Re: Mark Jones Still Among the living (was titled Wrong)

[Waistline2]

In a message dated 6/22/2004 6:18:36 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I of course reserve the right to revise and adjust anything I write > and admit faulty thinking. > > Peace > > Melvin P. How about Mark? Can he do that? Sabri Reply     I personally engaged Mark J. on every question I have written about when he was alive and was very vocal on the question of the question of the industrial bureaucracy. In fact he and some of his supporters call me a techno optimist . . . among other things. '   I am most certainly optimistic about technology and the material power of production in its evolution or I would still be a freaking slave.  Human kindness did not drive the abolition of slavery . . . according to Marx but a development in the technological regime or what in English is called the material power of production.     When Mark was amongst the living I wrote that he misses the most fundamental issue in human society which is man as a metabolic process before means of production arise. Mark J. had his point of view.   What I have written above is historically retrievable on Marxmail and the A-List.   I really understand the presentation of the question and on one level it is absurd . . . With the techno optimists  . . . meaning me . . . advocating the construction of a perpetual motion that creates more energy that is used to construct it.   This kind of response arise because the proponent somehow think that how we live is a more of less accurate reflection of human needs and then start screaming about sustainability, over population, riding bikes and other . . . independent ideas.   I merely ask to unravel the origin of needs and here you will partially resolve the energy issue immediately.   It is not a question of riding bikes and other not thought out ideas . . . but rather . . . where are you going in the first place? If you are going to work to reproduce the basis for you going to work, then perhaps this is worth looking at.   The bourgeois does not make automobiles for transportation. They make automobiles for profits.   Melvin P.