Unabomber is like, not cool and stuff.

Matt D. afn02065 at afn.org
Thu Oct 5 09:29:24 MDT 1995


Rakesh wrote:

>There is a section in the Unabomber's Manifesto where he argues that
>leftists often rebel in terms of what is normatively invalidated by the
>system--for example racism.  I think it is obvious that a critique of
>"technics out of control" is much more potentially revolutionary than one
>against racism.

You think this is "obvious"?!  I'll be damned.

>[snip]
> Or we can get on with the business of going to the roots--critiquing a
>technological system, oblivious to human need and happiness.  As I have
>already written, I fault the Unabomber for not investigating the
>relationship between the value-form and the autonomization of the forces of
>production ( see Postone on the trajectory of production) and for giving up
>on the working class as the agent of revolution (see Walter Daum).

It seems to me you're sliding through Habermas-land (technics/techniques =
instrumental rationality?) on your way to some sort of critique of the
"modern world" and all the "convergence/modernization" pseudo-theories that
entails.  It is the capitalist class that is oblivious to, or rather opposed
to, the human need and happiness of the rest of us.

Some paranoid lunatic rambling on for page after page does not constitute an
"argument" except perhaps in the most empty formalistic sense -- hence his
amenable reception (e.g. "Isn't there a little Unabomber in all of us?") by
the likes of Time magazine (see http://www.pathfinder.com).

If you want to "fault" the Unabomber for something, how about for blowing up
secretaries?

-- Matt D.



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list