CB: "as a communist, I would think you would be more partial to a
revolution in our attitude toward the industrial revolution which would 
aim specifically and emphatically to take control of the "genie coming 
out of a bottle", drop faith in the Invisible Hand, radically change capitalist anarchy of production."

I agree with this.  But Charles continues:

"Communism is supposed to harness capitalism and its technology, not 
just let her rip. Within this approach there is room for appeal to the 
masses of workers that their decisions about what they "need" over the last 100 years may have been skewed a bit by influence of the ruling 
ideas of the era, which are the ideas of its wild-ass ruling class, the bourgeoisie."

What do you mean by 'ruling ideas of the era' skewing people's 
decisisons about what they need? I need a car to get to work, a TV to 
watch gameshows on, air conditioning because summer is too hot and, 
well, just about whatever else happens to take my fancy.  How is this 
bourgeois ideology?  I think more important has been ideology of self-
sacrifice, of make and mend, of putting up what's offered instead of 
demanding what's needed. 

CB: Having an average material standard of living with a material kit 
roughly like that of an employed working class family from the 1950's 
would not be exactly austerity,hairshirt or barracks communism, pursuit of noble savagery.

Actually, that's exactly what it would be.  Here in the UK we even had 
rationing into the 1950s. Arguing for the benefits of the 1950s is 
savagery, but there's no nobility about it.  The bottom line is this: 
we need to 'let rip' with the means of production to create more use 
values in less time, so that we can free up our time to pursue 
whatever the hell we want to. Sorry for the old-fashioned language, but 
I offer no apology for the old-fashioned defence of human emancipation.

--James

James Greenstein