Good discussion.... Mark:
> > > Is China a capitalist country? If it is, it might do what Western > capitalists have done, which is to select energy inputs to optimize value > and little more, unless coerced by the government. In the US the industry > coerces the government. > Yes, China is state capitalist, or to be more accurate, State Imperialist. It does have national planning and stated goals of "socialism". But we can see what it does in trade relations: appropriation of surplus value domestically and internationally. Of course they go after "cheaper" inputs, but as of now they have zero choice about energy inputs which is why they build everything and anything. > > I do not use the term "de-development" because I think the production of > use values instead of exchange values is a form of development. Simple > reproduction is development, and reproduction that is equitable to the > entire population is equitable development. We don't have that today in > the US. Public ownership of fossil industries would be the best course for > decreasing fossil fuel extraction and use. But that would strand trillions > of dollars of untapped fossil reserves. Is that de-development? > I don't know...you openly call for ending fossil fuel extraction (can't find your exact quote). Well...that is certainly aspirational but you focus on demand , about the need to "lower demand". It is still kind of undefined. Saito, Foster use "de-development" and it is a huge part of the authors you've been reading (that I read quite awhile ago). Production for use value is what communism is about. But it hardly addresses what you rightly are concerned about, namely the raise in global climate temperatures which has to be accomplished within the existing dominant, global political economy. We can't wait until we get to universal exchange reproduction/production. You did cite some examples, like ending two major demand centers: AI and bitcoin. But it doesn't really address how our demand for, say, electricity, clean water, transportation etc can be addressed without policies that mandate low carbon production of electricity, EVs, etc. I kind of agree with you last two paragraphs as what the situation is, just no road map with specifics on how to get there. BTW...the U.S. is the biggest emitter per capita. That starts to be someone less meaningful when a nation state with lower percapita GHG outputs than the "U.S." can far easier their HIGHEST output in GHG emissions than anyone which is China. David > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#40590): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40590 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117439078/21656 -=-=- 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/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
