[A-List] Notes on Marx's Theory of Productivism in the Grundrisse.

[Waistline2 at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/15/02 1:14:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
markjones011 at tiscali.co.uk writes:

> From here, Marx seeks to peel out all the social forms arising in different
> historical modes of production. Thus the starting-point of Grundrisse is 
> not
> the Commodity (as in Capital I) but Production:
> 
> “The object before us, to begin with, material production.
> Individuals producing in Society -- hence socially determined individual
> production -- is, of course, the point of departure.” (p.83 Penguin 1973
> edn)
> 
> (to be continued)
> 
> Mark Jones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Well, it would seem that you have managed to raise very sharp theoretical 
points and points of departure, encountered by those how have adopted and use 
the methodology - standpoint, of Marx. 

I do hope this article evolves in the direction of explaining or articulating 
the law of population from Marx standpoint, in as much as this law has 
somehow gotten pass me as a theoretical modality. Between the years 1996 and 
1998, I did grapple with a wide range of literature on biological man or man 
before society emerges, using Engels fragment: The Part Played by Labor in 
the Transition From Ape to Man. This pursuit did lead to studying a body of 
"esoteric" literature, Summarian writings and much of the ancient/sacred 
writings for clues and also, examining the metabolic process called man or 
what has emerged in our discussion as the issue of "energy conversion." 

In as much of this period of mans evolution occurs before the emergence of 
"the mode of production in material life" - that is before the emergence of 
history and society, I have prettty much kept my general conclusions to 
myself, which was summarized in a series of five small books called Matrix 
logic. These small books were sent to several comrades who never commented on 
them ( one of them was Nelson Peery, author of "The Future Is Up To Us"). 
These books are my "Outline" and I no longer have the various versions of 
them because my computer crashed two years ago and everything was wiped out. 
If these writings ever surface again, I am sure I would disown them in the 
main but not in their underlying theoretical approach. 

You teeter on what I can only call the "law of consumption" and its emergence 
as a distinct field of science and a battle that I believe cannot be won at 
this historical juncture. You have directly challenged whom I called the 
"chemical scientists" (called the men of the "forbidden mysteries" in the 
Book of Enoch) with your righteous attack on the proponents of "energy 
conversion theory" and by doing so launches - open an era of attack, or the 
last major battle against the alchemist. 

Rally Comrades . . .The International Shall be the Human Race! 

Man is what he consumes and comes to consume. Consumption is not understood 
as a law system onto itself, which emerged before the mode of production in 
material life. I do hope you are careful and not run to far ahead, although I 
can no longer judge distance in the field of theoretical abstractions. Maybe 
what is being expressed is a unique historical moment when the masses begin 
to sense we are consuming our own life force and the alchemist must be slain. 


At any rate the battle can only be fought out in the political forms and not 
on the basis of the process. 


Shit.

P. Nivlem/Melvin P.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 3688 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20021215/6c7724ec/attachment.txt>