and then kindly say whether or not they have an independent productiveness (even though they can co-operate with humans and humans can co-operate with them just as other independent producers (humans ) co-operate with other humans and with productive capital).
I think that's a strange way to put it: "even though [dams and lorries] *can* co-operate with humans..." (emphasis added). The obvious question is, "can they refuse to cooperate with humans and still be productive?" IOW, can they be "independently" productive? Can the lorry drive itself? Can you attribute to inert matter a "productiveness" that only appears when it is intentionally utilized by man and still call that productivity "independent"?
The strangeness of the language continues (and it is but one sentence packed with what seems to me to be so much strangeness) when you seem to equate these "independently productive" lories with "other" independent producers, i.e., "humans." There some to be a strange confusion of the man and the machine; you seem to have animated the inanimate, and mechanized the man, a sort of Binary version of the Terminator.
I have little doubt of the sincere desire of the binarians to liberate man, but I little think you will accomplish that my treating him (even rhetorically) like a machine.
John C. M�daille www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm
Amor ipse notitia est.
==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^================================================================
