Re: Malthus/Thanksgiving

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 11/27/03 3:13:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, lnp3@xxxxxxxxx
writes:

Melvin, neither I nor Mark Jones when was alive were "Malthusian", neo or
otherwise. Karl Marx was keenly aware of ecological limits. In his age the
crisis revolved around soil fertility. Soil exhaustion had become so
generalized in Europe that scavengers would go out into the battlefields
during the Napoleonic wars and gather up the bones of dead soldiers to turn
into fertilizer. Great Britain became involved in "guano wars" in Peru and
Ecuador in order to guarantee a supply of fertilizer.

Marx believed that this crisis was related to a "metabolic rift" that had
been identified by soil chemist Justus von Liebig.


Reply

The issue is not sustainability or soil erosion which is the result of that,
which is the actual issue. Property is involved because it reproduces that
which is in fact the bottom line issue.

In the article, which was called a draft when sent to the A-List in a more
polished version, indicating the metabolic rift - without quotes. This metablic
rift is identified and approached from several directions, consistent with the
original article presented under the heading - "too many humans." Generally -
as a rule, the same article sent to the A- list is nore developed than the
one sent elsewhere. This response will be more developed when sent to the
A-list, because their is a history of material on the metabolic process.

What was pin pointed was:

1. the capacity and the impulse called "eating anything edible." What was
examined was the impact of "eating anything edible" under conditions where the
mode of production in material life has not risen. There is no class, or classes
or class struggle. The basis of this approach was riveted to the writings of
Professor Arnold Ehert and placed within the context of the historic scarcity
faced by our species.

Actually, Engels use this formulation - "eating anything edible," in his
outline called "The Role of Labor in the Transition From Ape to Man." IMO, Engels
is historically obsolete - incorrect, concerning the role of fire and meat
eating. My contention is that there does not exist a spontaneous biological
impulse for human to eat meat. Primitive women nose - literally, will not allow for
the eating of flesh. Rather, the culture of meat eating arises in response to
scarcity of vegetation and fruits - a shortage of alkalinity. Here is the
origin and basis of the metabolic rift before the family arises. How this initial
metabolic rift has played itself out throughout all of history is a work in
progress, and provides the basis to reorder our materialist approach to man,
beginning with women.

2. Capitalism in agriculture is a process. Production for production sake is
inherently destructive to the earth. The evolution of the value form, or what
is the same - the commodity form of products, continuously produces and
reproduces the culture that arises from the initial metabolic rift - without
quotation.

The environmentalists - as a general category, confront the impact of society
destruction as a question of equilibrium composed of women and nature without
a materialist approach to species in my opinion. Agricultural production on
the basis of the value producing system contains its own inherent evil as a
property relations and as the reproduction of the metabolic rift, whose
appearance in human history is signaled by meat eating as a culture.

3. Several concepts were challenged in the draft. The concept of
sustainability was challenged. What is to be sustained is the bourgeois property relations
as it reproduces the initial metabolic rift. The "law of population" was
approached from the standpoint of the initial metabolic rift. As opposed to simply
pointing out the open sewers in Europe during the early curve of industrial
development a different approach was deployed. One thrust their hand into the
sewer, removes the feces and urine and examine its components from the
standpoint that begins with the acknowledgment of the metabolic rift that emerged as
the prelude to history development.

This feces is not the result of the metabolic process although it appears as
such. The feces - deadly entropic discharge, is the result of the inability to
metabolize. In other words what is called the metabolic process and the
metabolic rift is reconceptualized by stating - in a definitive manner, that the
feces we are examining is proof of the inability to metabolize. Metabolize is
defined - in the context of eating everything edible, as that, which can cleanse
or combine with cell structure.

The deadly entropic discharge of industrial society is understood and framed
as feces and in an earlier article for the A-List, called the garbage of
bourgeois society and property relations. The origin of this entropic discharage -
garbage, is not an abstract product of development, but tracable to the
initial metabloic rift within the environment that is not man + nature, but rather
the environment that is/within women.

Yes, industrial society contains its own logic as a configuration of human
society with distinct tools, machinery, social organization, energy
infrastructure and relationship between "town and country," or what is roughly the same -
roughly, vegetation production - as a property relations, and non-vegatation
production of everything that is edible.

The reproduction of the initial metabolic rift is tightly fused to the
evolution of property.

4. The conception called the "carrying capacity of the earth" and entropic
disharmony is predicated on some abstract mathematical model that is absent an
awareness of the existence of the emergence of the initial metabolic rift - the
fight to control and overcome scarcity, that sets the basis for the emergence
of history.

On this basis it was very clearly stated that comrade Mark drifted -
inadvertently, into Neo Malthusian ideology. Mark was a Marxist. "To drift -
inadvertently" is no crime.

"I" - personally drifted, inadvertently into Neo Matlthusian ideology, by not
clearly pointing out the bourgeois character of the conception of the
carrying capacity of the earth and the entropic trap - metabolism and discharge, as
clever propaganda for extermination of people.

My drift -  inadvertently into Neo Matlthusian ideology, is the result of not
militantly deploying the approach - consolidated more than a decade ago, that
led to the formulation of the emergence of a communist class, why the basic
classes of a social system are not free to overthrow it and hence, the
objective basis for movements to reformulate the system. Why the anarcho syndicalist
constituted what we have basically called the Marxist movement in America - as
the curve of development of the industrial system, is our historical error, as
opposed to the struggle between the personalities of the Russian Revolution
is an understanding based on a specific approach.

I labeled myself - IMO, as the one that committed the gravest drift -
inadvertently into Neo Malthusian ideology and then explained why.

5. Starting with the metabolic rift - eating and what one eats set the basis
to solve a number of theory questions, including sexuality before the
emergence of the mode of production or a division of labor. Starting from the
existence of a communist society - based on this stage of development, means the
reemergence of human sexuality and concepts such as homosexuality lose their force
and have no meaning.

One is really talking about the emergence of a different kind of human being
under conditions where history is no longer driven on the basis of the mode of
production and the property relations within, or as it has been called, the
class struggle. One is talking about healing the metabolic rift and how in
history it has literally given flavor and taste to evolution. Human sexuality
remerges at an infinitely higher level and this has absolutely nothing whatsoever
to do with someone opinion about this juncture in the political history of
America.

Pardon my Stalinist formulations.

IMO, the theory mistake has been one so simply that it takes a lifetime to
figure out. We presuppose the existence of human beings as the condition for
history but forgot to look at what man/women consumes - eat, before the mode of
production arises. We say that history is "the history of class struggle" but
what is history one thousand years after classes as an antagonistic feature of
society movement and development has passed from history itself?

How can one best describe the approach being deployed? IMO, it is the wrong
approach to examine the sewer system of the early industrial process. One has
to examine the feces, under what conditions - culture, it is produced and how
this in turn shapes the configuration of the sewer system as it evolves on the
basis - within the framework, of a definable mode of production with the
property relations within.

Not  deploying this approach is the basis of the drift - inadvertently into
Neo Matlthusian ideology.

Everyone drifts and wavers because we are human. Then again this is probably
a Stalinist approach. Pardon my drift.