[PEN-L:730] Re: Re: Shotguns and machetes

["AK Sinha" <aks1v@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bodhistava,

I have read most of your posts on this thread simply because you
have courage to present what is a minority point of view on pen-l.

But I wonder, how can you separate forces of production from the
relations of production? I think forces of production are usually
dominated by the relations under which production takes place.
Thus capitalist technology is inalienabale from capitalist relations,
and the idea that we could build a non-exploitative society on the
basis of taylorism or Fordism (or for that matter, post Fordist
technology) seems to be a pipe dream, and the experience of East
Europe to some extent have shown what kind of contradiction
capitalist technology could engender when competition and profit
motive is removed from the system.

Secondly, It seems to me that you are using the capitalist
reasoning where, on the one hand, productive work is considered
'disutility' (given alienation at work), and on the other, social well
being or increase in the wealth of society  is identified with annual
flow of material goods (Adam Smith). Thus technical 'progress' is
good per say. But other cultures may not use the same capitalist
calculus for well being or what is good per say. So the question
ultimately boils down to respecting cultural differences when it
comes to economic calculus itself. In other words, I think there is
no such thing as an economic calculation independent of the mode
of production itself.

Cheers, ajit sinha


> 		C. Proyect,
>
>
> 	Your problem is that you live in a fantasy world.  When power
> companies dam waterways to create hydropower they are creating something
> that is quite simply more valuable than the fish.  It's an ugly reality,
> but there it is.  As for the drinking water, that is obviously preserved
> because modern people don't need to drink out of running streams to avoid
> intestinal parasites - we have water treament plants.  By the way,
> drinking out of a running stream doesn't really give you much protection
> from intestinal parasites either. I've tried to explain to you before that
> pure water doesn't come from nature, it comes from a filter.  For that
> matter, *fish* populations are not destroyed by dams, *migratory* fish
> population are destroyed by dams.  Reservoirs are generally pretty well
> filled with fish.
>
>
> 	I never implies for a second that indigenous people were savages.
> That is simply a lame canard.  What I said is that their mode of produciton
> is not viable.  That is absolutely true.
>
>
> 	First of all, I am all for people using rifles tohunt instead of
> spears if they want to, although it obviously gives them the capacity to
> dramatically over-hunt (and therefore, their economy is changed - Bing!
> is the light going on?). My point is, quite obviously, that hunting for a
> living is not a viable economic practice.  Commercial fishing is barely a
> viable practice these days.
>
>
> 	People are not "land-based" that is so much Social Darwinism.
> People are people and the Yanomami would be a fine and noble addition to
> the industrial proletariat. If they want a decent standard of living - and
> I guess they do - they will come to the same conclusion. If we all wasted
> time hunting for our dinners, there wouldn't be much time left to program
> computers, would there?  Hunting is a sport, not an economy.
>
>
> 	As I said, I'm all for protecting the Yanomami from racism and
> violence, but they are obviously going to get with the industrial program
> simply because PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN THE STONE AGE!  The question
> is how they are taken in to the larger society, on what terms and how they
> can be a positive force.  Their respect for nature is a positive force.
> You know what?  It's not going to slow down the advance of capitalism one
> little bit unless it is allied with a struggle to wrest the reigns of the
> industrial economy away from capitalists in order to put it in the hands
> of the industrial proletariat. The Yanomami are not forest creatures,
> they're people.  They want what we want.
>
>
>
>
>
> 	peace
>
>