Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == This is the best reporting and analysis I've seen yet on this incident. I have been unpleasantly surprised at how quickly some of my friends rushed to share the most common account, which portrays those inside the building as innocent bystanders or at most peaceful protesters, leaving out entirely their role in the violent battles. Which, as the AWU statement makes clear, is context, but not an excuse for their deaths. Please use the link at the bottom of Sergii's post and share the statement. On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Sergii Kutnii wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > More than 40 people were killed and nearly 200 were wounded in the > tragic clash of right-wing combatants in Odessa on May 2: football > hooligans and Euromaidan self-defence on the one side; Stalinists, > pro-Russian paramilitaries and local police force on the other. > It started as a belligerent mob, comprised of men with “St. George’s > ribbons” and red armbands (such armbands were also spotted on some > police officers), wielding clubs and firearms, approached the march > “for united Ukraine” which was made up of right-wing football > hooligans joined by a large crowd of civilian people. As fighting > began between the sides, the riot police provided cover to the > attackers and cooperated with them. 4 people were killed. It is > noteworthy that in the previous days the Antimaidan protesters had > repeatedly marched along the centre of Odessa and never met any > physical counteraction either from their political opponents or the > police. > > Civilian “pro-Ukrainian” crowd didn’t disperse after the shootings; > enraged, they started the counterattack. As the fighting became > sufficiently intense, some of pro-Russian combatants withdrew to the > Afina trading center, which was then blocked by the police. The crowd, > incited by hooligans, followed the other part of the attackers and > proceeded to rout the Antimaidan camp, located near the Trade Union > house. The Antimaidan protesters fled to that building and then the > entrances were barricaded. It should also be noted that Alexey Albu, > leader of Stalinist Borotba organization, personally urged protesters > to come inside the blocked building, although never joined them > himself. We see this as a proof enough to any left or anarchist > organization in the world to sever any ties, either financial or > informational, with this organization. By sending them money you would > fund the civil war; by spreading their statements and supporting them > morally you would contribute to their war propaganda. > > Violence continued, as Euromaidan crowd surrounded the Trade Union > house and combatants from both sides fired shots and hurled Molotov > cocktails both to and fro the roof of the building. At this moment is > still unclear which factor contributed the most to the fire, which > burned some and suffocated others to death. > > We are sure that the violence of right-wing hooligans was the integral > part of this tragedy. However, it is clear that this violence was > planned for and counted on. The people who should also be held > responsible are the pro-Russian instigators and the local police, who > supported them. > > Members of AWU wish to express their deepest mourning for the victims. > They fell prey to the interests of the forces that consistently try to > instigate a civil war in Ukraine. Sadly, large parts of the working > class are disoriented and serve as merely blind puppets in the hands > of such forces, giving their lives for utterly stupid and meaningless > things and ideas. The immediate effect of the escalation of this > tragically pointless conflict is the split of the working class in > Ukraine. While some workers are threatening with a political strike in > support of the Antimaidan, several members of the (pro-Maidan) > Confederation of Free Trade Unions are being kidnapped by Antimaidan > forces. Instead of taking a united stance against the neoliberal > policies of the government, proletarians are busy fighting each other > for the interests of various bourgeois cliques. > > The final result of such policies will be a civil war in Ukraine, > which will mean an ultimate catastrophe for the working class. We are > not pacifists and will be at the side of the working class whenever it > fights against the bourgeoisie, no matter what forms this fight takes > — but this is not the case in Ukraine nowadays. The disoriented and > weak proletariat will be busy engaging in self-destruction; the > outcomes will be drastic fall of life standards, rise of unemplo
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/5/14 10:17 AM, DW wrote: I'ts a chauvinist racist Bill and should be opposed by all Ukrainians regardless of their language preference. Didn't you see that I wrote "leaving aside the wisdom" of the law? I am only interested at this point in refuting the Big Lie. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == w7kew-li...@comcast.net, wrote: Yawn! What does this have to do with Marxism? - We must be allowed to troll this stupidity, Louis surely? On 21 April 2013 22:38, wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > Yawn! What does this have to do with Marxism? > > On 21 Apr 2013 at 12:49, DW wrote: > >> == >> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. >> == >> >> >> "the uncle was interviewed the other day and says the family came from >> Kyrgyzstan, which is far from Chechnya. is that whole region considered >> Chechen???" > > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/marinercarpentry%40gmail.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Yawn! What does this have to do with Marxism? On 21 Apr 2013 at 12:49, DW wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > "the uncle was interviewed the other day and says the family came from > Kyrgyzstan, which is far from Chechnya. is that whole region considered > Chechen???" Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 21.04.2013 21:49, DW wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == "the uncle was interviewed the other day and says the family came from Kyrgyzstan, which is far from Chechnya. is that whole region considered Chechen???" Kyrgyzstan is actually on the other border with China - but it was one of the regions that Stalin deported the whole Chechen people to in 1944 for alleged collaboration with the Germans. They weren't allowed to return to Chechnya until 1957 and some stayed in the regions of exile. Einde Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == lot of Chechen refugees there see the NLR article I posted, also: http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article697 On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:49 PM, DW wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > "the uncle was interviewed the other day and says the family came from > Kyrgyzstan, which is far from Chechnya. is that whole region considered > Chechen???" > > Nope. To the south is Georgia. The to west is Dagestan. Dagestan has around > 24 distinct ethnic subgroups and languages though Russian is the common > tongue. Among these many ethnic groups are Chechens many of those, > emigrating there to escape the civil wars of the last 20 years. > > To the west of Chechnya is Ingushetia, which is about 1/4 the size of > Chehnya but covers the latter along it's entire westen border. FYI...to the > west of Ingushetia is North Ossetia, of recent conflict with the Georgians > to their south. > > Ingushetia also has a Chechnyan immigration influx. > > David > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == " It a cultural heritage of mankind and as we communists, have to respect that." Vijaya Kumar Marla Sorry, never have been all that good at respecting macro-cultural heritages; they just have too many conservative notions to them about the entire world. So, no, I don't respect a heritage that constrains a people to delimit themselves according to a narrow view of the world and, especially when it comes to the divisiveness of the world's religions. I do respect that people believe in such mythologies and would never deny a people for having their world views. It doesn't mean I have either to accept the heritage or respect its cultural message. More to the point, saying that it's culturally appropriate to celebrate death, so, therefore, the heritage's cultural tradition shows it's ok to celebrate the death of a hated figure, in England no less, just confirms the political correctness of that celebration raises the emotionally spontaneous reaction of the masses to a politically, or culturally, rightful action that I simply am not prepared to support. Why? Does it make you more communist to stamp approval of a celebration based on emotional (no matter how righteous) responses or me less communist for disdaining do so? I won't think you less communist for adhering to religious traditions if you won't denigrate my communism for refusing to do so. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == seems to me that this is all related. the effort to discredit radicalism in the 60's as "FBI plots", is tied to the attempt to "stave off the growth of radicalism generated by occupy [et al]". rosenthal and his ilk want to lionize the "civilized" moderates and "good liberals", and channel people back into "reforming" the democratic party. On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:48 Louis wrote: > >My bigger concern is this sort of thing: > >http://occupyduniya.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/aoki/ > >Lastly, what is to be gained by this accusation of Aoki as FBI informant, a >day before Rosenfeld’s book hits the bookstores?.. this is simply the tip of >an iceberg building to stave off the growth of radicalism generated by the >Occupy, eco-socialist and anti-globalization movements both in the U.S. and >across the planet. > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 8/23/12 11:12 PM, X Y wrote: Oh, hahaha!!! How cleverly snarky.of you! So your answer is that you don't want to engage the points that Kurashige and Fujino, who HAVE read Rosenfeld, brought up. Nice. That is my plan for today although the question of Aoki's ties to the FBI are of not that interest to me. My bigger concern is this sort of thing: http://occupyduniya.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/aoki/ Lastly, what is to be gained by this accusation of Aoki as FBI informant, a day before Rosenfeld’s book hits the bookstores?.. this is simply the tip of an iceberg building to stave off the growth of radicalism generated by the Occupy, eco-socialist and anti-globalization movements both in the U.S. and across the planet. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 8/23/12 10:40 PM, X Y wrote: I have not read the book or any significant excerpts. I kind have figured as much. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
I said "precipitant", meant "precipitating factor". ("Final straw or
precipitant)
Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == DW wrote: Your conclusions are faith-based and not science based. And in an earlier message: those "expected victims" are few and far between, relative to all other forms of base load power Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gundersen: Fukushima Meltdown Could Result in 1 Million Cases of Cancer http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/12/nuclear_engineer_arnie_gundersen_fukushima_meltdown ",,,the first lesson is that this is a technology that can destroy a nation...the Fukushima accident was on the verge of causing the evacuation of Tokyo. And had the wind been blowing the other way, across the island instead of out to sea, Japan would have been cut in half and destroyed as a functional country. So, this is a technology where perhaps accidents don't happen every day, but when they do, they can destroy a country. "The other things are, the cost is astronomical. To fix this is going to be something on the order of half-a-trillion dollars. All of the money that Japan saved on oil over the 40 years that they've had nuclear plants just got thrown away in the half-a-trillion-dollar recovery effort. "And the other piece is the human issues. The health impacts to the Japanese will begin to be felt in several years and out to 30 or 40 years from cancers. And I believe we're going to see as many as a million cancers over the next 30 years because of the Fukushima incident in Japan. "The tsunami---the myth of the tsunami is that the tsunami destroyed the diesels, and had that not happened, everything would have been fine. What really happened is that the tsunami destroyed the pumps right along the ocean. It doesn't matter that Diablo Canyon's plant is up on a hill. The pumps have to be at the ocean, because that's where the water is. We call that the loss of the ultimate heat sink. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hasn't addressed that in the short-term issues coming out of Fukushima. Without that water, the diesels will overheat, and without that water, it's impossible to cool a nuclear core. So, as a country, we haven't addressed this issue of the loss of the ultimate heat sink, and we're kicking that can way down the road, not addressing it for years to come." So this is bunkum? (incidentally, Arnie Andersen in agreeing here with Gorbachev that Chernobyl "destroyed the Soviet Union" I think is misstating, but unintentionally. I doubt that is what Gorbachev meant, as far as that goes. Final straw or precipitant, OK.) Nuclear technology is not one of the most dangerous experiments ever undertaken? We can't wait for the science-based precautionary principle? Mistakes happen? Consequences to the human and other natural environment as collateral damage? Moreover, and very much on point, to what extent is it the drive to expand and accumulate, amidst untold waste, mindless use of fossil fuels in agricultural chemicals and machine production, pesticides, fertilizers, long-distance transport, regional specialization, diminishing returns on ruined soil, putting ten calories in for every calorie out, agricultural produce designed for increased profitability, not nutrition or intrinsic value, and savage maldistribution, in combination with uncontrolled experiment on nature through alteration of gene structure, and not at all the continued viability of the planet and the species, that dictates the urgency that David sees as necessitating crash-course nuclear power? Should we on the left, with our orientation toward nature-aligned solutions, accept this? Check out Robert Biel on urban agriculture, for example, which was posted here recently http://groaction.com/discover/2347/entropy-capitalism-urban-ag-robert-biel-interview/ . Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == > > But if the breeder reactor program, now being constructed in China and > Russia is successful, not to mention thorium development, uranium mining > will be a thing of the past. It will be totally unnecessary. I don't have > time now to write on this but will in the future of people are interested > here. > Thanks. And I'd certainly be interested. My view regarding nuclear power has been "not to throw the baby out with the bathwater". Meaning, it seemed to me that uranium based nuclear fission reactors, while being better in the short run than burning fuels, wasn't the best alternative to push forward with. Of course, alternatives like wind turbines and solar panels also involve mining for rare minerals -- but no nuclear waste... --, so it looked like a lot of work to figure out which energy sources really were the best ones to push for. But to not throw out the power source of the atom. I can't help but think being able to harness this power, in some form, cleanly and safely is the best way we'll have unlimited cheap power one day. Where are the dilithium crystals! Tristan Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Tristan wrote: "...but as you are defending nuclear power I was wondering what your thoughts on the toll taken by the mining and transport of uranium for nuclear power was." There are two ways of looking at it. One in relative terms/relative risk and one in terms of absolute problems. The amount of mining 'relative' to say, extraction of almost any other common mining commodity: copper, tin, iron, coal, oil, gas, etc for uranium is "almost inconsequential". Relatively speaking. Like any mining the issues of heavy metal contamination of soil and water are paramount, *but no worse than any other extractive industry*. In the U.S., the 'spoil' is required to go back down the mine shaft. That is the stuff left over from milling out the raw uranium. Generally, the amount of metal left in the spoil is obviously a lot less than was naturally occurring in the ore in the first place as the purpose of the mining is to extract to metal. Thus in a pure sense, it's actually 'safer' than the what was in the ground in the first place. This wasn't always the case and in the mad rush to mine uranium for WMD in the 1950s, ALL caution was left to the wind, literally and people payed for with vast increases in cancers and silicosis and other respiratory diseases. There was a HUGE fatality rate among the Navajo uranium miners. Turns out that with zero safety equipment, no ventilation, no union, 80% of the miners smoking that combined with radon, the natural decay product of uranium, you were simply going to die. There is a lot of literature on this. But if the breeder reactor program, now being constructed in China and Russia is successful, not to mention thorium development, uranium mining will be a thing of the past. It will be totally unnecessary. I don't have time now to write on this but will in the future of people are interested here. Be aware that much 'uranium mining' isn't 'uranium mining' but is a byproduct of copper and other forms of metal mining. Uranium is just a by product. We don't need that much uranium to run the nuclear industry. That's the whole point of urianium, it's about 30,000 times denser than coal. Thus a lot less of it to be mined per unit of energy. Transportation. Not sure this is an issue at all. To power a standard Gen II (think Vermont Yankee) plant, it takes about 3 tractor trailer worth of fuel to power a reactor for 18 to 24 months. Compare that to, say, a gasoline trucks that are on the road by the 10s of thousand to neigbhood gasoline stations. Seems relatively risk free to me. Spent nuclear fuel. Most of it sits right where it's left, in spent fuel ponds (you know, the ones that did NOT burn up and catch fire at Fukushima.). I really don't think, unlike the general issue of spent fuel, that 'transportation' is a particularly big issue. David Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Sorry if this has already been discussed in detail and I missed it, but as you are defending nuclear power I was wondering what your thoughts on the toll taken by the mining and transport of uranium for nuclear power was. It just doesn't seem like a good way to boil water. Tristan Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == David P Á wrote: "...It would be fine to apply the precautionary principle if there existed viable alternatives to nuclear power. As it happens, current opposition to nuclear power is, I'm afraid, objectively pro-coal. I won't dwell on the harms caused by coal extraction and burning, since I believe they're well-known." "Objectively"? Is that the lesser evil "objectively", as required by the system? "...people getting scared of things they ought not be scared of..." Scare tactics? Be scared, be very scared, of corporate profit-seeking in an enterprise producing nuclear fuel, which carries great risk of great harm, not just past and present but future harm into countless generations from escaping radiation's effects, including those effects on the ground and on its produce and on all living things, as we all might know by now (except for the personifications of nuclear interests and friends who in their public statements ignore or minimize the presence of risk), risk whose history persists in allowing design to be flawed, facilities to be carelessly placed, plant to become superannuated, and where they have repeatedly said "trust us, while cost-benefit in our system tilts inevitably toward the profit-seekers and away from periphera such as the human and other natural environment, still you'll be all right", while all has been corruptly and indifferently regulated, the precautionary principle ignored and catastrophic effects denied. Do we consider Japan's GE- and TEPCO-built Fukushima to be an exception? Hardly. **Vermont's** GE-built Yankee reactor? California's Bechtel-built San Onofre? No. Speaking of "cost-benefit" this sort of reminds me that Ibsen's 1880s play An Enemy of the People in many ways described this type of situation to me unforgettably when I was very young. As I remember the story, a small Norwegian town has as its principal source of income municipal baths with waters reputed to have healing properties. The mayor's brother, a doctor, discovers and tries to publicize the fact that a tannery is discharging toxic waste upstream into the bath's source waters, causing lingering, fatal illness among the visitors to the baths. Instead of correcting at the source, which would be too expensive for the tannery, another main source of local income, the scandal is buried and the doctor is banished as an enemy by the townspeople, spurred on by the town fathers. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 11/03/2012 0:38, Robbie Mahood wrote: People are frightened of nuclear energy. Estimates of damage after an accident are very quickly politicised so their accuracy may be questioned. It's true people are afraid. In fact I've read some claims that suggest the harm caused by the fear is actually higher than the harm caused by the event. Fear has physiological effects which can lead to negative health outcomes. The solution to this problem isn't to take the fear as a natural and exogenous reality, but to educate people about the actual risks (which obviously exist) and their bounds. For instance, the faulty zero-threshold linear model of radiation harm must be dropped, both because it is empirically wrong (as studies demonstrating radiation hormesis make clear), and because it leads to added harm, by people getting scared of things they ought not be scared of. However, whatever the scale, Fukishima demonstrates the inherent risks of nuclear power even when abstracted from the current capitalist social and economic order. Popular fear may or may not accord with epidemiologic studies but this is not to say it is misplaced. Health effects of radiation are notoriously difficult to assess and the final verdict may take decades. In the meantime, the pre-cautionary principle (anathema under capitalism) should apply. It would be fine to apply the precautionary principle if there existed viable alternatives to nuclear power. As it happens, current opposition to nuclear power is, I'm afraid, objectively pro-coal. I won't dwell on the harms caused by coal extraction and burning, since I believe they're well-known. Likewise, the problem of global warming requires scalable solutions that can be deployed as soon as practical. I don't intend to start an argument about the inadequacy of weak ambient sources (so-called renewables) to fulfil baseload requirements, and the quantity of storage that it would take to deploy such sources in scale to replace coal and nuclear power. I'll just point out that such a deployment is, right now, infeasible. Perhaps the technologies will improve to the point at which this is no longer true, but that's not the state of play right now. Furthermore, I would point out that, even under admitedly mismanaged regimes of operation, nuclear power has the lowest rates of deaths per terawatt-hour of all available sources, including solar PV and wind. (Not sure if solar thermal is deployed in enough scale to compare yet.) So the precautionary principle should lead us to deploying mature, existing technology to solve a time-critical need with the least harm to people, and such a solution is nuclear fision. --David. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/10/12 8:20 PM, DW wrote: If we insured industry and technology in general about "what might happen" then there would be no industry and technology. Strange. I don't remember reading anything like this in The Transitional Program. Spiked online, maybe... Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Shane writes: "But in fact capitalists make it produce huge profits. How? By exempting these monopolistic capitalist firms from accounting for the real cost of insuring against compensation for the actuarially expected victims of the technology; by providing them interest subsidies in the form of federal government guarantees of their loans (equity financing, of course, being unthinkable for nuclear power); by charging ratepayers for the plants even while still under construction; by including cost-overruns in the rate base; by fast- tracking (ie., emasculating) the process of environmental review." and... No, Shane, nice try. The make money by selling electricity. No differently from any capitalist commodity producer. You have to look at nuclear world wide, most of which is produced by state owned enterprises where the 'profit' is a surplus usually directed back into investment or keeping prices per KWhr down. But the key weasel-terms if "expected victims". Exactly. And those "expected victims" are few and far between, relative to all other forms of base load power. Do we demand insurance premiums from dams on the grounds that ONE dam may break and kill 200,000 people? Nope. And not just because all major dams in the US are Federal entities, but because the statistical reality is that "all dams" kill very few, some kill a lot. Chemical and oil refineries "could" kill 10s of thousands (and have) and contaminate 'vast regions'. Does that mean that "all" refineries should have to be able to insure against a "possible" accident or a "likely" accident? It's the latter, of course. Thus the "victims" have to be run up against how many there have been. If, for example, other plants put in safeguards to guard against a tsunami induced loss of oniste power, would that satisfy your demand they be completely insured for melting down the earth? Hardly. The insurance canard is just that, canard. No industry, no technology is held to the same standard as nuclear even though fossil fuel kills a few *million* people a year. In fact, Shane, nuclear is insured by a private insurer. The plants themselves are insured under standard business insurance paid for by all utilities, public and private. Not good enough, huh? If we insured industry and technology in general about "what might happen" then there would be no industry and technology. So who decides the 'worst case scenerio' or it's likelyhood? Well, politicians of course. "Nuclear power should be assessed like any other technology--by comparison of its cost to the value of its output, relative to other technological paths over time. Nuclear power is an overmature technology so expensive and slow to construct that it can never make a significant contribution to ending the world's need for CO2-producing energy consumption. It is hopelessly uneconomic compared to the rapidly developing, steadily cheapening, range of technologies (especially nanotechnologies) associated with deriving useful forms of energy from our central electrical power plant, the sun." "Overmature"? Ha! That's a good one. So what is the contribution of nuclear, say, in the U.S. to, "non-CO2-producting energy consumption"? Exactly, it's 80% of all our non-carbon energy that's how much. With Hydro taking up about 16% of the left over. Wind, solar, geothermal behind that. Nuclear is 20% overall of US electrical generation, 8% of energy overall (inclusive of transportation fuel, the big one). Not bad, should be 100% but we not likely in the U.S. Other countries, better shot. Thus "assessed" it is a great investment. In fact nuclear is 'cheapening' with new modularly built reactors. The sun will always remain, like wind, diffuse and thus, expensive to capture. David Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == People are frightened of nuclear energy. Estimates of damage after an accident are very quickly politicised so their accuracy may be questioned. However, whatever the scale, Fukishima demonstrates the inherent risks of nuclear power even when abstracted from the current capitalist social and economic order. Popular fear may or may not accord with epidemiologic studies but this is not to say it is misplaced. Health effects of radiation are notoriously difficult to assess and the final verdict may take decades. In the meantime, the pre-cautionary principle (anathema under capitalism) should apply. Robbie On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM, DW wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > From "JOSEPH MANGANO and JANETTE SHERMAN" > "Finally, how many people were harmed by Fukushima in the short term? > Official studies have chipped away at the oft-repeated claim that nobody > died from Fukushima. Last month brought the news that 573 deaths in the > area near the stricken reactors were certified by coroners as related to > the nuclear crisis, with dozens more deaths to be reviewed. Another survey > showed that births near Fukushima declined 25% in the three months > following the meltdowns. One physician speculated that many women chose to > deliver away from Fukushima, but an increase in stillbirths remains as a > potential factor. In British Columbia, the number of Sudden Infant Death > Syndrome deaths was 10 in the first three months after Fukushima, up from > just one a year before." > > I suppose in the interest of balance, it's good to put quacks on the pages > of marxmail. key here: "certified by coroners as related to the nuclear > crisis". A huh. And more lies. heart attacks, car accidents, flood victims > (2) from the reactor site, stress. Not ONE is from the radiation and no > coroner has certified it as such. The Mangano and Sherman team are > *discredited* for declaring that "40,000 people had died as a result of the > Fukushima reactors". They were forced to withdraw their stupid remarks to > ridicule from the entire epidemiology and health physics community. Of > course not as bad as those that keep spreading it, however. > > David > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/rmahoo3%40hotmail.com > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:46 PM, David P Á wrote: == Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 10/03/2012 2:20, Shane Mage wrote: But sooner than that the differential life insurance premia asked from Fukushima victims will give a clear picture. Just as the economic impossibility of insuring nuclear power plants at commercial rates already proves the unviability of nuclear power. The same way the economic impossibility of insuring everyone's health at commercial rates proves the unviability of universal healthcare? The same way as the need for subsidies to Insurance Companies and compulsion against self-insurers in the Obama plan demonstrates the economic unviability of the US health-care system. Since when do Marxists follow the dictates of the law of value when assessing if something is viable or not? It is the law of value that determines whether something is economically viable, not self-styled Marxists who don't understand the law of value which, as stated by Marx (letter to Dr. Kugelmann) is: "...even if there were no chapter on value in my book, the analysis of the real relationships which I give would contain the proof and demonstration of the real value-relation...the mass of products corresponding to the different needs requires different and quantitatively determined masses of the total labor of society. That this necessity of distributing social labor in definite proportions cannot be done away with by the particular form of social production, but can only change the form it assumes, is self-evident. No natural laws can be done away with... Nuclear power should be assessed on the light of the world's need for carbon-free energy, not on whether capitalists can make it produce profits. But in fact capitalists make it produce huge profits. How? By exempting these monopolistic capitalist firms from accounting for the real cost of insuring against compensation for the actuarially expected victims of the technology; by providing them interest subsidies in the form of federal government guarantees of their loans (equity financing, of course, being unthinkable for nuclear power); by charging ratepayers for the plants even while still under construction; by including cost-overruns in the rate base; by fast- tracking (ie., emasculating) the process of environmental review. As exemplified by the very recent Obamist approval for Georgia Power's two new plants, the first to be built in decades! Nuclear power should be assessed like any other technology--by comparison of its cost to the value of its output, relative to other technological paths over time. Nuclear power is an overmature technology so expensive and slow to construct that it can never make a significant contribution to ending the world's need for CO2-producing energy consumption. It is hopelessly uneconomic compared to the rapidly developing, steadily cheapening, range of technologies (especially nanotechnologies) associated with deriving useful forms of energy from our central electrical power plant, the sun. Shane Mage This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures. Herakleitos of Ephesos Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 10/03/2012 2:20, Shane Mage wrote: But sooner than that the differential life insurance premia asked from Fukushima victims will give a clear picture. Just as the economic impossibility of insuring nuclear power plants at commercial rates already proves the unviability of nuclear power. The same way the economic impossibility of insuring everyone's health at commercial rates proves the unviability of universal healthcare? Since when do Marxists follow the dictates of the law of value when assessing if something is viable or not? It certainly wasn't the case for the 8-hour day, paid holidays, maternity protections, and so on. Nuclear power should be assessed on the light of the world's need for carbon-free energy, not on whether capitalists can make it produce profits. --David. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Mar 9, 2012, at 4:03 PM, DW wrote: ...Not ONE is from the radiation and no coroner has certified it as such... Cancer is a very slowly developing disease with multiple causation...one cause being radiation exposure. The number of cancer deaths over the next thirty years among victims of Fukushima will tell the story. But sooner than that the differential life insurance premia asked from Fukushima victims will give a clear picture. Just as the economic impossibility of insuring nuclear power plants at commercial rates already proves the unviability of nuclear power. Shane Mage "scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying attention to" Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 2011-12-22, at 10:30 PM, DW wrote: > Gary responded: > "My response: this is of course the absolutely key danger." > > Wow. THIS is the biggest danger? Not the actual *IMPERIALIST* EU? That > supporting the EC/EU is what the left is supposed to do? > > ...The idea that you can have a "Europe with a human face". You > are poising an *adaptation* to capitalist Europe, not an alternative to it. > That the capitalists want to subordinate any leftover degree of popular > sovereignty in the Euro-nation states is something you support? Please > explain. > > I would of thought that any working class...take the Greek one...that sees, > correctly, "Europe" as the enemy, should be supported by getting the fuck > out of the MAIN instrument of the austerity we all are supposed to oppose. > This is somehow 'chauvinism'? I see the same holding true for every working > class that opposed what Europe is trying to impose on them. How do you make > an Imperialist Europe not do what it's doing and not be adapting to it? I'd be interested in learning which far left organizations in Europe are currently agitating for a full-blown withdrawal from the EU. We know there is a lot of debate, especially in Greece, about defaulting on the debt and pulling out of the eurozone, and acknowledgement of the possibility that such a course could result in expulsion from the common market. But are any of the Greek Trotskyist or other far left groups actually calling to "get the fuck out of the main instrument of the austerity"? I couldn't find the answer on a quick Google search. I did note this comment in a report "On the European Union crisis and the dynamics of resistances" by Pierre Rousset: "Beyond traditional divides between “radicals” and “moderates” (on the response to the financial crisis…), there are also other issues which we now have to address in a more collective way than before. Should we get out of the European Union or transform it from within? The Left in countries involved since the origin in the building of the EU, like France, tend to answer: “fight from within”. In countries that only recently joined the EU, it tends to answer: “first get out, then build anew”. With the present crisis, such a question has to be reassessed – and it is quite a complex one." http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2367&var_recherche=EU%20withdrawal Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Hi David, I am confined to working on my iPad and I have real trouble unlearning how to type and mastering instead the art of the one finger jab. But really there 's no disagreement between us of a substantial nature. I fear the working class being sucked inti the sort of Imperialist adventure of say the Malvinas war. I am Irish so you have to factor in that I recall th e Brits cheering on "their boys" and the bands playing "don't cry for me Argentina" as they marched off to war. Read Lenin's Tomb on the British Culture war and you will get an idea of how I feel l But I do not go from that to the support of the EU, and comrade you were wrong to make that leap. What you say about the EU is absolutely correct. We just have to avoid getting trapped into the Chauvinism or the EU dynamic. Can't jab any more. Sorry it is driving me insane. Comradely Gary Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == It would be very nice if one were able to distinguish between the Libyan people with their right to rebel against a repressive dictator and those who have sold their souls to the imperialist devils in a way that undermines any semblance of national independence for a Third World country. That's no doubt possible in the abstract, but it's hard in the real world. In the article Louis recommended from the ISO's "International Socialist Review" (which on the whole is quite a good article) the authors distinguish between "two key poles" in the Libyan opposition: (1) the students and youth of the February 17th Movement and (2) the National Transitional Council dominated by ex-Gaddafi regime members and CIA-types. However, when I go to the Website of the February 17th Movement to see, they too are all gung-ho about the NATO intervention and bombing campaign. The Tunisian, Egyptian, and Yemeni students and youth spearheading those popular revolts never called for an intervention in their countries -- and rightly so. There is something smelly about this Libyan revolt, although no doubt there are some honest rebels in it somewhere. jay On 6/4/2011 7:45 AM, johnedmund...@paradise.net.nz wrote: == Jay wrote: The article, if one reads it, says 50% within 10 years and that the purpose was not to obtain foreign capital, Libya having plenty of its own from the petroleum industry, but to obtain foreign expertise to reduce dependency on oil and gas. Sounds similar to what Cuba has done/is doing. Yes, it did say 50% within 10 years, but 100% ultimately. 100% straight away would be completely unrealistic I'm sure. But what are yo saying Jay? That selling off the economy when you don't even need to raise cash is somehow OK? They were doing it because they'd made an ideological decision that had nothing to do with protecting the family silver. They said they'd sell the lot and you can be sure the Gaddafi family were going to be *further* enriched in the process. The sons were already well aquainted with the multimillionaire lifestyle and as for the father's "bodyguard" of beautiful blonde women, I don't think that came cheap. It's just bizarre to compare what Gadaffi was planning to what Cuba is doing. Cuba, poor and broke, has been forced to look at making changes, which I'm not defending by the way, but Libya, according to that article and plenty of other evidence besides, was planning it when it had no need for capital!!! Don't you see a slight difference there? In any case, there's some pretty funky logic operating here: Gaddafi's Libya> is going more towards neo-liberalism. So let's support imperialist intervention -- or support the local flunkies on the ground, which amounts to the same thing -- so that they can get to that goal faster. I don't see it. Well that logic would be "pretty funky" as you put it, if in fact that was what anyone here was doing but I think you'll struggle to find a single line posted on this list advocating that anyone "support imperialist intervention" or its "local flunkies on the ground", as I am sure you are already well aware. All that anyone has said is that Gaddafi's regime is a brutal one that cannot be supported. It had made its peace with the West. It just turns out that the West hadn't entirely made its peace with Gaddafi - presumably because he was deemed an expendable liability). But most importantly, we are saying that the origins of the Libyan rebellion were essentially the same as those in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere so that, despite the movement having been coopted by ex-Gadaffi regime leaders and other pro-Western figures, the situation there has to be understood in the context of that legitimate right to rise up against oppression, rather than be damned simply because Gadaffi once talked left and has now come under NATO attack. If the West had a left to speak of, the Libyan resistance might have turned to it for support. That it didn't speaks more about our failure in the West than it does of the Libyans who rose up, got gunned down, and turned to help where it was offered. We are under no illusions about the West's intention to roll back the Arab revolution. I am under no illusion that ther will not be opportunists and staunch supporters of the West who will try to rise to the top of these movements. But none of that invalidates the Libyan people's right to rebel. Cheers, John Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 3/12/11 11:45 PM, Fred Feldman wrote: On the whole, I believe the direction of motion has not changed. Every day reports more measures and resolutions and so forth against Gadhafi. The official state in Libya is profoundly isolated. The movement against it, based in the east, is presented as "America's sweetheart") and the "sweetheart" of the "world community." Good point. Given BP's liberal humanitarian prejudices, I am quite sure that they would not do business with a regime that had blood on its hands. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:48:50 -0800 (PST) Suresh wrote: > The original list that Marxmail > grew out of, I understand, was an anarchic mess. Unfortunately, as > they say, the pendulum has swung too far. We grow old, we grow old, Shall we wear the bottoms of our trousers rolled? -- -- Michael J. Smith m...@smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://www.cars-suck.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] (no subject)
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == > sandia wrote: >> Can anyone point me toward reading material that surveys the causes >> of the fall of the USSR? > Kotz, David M. and Fred Weir. 1997. Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System (London: Routledge). -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
