Rod Hay wrote:
> London (1830)
>
> Economic pundit X: If the economy continues to grow at its present rate, in
> fifty years we will all be buried in ten feet of horse shit.
Look, I've made pretty clear that I think *politically* Lou and Mark are
following a course of mere despair and political inaction. And that despair
leads them to grab any bit of ammunition in sight, including "creepy"
material from the population freaks. But I think it equally stupid to be
flippant about their technical material *as* technical material. There
is a high probability of their being right. They seem a bit over confident
as to the precise features of their projected future, but even allowing
for considerable error in the details, their basic argument would remain
sound, and has been made by many in less pretentious terms.
And Mark I think is also correct in denying that a new social system will
dissolve the physical and technological facts. But I *think* (Mark and
Lou stubbornly refuse even to enter into discussion on this) that a "new"
social system *is* a precondition for even any serious struggle to
confront the "natural" limits or barriers to growth they describe. So
they do pose (even though they refuse to discuss) a serious question
of how or whether the socialist movement can make their material
a significant part of a political program.
Another way to put it: Will people in any significant numbers take to
the streets or barricades even if convince that unless they do the
world as we know it will end in the next generation? Can "long range"
("long range here being anything more than about 10 years in the
future) concerns fuel mass political action?
My own very provisional answer to this is that such concerns cannot
*iniate* a movement but that "properly handled" (which means not
making it occasion merely for handwringing and oratory as Lou and
Mark do) those concerns could add immense weight to an ongoing
movement having its sources in other concerns. I could be wrong in
many ways here, including even the way I word the question -- but I
think the question is very real, and that references to past failures
(real or imaginative) of prediction do not constitute an adequate
response.
One thing -- ignoring the Frankfurters, I suspect that Lou's other
three categories of marxists (and other leftists) can indeed find
political unity *without* resolving the theoretical issues that Lou
claims divide them. One reason I say "Pish" to Lou's aguments on
this point is that I simply don't believe the theoretical issues he
poses can be resolved in merely theoretical terms: they can only
be resolved within a movement unified on other grounds.
Carrol
