Re: Current implications for South Africa

How is the One Child Policy in the PRC working? Michael Pugliese - Original Message - From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:10 AM Subject: [PEN-L:14007] Current implications for South Africa > > &

Current implications for South Africa

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/22/01 03:18PM >>> Doug Henwood wrote: > > So the 6 billion people of the earth - what's going to happen to > them? Should they consent to dying off in vast numbers? What would *you* advise? Mark CB: All 6 billion of us alive now will die within 100 y

Re: RE: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Mark Jones wrote: > Yoshie Furuhashi > > Mark should stop putting the question as an oft-thwarted attempt at > > a prediction -- e.g., "will energy be available at current > > requirement >projections at environmental costs most people can > > stand and at market prices >compatible

Re: Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

At 02:58 PM 6/25/01 -0400, you wrote: >>At Foundry on April 14, Nader spoke out, rightly, for vaccination, but >>attacked Viagra and Prozac, apparently seen as only life-style >>frivolities. From the audience, Joanne Landy (a Nader supporter) cried >>out -- as is her custom in such situations,

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: >> > >I have yet to browse through the entire issue, but are you pointing >to the following? Yes, sorry, wrong link. It should have been . Lemisch wrote in an earlier NP

Re: Current implications for South Africa

Doug posted: >Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > >>>I am pretty sure that we can, but it will require *radical* adjustments >>>including: >>> >>>1. overcoming the city-countryside split as called for in the Communist >>>Manifesto. >>>2. elimination of the automobile and jet plane except for extraordinary

Re: Current implications for South Africa

>Yoshie Furuhashi >> Mark should stop putting the question as an oft-thwarted attempt at a >> prediction -- e.g., "will energy be available at current requirement >> projections at environmental costs most people can stand and at >> market prices compatible with those particular requirements w

RE: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Yoshie Furuhashi > Mark should stop putting the question as an oft-thwarted attempt at a > prediction -- e.g., "will energy be available at current requirement > projections at environmental costs most people can stand and at > market prices compatible with those particular requirements within a >

Re: Current implications for South Africa

At 11:49 AM -0400 6/25/01, Louis Proyect wrote: >The questions we are dealing with exist on an overarching basis and >have little to do with organizing people. The environmental questions had better be posed with a view to organizing people & pushing for socialism. It appears, btw, that South

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Yoshie: >Mark should stop putting the question as an oft-thwarted attempt at a >prediction -- e.g., "will energy be available at current requirement >projections at environmental costs most people can stand and at >market prices compatible with those particular requirements within a >capitalis

Re: Current implications for South Africa

> > Lastly, what happened to the energy question? Are fossil fuels soon >> running out? Are alternative energy sources viable given a chance? >> :-) > >The energy question always runs up against a wall of ignorance, I reckon. As >the question is actually (as Mark never tires of telling us) m

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: >>I am pretty sure that we can, but it will require *radical* adjustments >>including: >> >>1. overcoming the city-countryside split as called for in the Communist >>Manifesto. >>2. elimination of the automobile and jet plane except for extraordinary >>reasons. >>3. promot

Re: Current implications for South Africa

Mark says: >The issue is their economic availability to capitalism--and the >price the rest of us pays. Naturally we want to make costs of industrial inputs (fuels included) -- as well as labor power -- dearer to capitalists, monkey-wrenching the circuit of accumulation, hoping to push capita

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

> Lastly, what happened to the energy question? Are fossil fuels soon > running out? Are alternative energy sources viable given a chance? > :-) The energy question always runs up against a wall of ignorance, I reckon. As the question is actually (as Mark never tires of telling us) more like:

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Again, this discussion is fraught with too many accusations of and attributions to others on the list. Please cool it. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Current implications for South Africa

Lou says: >People who read Utne Reader, wore Birkenstocks and took >vacations in Costa Rica versus people who concluded from an undialectical >reading of Karl Marx that the inexorable process of capitalist >industrialization paves the way for socialism. In fact the inexorable >process of capitali

Re: Current implications for South Africa

Lou: > >By John's criteria, only the rich who can afford _not_ to eat fast >>food, shop at Wal-Mart, etc. can live morally correct lives. What >>the masses buy is cheap mass products of sweatshop labor; what the >>truly rich buy, in contrast, is expensive products of relatively >>well-paid arti

Re: Re: Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

>Lou, if I could do it with a wave of my hand, I would wipe MacDonalds >off the face of the earth. The institution of fast food is undoubtedly >vicious. But attacking _people_ rather than the institutions that >exploit them is just politically stupid. I don't really remember very >well the specifi

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

>By John's criteria, only the rich who can afford _not_ to eat fast >food, shop at Wal-Mart, etc. can live morally correct lives. What >the masses buy is cheap mass products of sweatshop labor; what the >truly rich buy, in contrast, is expensive products of relatively >well-paid artisanal lab

RE: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Yoshie: > Is it possible to provide all human beings with food, clean > water, sanitation, shelter, energy, medicine, education, > transportation, etc. that are necessary to meet historically > developed minimum needs (setting aside other needs & desires for the > time being) under socialism? >Or

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

- Original Message - From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 7:26 PM Subject: [PEN-L:13914] Re: Current implications for South Africa > > ><http://www.unfpa.org/swp/1999/pressumary1.htm>). What's

Re: Current implications for South Africa

Lou says: >Yoshie: >>Let's forget about fast food as it is merely red herring in this >>thread. > >Then why the heck did you and Carrol tell practically argue that opposition >to MacDonalds is anti-working class? Surely you are aware that I read >lbo-talk just as Doug reads the Marxism list arch

Re: Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Louis Proyect wrote: > > Yoshie: > >Let's forget about fast food as it is merely red herring in this > >thread. > > Then why the heck did you and Carrol tell practically argue that opposition > to MacDonalds is anti-working class? Surely you are aware that I read > lbo-talk just as Doug reads

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Yoshie: >Let's forget about fast food as it is merely red herring in this >thread. Then why the heck did you and Carrol tell practically argue that opposition to MacDonalds is anti-working class? Surely you are aware that I read lbo-talk just as Doug reads the Marxism list archives. I found yo

Re: Current implications for South Africa

>Mark Jones wrote: > > It would be more useful to address the issue I am raising, rather >than going >> into denial, > >Mark, If I were chained to a tree, it would do me no good to give my >attention to the fact that a flood was approaching. My main concern >would be to unchain myself, and then

Re: Current implications for South Africa

> >). What's >>fundamentally preventing us from providing people with means to meet >>their basic needs -- capitalism & imperialism or natural constraints? > >Imperialism, but ecological imperialism to be more exact. > >>If the former, socialism is

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

>). What's >fundamentally preventing us from providing people with means to meet >their basic needs -- capitalism & imperialism or natural constraints? Imperialism, but ecological imperialism to be more exact. >If the former, socialism is the an

Re: Current implications for South Africa

>The point about this is not that it is a conceivable future, but that it is >our actual world, it is the present-day, it is the world in which persons in >the Indian subcontinent consume one-eightieth of the energy of persons in >the USA, in which more than half of humankind has never made a phon

Re: RE: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Mark Jones wrote: > > > > And yes, the answer to this is revolutionary communism, and what we need for > that is first off, for starters, to get our heads out of the sand and *look > at* the world as it really as and not as we would wish it to be. I agree. I also think that your description

Re: Re: RE: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Carrol Cox: >My understanding of capitalism is that it _must_ grow, regardless of >consequences, and that it simply is not worth considering possibilities >for constraining growth under capitalism, however desirable or even >absolutely necessary that may be. Right now I am reading "The Last Ranch

Re: RE: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Mark Jones wrote: > > > > It would be more useful to address the issue I am raising, rather than going > into denial, Mark, If I were chained to a tree, it would do me no good to give my attention to the fact that a flood was approaching. My main concern would be to unchain myself, and then a

Re: Current implications for South Africa

At 24/06/01 11:19 +, you wrote: > > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:52:05 +0100 > > From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > But fundamentally the enemy is not a policy: it is the blind workings of > > global finance capital. That is why we need regulation not de-regulation. > >

Re: Current implications for South Africa

Mark writes: >This means that chronic energy crisis is >certain to mutate into energy famine, cruelly frustrating any residual hopes >entertained by the South African masses. > >The problem of debt, which you raise about Zim, is simply a red-herring. In >context, debt, though not trivial, is symp

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:52:05 +0100 > From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But fundamentally the enemy is not a policy: it is the blind workings of > global finance capital. That is why we need regulation not de-regulation. > This may not come through the reform of Bre

Re: Current implications for South Africa

At 23/06/01 07:47 +, Patrick Bond wrote: > > Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 06:32:48 +0100 > > From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To what extent is there still relevance in the ANC/SACP concept of the > > National Democratic Revolution? > >Concept is great. Problem is, som

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:11:38 -0400 > From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> The expansion of mass consumption & regional linkages (in opposition > >> to elite consumption & subordination to financial centers) under the > >> Bond program (if ever implemented -- bu

Re: RE: Re: Current implications for South Africa

> From: "Mark Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:28:35 +0100 > Do you even acknowledge as a problem, the global endemic energy > scarcity which has seen per capita energy consumption stagnant since 1973 > and which is a very real problem precisely in those new

Re: Current implications for South Africa

> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 06:32:48 +0100 > From: Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To what extent is there still relevance in the ANC/SACP concept of the > National Democratic Revolution? Concept is great. Problem is, some of the key actors are "talk-left, act-right" sell-ou

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Yoshie is absolutely correct. Marx accurately argued that capitalism would fail when people rejected it because it cannot adjust to allow society to meet its potential. The passages that Mark (not Marx) quoted from the Grundrisse are among my favorites, because they make the case that capitalism

Re: Current implications for South Africa

Michael Perelman wrote: >I don't know what the biggest risk is for capitalism: Third World upheavals, >financial implosion, global warming, overcapacity, or resource constraints. None of the above -- the tendency to overaccumulation inherent in capitalism, supply bottlenecks created by neoliber

RE: Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Doug Henwood wrote: > > In my role as PEN-L's Dr Pangloss, may I point out one thing you > didn't include - human ingenuity, This sounds more Julian Simon than Dr Pangloss, and as for what Marx wrote in Grundrisse, he also said therein: ''To the degree that labour-time -- the mere quantity of l

Re: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Michael Perelman wrote: >I don't know what the biggest risk is for capitalism: Third World upheavals, >financial implosion, global warming, overcapacity, or resource constraints. I >think it would be very useful to think about how these various >forces relate to >each other. For example, could

Re: Current implications for South Africa

This discussion with Mark, Doug, and Yoshi is very important, although it seems to be going on different levels. Mark is correct that in the not too distant future, energy prices even though the short-term prices are susceptible to manipulation. Even so, I suspect that the monopolistic upward pr

Re: Current implications for South Africa

>Yoshie Furuhashi >> >> The expansion of mass consumption & regional linkages (in opposition >> to elite consumption & subordination to financial centers) under the >> Bond program (if ever implemented -- but who bells the cat?) can >> presumably overcome the tendency to overaccumulation inher

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Doug Henwood earlier wrote [PEN-L:13799]: > >it's more of a 19th century slowdown than a post-WW II one, > with a financial hangover from the burst Nasdaq/tech bubble, and a > real sector one from overinvestment in gadgets. It's probably going > to take some time to work through it. Maybe Doug is

Re: RE: Re: Current implications for South Africa

Mark Jones wrote: > The truth is that if Pat Bond is unrealistic, >your scheme is much more so, since it requires not only the willing consent >of the global elites to their own elimination, but also the presence three >additional planet earths plus zero population growth on this one. So the 6

Re: Current implications for South Africa

Chris wrote: >To extract from Patrick Bond's long post of 20th June: > >>One work from the left ANC tradition (which >>I had the privilege to edit), Mzwanele Mayekiso's >>Township Politics: Civic Struggles for a New >>South Africa (New York, Monthly Review, 1996), >>makes a plausible case that ma

Current implications for South Africa

To extract from Patrick Bond's long post of 20th June: > One work from the left ANC tradition (which >I had the privilege to edit), Mzwanele Mayekiso's >Township Politics: Civic Struggles for a New >South Africa (New York, Monthly Review, 1996), >makes a plausible case that many more insur