Manufacturing Socialism: "cy.Rev" Electronic Journal (fwd)

Spoon Collective spoons at jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Thu Sep 14 15:33:07 MDT 1995

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 00:35:48 -0800
From: jones/bhandari <djones at>
To: marxism at jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: Manufacturing Socialism: "cy.Rev" Electronic Journal

Thanks Jamal for that fine post; perhaps it will hlp us return to some of
the real problems which we now confront.  By the way, Scott Marshall posted
a very interesting critique of Toffler a while back.

>  Everyone must
>be "wired".  But why?  Who's making money in all this?  Who benefits?

Paul David is a Stanford economist who compares the computer to the dynamo.
Turning back to Henry Adams' comments on a fin-de-sciele technology faire,
he reminds us that it took decades for all the different brances of
production to learn how to use the dynamo before generalized productivity
advances materialized.  David then uses this historical analogy to answer
Solow's productivity paradox, that the one trillion dollar investment in
information technology has shown up everywhere but in the productivity
stats.  Well, the argument is that whichever nation best assimilates the
power of the computer will eventually experience as it rises the learning
curve leaps in productivity in various branches of production...and
domination of the world market.

Then Jamal quotes part of cy.rev rant:

>. Property, especially productive property in the form of
>  capital, is to be seen primarily as a social power relation that can be
>  guided and regulated, just as other power relations are regulated for the
>  common good of society. Incomes are also subject to progressive taxation.

Perhaps they are willing to agree to some sort of tax on rentier income, so
as to 'encourage' the accumulation of surplus value in either real physical
capital or R and D.

Then more crap from the cy rev:

>  Newt Gingrich is leading the most successful attack on the capitalist state
>  since the 1960s. Tearing apart bureaucracies, desanctifying authority,
>  delegitimizing the corporate liberal political system, decentralizing
>  power closer down to the grass roots--these are all the battle slogans
>  of the first 100 days of power for the new Speaker of the House and his
>  new Republican majority.

Wasn't there some bank merger that happened in NYC a few weeks ago? Aren't
American companies fighting anti-trust legislation in order to forge
partnerships with foreign multi-nationals?

>  We're told, perhaps with some amount of
>smug, backpatting glee, that "the 2nd Wave is over and never coming
>back", and the 3rd wave, based on information and imagination, is
>here to stay.

I am very interested in what peoples' thoughts are about the meaning of
this bally-hooed transition. And then more cyber.rev garbage:

>Fighting for freedom from patents, battling net-censorship, pushing
>for improved technologies..

Well, this is not true.  This crowd pushed for a very restrictive
intellectual property rights regime at GATT negotiations.  And I think the
legal industry around patent rights is now $5 trillion , which must be an
indication of something.


     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list