> On May 23, 2024, at 7:47 AM, hari kumar via groups.io
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark:
> We may well end acknowledging a difference of opinion and move on. That is OK!
Yes, but we may be talking past each other: I am asking what US workers should
demand and why.
> But here I will simply put a short rejoinder.
>
> 1) Volume Car Exports USA
> I was not advocating that Chinese transport of cars was more energy efficient
> than transport of USA cars. The reality is that both are high volume and both
> are polluting. So here is the data that I was able to quickly pull, and I
> doubt it is surprising.
> - In 2023 the total manufacture of cars in USA was 10 million odd (Graph 1
> attached, drawn from CEIC - a manufacturers' database at:
> https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/motor-vehicle-production
> - At that graph looks like 2020 total production was around 8 million (see
> attached graph).
> - Here are the numbers I could easily dredge up for the year 2020 - total
> units exported 2020 - "In 2020, the United States exported almost 2.1 million
> motor vehicles. Canada imported most of these vehicles - some 21 percent,
> followed by Germany and China, with a share of eight and seven percent of
> total U.S. exports, respectively." [Stastica. I cannot show the figure as
> they locked me out before I could copy it. But site is at
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/1280808/us-motor-vehicle-exports-by-country/
> ]
>
> My summary is simply I cannot see that is less polluting to export cars from
> the USA than it is from China. "What is good for the goose is good for the
> gander."
I'm not saying that Chinese cars are more polluting, but that China is burning
more coal to power their plants. Even if Chinese labor is less cheap today,
Chinese ecosystems are much cheaper than in the US, Canada, and Europe.
>
> BTW - As an aside - On energy:
> No one has thus far commented on the aspects of the apparent jump that China
> has made on energy and pollution; and the relationship to this strand.
> Charlie has commented on the over-capacity in the Chinese market and excess
> goods.
> This is correct and was noted in the materials I had noted, on the innovative
> technologies and grasp on production strength in these fields that China is
> now capable of exerting.
>
> I may have missed it of course, but I do not think there has been any comment
> on the aspect of ecology in that message [May 19 #30400 ].
> Previously it was argued quite strongly here that alternative energies simply
> were inadequate and could not compete; and sometimes the additional rider to
> this, that nuclear power was the answer - even under capitalism.
>
> 2) My later citing of Roberts was largely on the matter of the Engels
> quotations. They referred to in especial Engels. So this was related to my
> point that:
> "iii) Usually at the same time as the imperial powers close down their "own
> domestic market", they are demanding free entry of their own goods into
> colonial-type countries. " [May 19 #30398 ].
Yes, capitalists are guided by profit and not principle. Today, capital exports
US jobs and imports manufactured goods to sell on the domestic market without
incurring the necessary costs of labor, community, and environmental
safeguards. That leaves more surplus to share with US politicians seeking to
undermine union and environmental safeguards domestically.
>
> 3) In any case, it is other issues that I noted earlier that added up to a
> different problem [May 19 #30398 ]. I had written these two other points:
> "i) It treats the buying working mass, as workers who in some way are
> considered to "belong" to the domestic imperial powers;
> iv) Ultimately it helps recruit the working class into the mentality of the
> imperial capitalists. Does it not? It dilutes the perspective of the
> working-class vs capitalists class warfare. "
>
> Is that not still evidently true? This comprises 2/4 points that I made. It
> remains to me the central concern to the workers socialist movement of
> protectionism seen and fought for by the capitalist state.
I see it as worker and popular access control to US markets to protect the
unions and environmental-protection legislation, including climate safeguards.
> The last point - of leaving the workers to be gouged remains as well, in the
> absence of competition.
> But it is the nature of enabling one's local oppressors - one can perhaps
> call it "domestic imperial exploitation" - an explicit upper hand in the
> domestic market.
I agree to disagree.
thanks, Mark
>
> Be Well,
> H
>
> <Screenshot 2024-05-23 at 4.08.16â¯PM.png>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#30488): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/30488
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/106146595/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
