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

[sartesian]

I hate to be such a nit-picker and continue to insist on actually comparing what a well respected man said to the facts, but...   Mark Jones stated that Bush was bluffing and would never invade Iraq.       ----- Original Message ----- From: soula avramidis To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Mark Jones Still Among the living (was titled Wrong)   The pursuit of profits allocates resources to private as opposed to social needs. the debate should have occurred at a more adequate level, for it should not be between doomsdayers and techno optimist because both options are unrealistic. if the profit motive is to continue to allocate resources in the way it does there is at least ideologically more solid grounds for pessimists to stand on. oil for profits means at least for the time being a continuation of the ecological catastrophe in which we live.  but in that I see also the ideological stance and I do not want to mix between theory and ideology or the timely ideas that serve my interest as a social class or underdeveloped nation coming under consistent attack because of oil or other raw material. on that score the scare mongering of mark Jones "oil is running out bit" does wonders to the cause.. as you may recall many said that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil and tried to minimise the relevance of oil.. oil is relevant and it runs out. that is why the mark-oil story was  timely.. hubbert's new peak was timely for purely ideological reasons.. as to theory much of theory explains nothing as in the concept of 'mediation' but without that one has less than nothing.   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!