Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System andNationalEmissions of] (fwd)
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 05:59PM >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I have found myself in agreement with Lou's recent post suggesting that >the roots of ecological crisis and overpopulation pressures lie in the >contradictions of capitalism, and that a socialist revolution is not >only necessary but also desirable if we are to have a sustainable >ecological system in the future. Hmm, ok, maybe I can get an answer from you: what changes in industrial and agricultural practices, energy sources, the build environment, living arrangements, etc., will occur under socialism that will avoid the eco-catastrophe capitalism supposedly has in store for us. It's not just a matter of invoking the words "socialist revolution" along the lines of "Presto Change-o," is it? _ CB: To purport to answer your question fully would be to assume the approach of a utopian. The answer to your question must come in the main from the practice, trial and error, of billions of people. Building an ecologically viable society cannot be done based on a detailed blueprint proposed by a few genius intellectuals anymore than building socialism. The Marxist approach to eco-relief is the same as its approach to exploitation-relief: Identify and highlight the basic crisis generating contradictions as a guide, not dogma, for practice. This is the opposite of a "presto chango" solution, for the actual solution "on the ground" will take difficult struggle based on some fundamental guiding principles, i.e. general eco-socialist consciousness in the masses of people on earth. It WONT be easy to answer your question in detail even in practice, and impossible to answer it theoretically in detail without practice as on an e-mail list. The ecological crisis is integral with and a concrete aspect of capitalist crisis. Capitalism in its imperialist stage has based itself critically on the use of oil. So, given that this means that there would have to be a super drastic drop in profiteering by the oil companies, auto companies and many other companies dependent upon oil directly and indirectly for production, these imperialists are inherently unable to even explore such a radical change. Ergo, the logic of capitalism as it is concretely constituted in 2000 can't do the job. It cannot possible actually seek the answers and actions in detail that you ask above ( and as I say, nor can a few genius intellectuals give you the details in advance of practice by the billions). But, one thing we can say as a general guide ( not the detailed blueprint) is that Year 2000 capitalist accumulation as the arch-controlling logic of the whole of human society must be obliterated to free up the practice of the billions to find the detailed answers to the questions you ask.
Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System andNationalEmissions of](fwd)
As someone else pointed out Cox's example was not a tautology. To say that something is a tautology is to say that it is true for formal reasons and not contingent upon empirical facts. Some equations are contradictions and so are false for formal reasons. Mathematics is trivial in that it makes no empirical claims or is consistent with any possible set of empirical facts. John Stuart Mill would agree with you. He thinks that 2 plus 2 is 4 is an empirical fact illustrated by adding 2 marbles to 2 more etc. But getting 1 drop from adding 2 drops to 2 others doesn't refute the proposition that 2 plus 2 is 4 or just show it is highly probable. At least I am as firm on that as Mark is on the oil crisis. Cheers, Ken Hanly P.S. Sorry I did not delete earlier messages in my reply to Mark Jones. PS. Re cattle raising and Louis. The standard mode of cattle raising hereabouts and I expect in most of North America is two stage: cow calf ranchers, feedlot finishers. On ranches cattle and calves are pastured and also fed hay mixed with grains such as oats and/barley-in winter of course pasture is not an option.. On reaching a certain range of weights the calves are sold, often at auction, to feedlot operators who then finish the cattle for market. At the feedlot there will be extensive feeding of hay, grains etc. to quickly add weight. Some farmers may also have feedlots and others also may practice backgrounding, adding further weight to the calves before marketing them--espeically if they have plentiful feed supplies. During the cow calf operation the feed is in the pasture, the farmer will often have his own hay and even grains. Grains for feeding will be transported long distances only if they are not available locally. Even hay may be trucked long distances in case of local shortages, but this would be the exception not the rule. Feed materials are bought by feedlots from the nearest sources. Charles Brown wrote: > If you are implying that there are no non-trivial tautologies, isn't mathematics all >about non-trivial tautologies ? All equations are tautologies, no ? > > CB >
Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System andNationalEmissions of](fwd)
Ken Hanly: >available locally. Even hay may be trucked long distances in case of local shortages, but this would be the exception not the rule. Feed materials are >bought by feedlots from the nearest sources. You don't seem to get the point. It is not simply about closeness or distance. It is about ORGANIC processes. The separation of livestock from grain is what Marx called a "metabolic rift". A miss is as good as a mile on these questions. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System andNationalEmissions of] (fwd)
M A Jones wrote: >But capitalism will collapse anyway. Right. Where have I heard that one before? Doug
Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System andNationalEmissions of] (fwd)
Doug Henwood wrote: > Charles Brown wrote: > > >To purport to answer your question fully would be to assume the > >approach of a utopian. The answer to your question must come in > >the main from the practice, trial and error, of billions of people. > > This is evasive. I'm not asking for a 24-volume detailed blueprint - > I'm asking for general principles of organization, and specifically > those that are technically feasible but politically impossible under > capitalism. If red-greens can't do this, they will convince no one of > anything except their millennarian fervor. Bullshit Doug. On the contrary, any statement of the kind you want would be arrogant and stupid, not merely utopian. No one except a few academics and journalists (I ignore sheer demogogues) has ever taken up resistance to capitalism on the basis of being convinced there is a "better system." And frankly I doubt the good faith of anyone who asks such questions. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System andNationalEmissions of](fwd)
I don't get it. What would it be like not to separate livestock from grain? Have the livestock wandering through your grain fields? What system of agriculture ever suggested that. Maybe I am being flippant, but what you say makes absolutely no sense to me. Livestock are not separated from pasture usually except where there is no pasture. Are you seriously suggesting that there is some compelling reason to put livestock back in grain fields rather than feeding them hay, and grains grown in other fields and letting them pasture? Perhaps you could give me some references that explain the great virtues of such a system. Do the MOnthly Review people suggest this! Anyway your original statements made a big deal about transporting grain long distances. I agree that this is neither here nor there except as an act of gross economic stupidity to use distant grain rather than local given the same price. You seemed to place some importance on this but I see that you meant something else that still makes no sense to me. Do you think that there is some special significance and organic holiness in cattle stomping through grain and shitting and thus returning goodies to the soil or what? It is recycled on fields from feedlots nows, and in pastures surely there is no metabolic rift as anyone who has walked on cowpaths can tell you. The cow patties are there in all their natural glory. I always wondered about the Lord suggesting people lie down in green pastures. Cheers, Ken Hanly Louis Proyect wrote: > Ken Hanly: > >available locally. Even hay may be trucked long distances in case of local > shortages, but this would be the exception not the rule. Feed materials are > >bought by feedlots from the nearest sources. > > You don't seem to get the point. It is not simply about closeness or > distance. It is about ORGANIC processes. The separation of livestock from > grain is what Marx called a "metabolic rift". A miss is as good as a mile > on these questions. > > Louis Proyect > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System andNationalEmissions of] (fwd)
Doug Henwood wrote: > M A Jones wrote: > > >But capitalism will collapse anyway. > > Right. Where have I heard that one before? Actually the prediction was made by many old guys millenia ago before capitalism was ever heard of. You know, the old stuff about the rise and fall of this or that. ONe doesn't have to be even remotely a marxist to know this. Now *dating* it -- that's something else. And of course it is also another quesion whether the collapse will be followed by socialism or barbarianism. But who can seriously object to the abstract proposition that "Capitalism will collapse." It seems a rather trivial tautology. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System andNationalEmissions of] (fwd)
Carrol Cox wrote: >Bullshit Doug. On the contrary, any statement of the kind you want >would be arrogant and stupid, not merely utopian. No one except >a few academics and journalists (I ignore sheer demogogues) has >ever taken up resistance to capitalism on the basis of being convinced >there is a "better system." Hmm, I can see it now, "Risk your livelihood, even your life, for an ineffable future!" Why would anyone take up resistance without even a hint of what they were fighting for? > And frankly I doubt the good faith of >anyone who asks such questions. This has all been very clarifying. Why am I reminded of that old joke about Rebels without a clue? Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System andNationalEmissions of] (fwd)
Well, Carroll, I certainly like to see you raise the level of discourse. So it's arrogant and stupid and in bad faith of Doug to ask for a reason to think that we could do better if we made some sort of change in a direction you would consider socialist. well, sign me up to the arrogant, stupid, and bad faith list. Of course one will be convinced to join up on the basis of such ana rgument, but if we don't have it, we are losers in the ideological war. In case you didn't notice, the last 200 or so times we tried going at the thing blind we fucked up. The working class has certainly noticed that little fact. I think it is attitudes like yours that have helped to stick us in this ghetto who all we can do is snarl at each other. --jks Bullshit Doug. On the contrary, any statement of the kind you want would be arrogant and stupid, not merely utopian. No one except a few academics and journalists (I ignore sheer demogogues) has ever taken up resistance to capitalism on the basis of being convinced there is a "better system." And frankly I doubt the good faith of anyone who asks such questions. Carrol >>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System andNationalEmissions of] (fwd)
Is this in contrast to non-trivial tautologies? Cheers, Ken Hanly Carrol Cox wrote: > Doug Henwood wrote: > > > M A Jones wrote: > > > > >But capitalism will collapse anyway. > > > > Right. Where have I heard that one before? > > Actually the prediction was made by many old guys millenia ago > before capitalism was ever heard of. You know, the old stuff about > the rise and fall of this or that. ONe doesn't have to be even remotely > a marxist to know this. Now *dating* it -- that's something else. > > And of course it is also another quesion whether the collapse will > be followed by socialism or barbarianism. But who can seriously > object to the abstract proposition that "Capitalism will collapse." > It seems a rather trivial tautology. > > Carrol
