I cannot realize a profit, you can kiss my ass and die" is capitals theme.

I believe that the above is what our diverse peoples must be told. We are not facing shortages of anything but systematic destruction of society and everything that makes life worth living. The exception is vision and common sense.

Lou's point of departure is to seize this apparent destruction no matter how it is formulated and halt the destruction. This is a correct approach. Yet, we are forever condemned by history to not fully know the consequences of any given set of actions on future generations. What we do know is that the destruction of society and earth must be halted.

"Supply" is the form of human interaction with nature as - "need" that becomes dominated by economic logic. Ascertaining "need" is a political battle evolving on the basis of the material power of the productive forces. The earth by definition contains an abundance of everything man needs for societal reproduction. What is involved in this conception of actuality is vision and the estimate of distinct modes of accumulation defining junctures in our development and why this process takes place in a destructive manner. Why is man evil? Even the idea of development or progress is the arena of heated debate.

Here is what is being stated. There is no shortage of water on earth. The logic of our actual developmental process denied a vast segment of humanity access to clean water because it proceeded "on a certain basis" driven by a complex of "logic." The problem of man is always man but man is interactive and has been understood within Marxism, only as he eke out existence within definable social and economic relations. These definable social and economic relations present themselves as insurmountable obstacles demanding resolution for advancement and advancement is defined as the progressive accumulation of productive forces with an every increasing capacity to meet needs.

Even when a section of Marxist has fought for a broader vision of man the fight could not be won because of the demands for a militant class defiance/defense against a highly militarized world capital. "Your point is well taken comrade, but what we need are tanks to exist, not bluejeans."

This however carries us in an endless circle because "need" is understood on the basis of the material power of the productive forces without regard to the genesis of "need."  "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" has to be reconceptualized theoretically.

Here the historic criticism of Marxism as the science of society has been converted into - or rather, understood by the bourgeoisie as simply an economic doctrine, when in fact Marx sought to understand man and the conditions of social life that shapes his existence and thinking.

What could be called a Marxist approach to man without regard to the specificity of the mode of production or thinking and its ideological forms reduces itself immediately to biology or what would roughly be called a materialist conception of biology and biosphere interactivity. In the sense I previously called this the "science of assimilation," meaning the law system that governs harmonious assimilation. Stated another way the genesis of need springs from mans biology.

The rub is that biology is dominated by the ideological modes of discourse as inherited by the bourgeoisie and the very idea of "harmonious assimilation" is the arena of intense strife. Here is an example: We have been taught in our culture that man needs to drink eight to ten glasses of water a day but I do not submit to the premise of this assertion. The magnitude of water consumption by the individual is governed by what he consumes for sustenance, although a certain minimum is need for life itself. Drinking water is not simply to "refresh" the body but in our culture helps break down the impact on the individual biological unit of a mass of consumed substance that cannot be assimilated and must be passed from the system or death results. This process of consuming that, which cannot be assimilated as a culture has led to the creation of a massive sewage system to discard that, which cannot be assimilated and is called waste.

Water is channeled into meeting a distorted "need." This distorted need becomes a real need driven by consuming that, which cannot be assimilated or what bourgeois science call metabolized.  The picture becomes more crowded because what modern science calls biological metabolism by human beings is an incorrect notion akin to alchemy. The human body cannot metabolize - assimilate, non-organic molecules and on the basis of blood and digestive processes convert them into organic molecules. On earth only plant life - in the main, can perform such a feat - from non organic to organic molecules.

The point is that the genesis of need is being flushed into the open for everyone to slowly see and understand. This science of "biology needs" - at its genesis,  has in the main been limited to and contained in what is called the historic sacred text - depository of knowledge of law systems and in the legends handed down by various conquered peoples.  

We are not considering the incredible distortion in the material organization of the factors of production, which was conceived on the basis of consuming that which is not assimilatable and discarding waste, which is turn required channeling water into a system of usage driving destruction of the biosphere.

What's gives Coca Cola or Pepsi the right to own water purifying technology and it not be used for general human sustenance free of cost to the individual? What gives the Casino industry in Los Vegas the right to channeling water into the desert without regard to the needs of the individual and communities in that area?  Money and greed for money and power of capital is the answer - gluttony pure and simple. This gluttony cannot be fundamentally clarified and defeated without changing property relations. Yet, I have not forgotten the passion that drove me to Marxism in the first place. It is this passion against evil - man's evil, which is a material force.

A vast segment of the peoples of America believe in their right to have a Coke and a smile and do not have a vision of this technology wielded by Coke being used for the world peoples. There is not a shortage of water. What we are faced with is the destruction of society. Destruction of society, peoples and species cannot be linked with the word "shortage" because it lets the evil of man off the hook and under conditions where are various peoples are devoid of class concepts evil and the battle against all forms of evil is a mode of expression.

Today evil is driven on the basis of the capitalist mode of production. Here is why I rejected the concept of "shortage" because it blocks the vision of the fight against mutherfu-----ers that are in fact evil.

This is no utopian vision but rather based in an assessment of the genesis of need as it arose as a biological imperative, - that is during the transition from pre-man to modern man with means of production
.
In terms of the production of ideology and the manner in which our diverse peoples in America think things out, the battle for needs was hurled onto the earth with the expulsion of the Adam and his women - Eve, from the Garden of Eden and Adam becoming a tiller of the land. Adman's instruments of production were owned in common.

Man's evil - at its root, is that he consumes that which is not needed for life or the joy of happiness. This evil reproduces itself on the basis of the material power on production, but the material power of production does not create the evil, but rather reproduces evil in increasing complex forms. Some f-k possessing a billion dollars while people are hungry is evil and this our diverse peoples will understand because we have a common frame of reference of "human needs."

There are not shortages on earth but a process of destruction taking place.

>Socialism must first and foremost
>consider ways in which farming can be sustainable. This involves
>reintegration of the city and the countryside, just as Marx calls for in
>the CM.<


The reconfiguration of earth - in a destructive way, has been a lengthy historical process, which takes the form of the antagonism between the city and countryside, with the towns experiencing growth as the result of the ruin and destruction of the country. How this reintegration of the city and countryside takes place means removing the antagonistic character of the contradiction. The trajectory that is unfolding under the power of capital is that people who cannot no longer sell their labor power for sustenance are increasing being forced to the "country" and/or required to tend gardens for sustenance. This process is being flushed into the open in Argentina and is taking place within the context of a revolution in biogenetics.
My point is that our vision is still bounded/bonded by an industrial phase of development and science.  


>Even under socialism, there would be dwindling supplies of oil just as
>there are dwindling supplies of water. Unless Melvin's "vision and
>imagination" includes serious and *measurable* proposals for how to
>conserve energy, water, etc., we can't be taken seriously as an alternative
>to the bourgeoisie.


Given our transition to a new mode of production I would reformulate the above to speak of the industrial epoch of society as opposed to the category of capital and socialism. Measurable proposals for conserving - say water,  is a political question in its presentation. At its root the question is posed different and deal with man and consumption. The major bottling companies for Coke, Pepsi, etc., should be compelled by law and the threat of jail or worse to begin massive purification projects. There is no shortage of water on earth.

Population centers have been reconfigured on the basis of the historical development of capital. This makes it appear as if there is a shortage instead of the destruction of society. Linking the question with industrial socialism or rather public property relations in the industrial infrastructure means that man is the problem, but does not carry us to the problem that can be identified at the root of man.

The Soviet militarized industrial infrastructure evolved on the basis the technology of the capital phase of development and industrial man. The infrastructure was militarized to protect the property relations of its markets. Nevertheless, industrial man is a commodified being who consumes that, which cannot be assimilated. Consuming that, which cannot be assimilated into the body of man causes a breach in the biological integrity, which expresses itself in cognitive functioning as a separation between "knowing" and "doing" or as the apparent rupture between what appears as man and his destructive behavior in environment.

It is true that there existed a commonality in approach to science between the industrial warriors of capital and socialism. Why? It is true that the Soviets inherited the technical factors of production from capital. Something else is also true.
The ideology and vision of industrial man is not bounded by property relations but rather the industrial process or mechanical logic, that is not recognized as mechanical logic because a phase of development has to be exhausted or near completion to give rise to a new mass vision. The root/rot of man cannot be ascertained as a mass vision until the antagonism between town and country reaches the last decisive stage of resolution and society is in transition to a new mode of production. Transition to a new mode of production of course means the use of measurable proposals to restore balance while "balance" is being redefined.
We are currently living the days of prophecy and vision.

Lou's description of the fishing industry and its destruction of life and the enormous waste it produces - 27 millions tons a year consumed as waste, was brilliant and outlines what is rotten in man. This rot is driven by a mode of accumulation but not caused or has its genesis in instruments of production or modes of accumulation.

We need a new law that says that any man or corporation that accumulates more than it can assimilate shall have its accumulations subjected to expropriation.
How much can you eat is really a class question? How many houses do you want is really a class question? How many cars can you drive and maintain is really a class question? There is no shortage of anything but destruction of society and the refusal of the ruling class and its government to care of humanity because they are gluttons we call capitalist.


Such are the theoretical underpinnings of my opposition to the conception of a "shortage" - man/women as a biological unit. In my opinion this is the bottom line and not money - which is only a mode of accumulation.

We need a new law that says that no amount of money can own means of production. Then we shall begin the battle against gluttony and with it evil. We are approaching a point in time where we can battle our way into history.

Melvin P.

PS. Lou, I do agree with your refusal to endless debate "workers self-management" and abstract notions of democracy devoid of our specific stage of production and management technique. The demand for you to produce a "utopian model" is the antithesis of real democracy. Any model produced is inherently limited and outdated the moment it is embraced by the masses. Those with vision "see" the process after it emerged and then the masses fight to implement the vision, which means the moment, has passed. Is this not the limitation of being physical matter? By the time you figure it out the moment has passed.