At 09:16 AM 3/8/98 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote:
Jay Hanson:
>>Hardin showed that, in principle, communism could never
>>work. Marx failed to see this and millions died because
>>of his mistake.
>
>Well, I've never read "Hardin" but one author does not a binding refutation
>make. There are always other perspectives.
Herschel Hardin wrote about 'the tragedy of the commons' -- a theme which
hyper-libertarian, free market zealots use to ground their claim that the
only way forward for the environment was to privatize the water and air. He
was perhaps best known for his (in)famous contribution to debates of
distributive ethics known as 'lifeboat ethics', i.e.you can only fit so many
people on Lifeboat Earth. Thus, any attempt to ameliorate the conditions of
those facing famine and death by starvation by redistribution would lead
only to a prolonged a much worse crisis the next time.
In my opinion, it is drivel.
Millions have died because of the reality and nature of the economic system
that currently exists. Why do you believe millions died because of Marx --
forced collectivization of peasant agriculture in Russia? I don't
necessarily think that we need to debate the economic or political history
of Russia here on the Futurework listserv in 1998 -- there's just not much
there for our way forward today, except perhaps in a cautionary sense. Marx
however was a practical and engaged theorist who grappled with and advanced
the discussion of the economic system in which he lived, which coincided
with the early period of capitalist industrial development, and which in
many fundamental ways we still live in today. Why is it that a system that
can generate enormous economic wealth cannot solve problems of unemployment,
starvation, casualization, and the concentration of this wealth and power
through chronic maldistribution? Because there are other factors at work,
to be sure, apart from economics. But a good argument can be made that
deregulated global capitalism is creating more and more problems for the
environment and the people who live on this planet, no matter where one is
geographically located.
>>"Those who deal primarily with ideas may quite unconsciously
>> generalize the plus-sum property of information exchanges
>> into the domains of matter and energy, where it does not
>> apply. It is not uncommon for dealers in information to
>> naively suppose that Karl Marx's "From each according to his
>> ability, to each according to his needs" (Marx 1972) is a
>> wise rule to follow in exchanges involving matter and energy
>> (as well as information).
I think that the informational economy, or perhaps more accurately,
"knowledge acting upon knowledge" (Castells, 1996) follows historically and
materially from production and the development of capitalist surplus by
means of the industrial (energy and matter) economy. Clearly the industrial
economy was bad for the environment in ways that Marx might not have been
concerned with. However, I don't think there are many (if any) people who
generalize their ideas in the way in which you describe.
Ah well, time for me to get back to work. :-)
Cheers,
John
John Hollingsworth (613) 231-2431
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 2-216 James St. K1R 5M7
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
