Unabomber is like, not cool and stuff.

Matt D. afn02065 at afn.org
Thu Oct 5 14:22:01 MDT 1995

Rakesh wrote:

>I have never once spoken in favor of the Unabomber's terrorism against
>innocent people.  Like Tim Wohlforth, I am interested in Unabomber as

Yes, and I am saying that to view the "Unabomber as [a] Thinker" (capital T
no less!) is ludicrous.  Are you saying there are new or exciting ideas in
the so-called manifesto?  If so, I would be curious to know what you think
they are.  Particularly in the realm of environmentalism/anti-technology,
whatever, what does Mr. Bomber (may I address him as Una?) have, other than
a lack of compunction about random murder, that, say, Jeremy Rifkin doesn't
have?  Or that Earth Firster -- Dave something?  Of the AIDS comment infamy?
In fact, I'll say that there is _absolutely nothing_ in the narcissistic
rant known as Una's "Manifesto" that hasn't been said before, more
coherently, by Earth First.

>Matt, that minorities often focus on the fight against racism is the
>greatest proof of racism.  If we are Marxists at all, we must think that
>control over the nature and direction of production is paramount.

Yes, but what does this have to do with what you called "a critique of
'technics out of control.'"  Isn't the fact that technology is _under the
control of the capitalists_ the problem?  _Not_ technology or technics(?) as

>Also, capital is not just a social relation; it is a social relation
>materialized in the actual organization of production, and we can do no
>better than Marx's own critique of the very labor process.  For him, the
>liberation of humanity clearly required liberation from the very act of
>proletarian labor. Emancipation requires more than a change in the
>ownership of the means of production.

Be that as it may, emancipation certainly requires _at least_ a change in
ownership of the means of production, something it's easy to lose sight of
from the context of a "critique of production as such" -- I put the concept
in quotes because I question whether it has any real meaning.  After all,
what is production "as such" outside of the specific social formation in
which it takes place?  This is the boat which the anti-technology crew
misses completely.

Perhaps this discussion would be more content-rich if you could tell me
exactly what you'd like to do about "technics out of control," or for that
matter what exactly you mean by "technics" and how this concept relates to
the crucial _marxist_ problematic of _capitalism_.

-- Matt D.

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


More information about the Marxism mailing list