Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:21062] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] > Perhaps Louis could explain what he means by small farms being more productive. > Even if it is true of some small farms producing som

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

>humaneness. But even small farms use modern transportation and >machines. > >Doug I'm sorry I have to spell all of this out. It is not exactly a function of small versus big, although in haste I might have given that impression. The problem is that modern transportation systems have facilitated

Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood > > Sent: 30 June 2000 17:37 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [PEN-L:21031] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the > > World-System and National Emissions of] > > > > > > Louis Proyect wrote: > >

RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

:37 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:21031] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the > World-System and National Emissions of] > > > Louis Proyect wrote: > > >Doug: > >>Does the revo also mean there won't be modern transportation, > >>chem

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

Louis Proyect wrote: >Doug: >>Does the revo also mean there won't be modern transportation, >>chemical fertilizers, mechnized plowing and reaping, etc.? Then >>there's truly no way to sustain a world population of more than, say, >>a billion people, maybe fewer - meaning that at least 80% of us h

Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

At 06:28 PM 6/29/00 -0500, you wrote: >Does doing away with this distinction mean locating hog barns and cattle >feed lots in the city? hog barns literally stink to high heaven, as the film "Waking Ned (no relation) Devine" reminds us. But I heard that they were changing the composition of hog

RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

AIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Devine > Sent: 30 June 2000 03:36 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:21003] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the > World-System and National Emissions of] > > > At 01:49 AM 06/30/2000 +0100, you wrote: > &

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

At 01:49 AM 06/30/2000 +0100, you wrote: >Yelling at people that they are atavists, apocalyptics etc, doesn't answer >any more than Jim Devine throwing queenie fits answers the questions. so Mr. Jones is gay-bashing me? I find that insults are always the last refuge of the fuzzy thinker. In any

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)

CTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 11:32 PM Subject: [PEN-L:20981] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd) > >sustainable than the U.S. But is a growth rate of 0 low enough? Could > >we feed and house 6

Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

Doug Henwood wrote: > > Does the revo also mean there won't be modern transportation, > chemical fertilizers, mechnized plowing and reaping, etc.? Then > there's truly no way to sustain a world population of more than, say, > a billion people, maybe fewer - meaning that at least 80% of us have > t

Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

Doug: >Does the revo also mean there won't be modern transportation, >chemical fertilizers, mechnized plowing and reaping, etc.? Then >there's truly no way to sustain a world population of more than, say, >a billion people, maybe fewer - meaning that at least 80% of us have >to go. You don't

Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

>Does doing away with this distinction mean locating hog barns and cattle >feed lots in the city? More flippancy. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

Jim Devine wrote: >no loss! Starbucks burns its beans, producing inferior coffee. A Dissent on Starbucks by Jackie Mason Starbucks is the best example of a phony status symbol that means nothing, but people will still pay 10x as much for because there ar

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

Jim Devine wrote: >>Ok, so now we know there won't be Starbucks after the revolution. >>Finally a bit of detail. > >no loss! Starbucks burns its beans, producing inferior coffee. "I don't like it. It smells burnt." - Jackie Mason

Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

At 07:17 PM 6/29/00 -0400, you wrote: >Ok, so now we know there won't be Starbucks after the revolution. Finally >a bit of detail. no loss! Starbucks burns its beans, producing inferior coffee. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine

Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

Louis Proyect wrote: >You and Doug approach this as if we were talking about life-style. I can >understand this. This is generally how people first react to the CM demand, >as if they were being asked to give up Starbucks or something. It is not >about this primarily. It is about addressing a fun

Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

In developed countries at least many urban features are already in the countryside. The automobile enables rural dwellers to take advantage of urban shopping facilities equally with urban dwellers. Rural dwellings almost all have modern sanitiation and sewage systems albeit self-contained in the c

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)

>sustainable than the U.S. But is a growth rate of 0 low enough? Could >we feed and house 6 billion people if we all spent our time searching >for "Jack-in-the-Pulpits or fishing for pickerel"? That kind of rural >leisure is available to someone living in a rich country; in a poor >country, yo

Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of]

Rod wrote: >Eliminating the distinction between town and country side is a very >abstract though admirable goal. But what does it mean concretely. Better >planning of new housing space? More green space in the city? Better and >more efficient transportation systems? Or is there something more >dra

Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)

Doug: >Compared to many other countries, the U.S. has a version of this, >only we call it suburban sprawl. It's ugly, and extremely dependent >on fossil fuels. How would the post-revolutionary world be different >from suburbia? The US does not have "a version of this". When you were growing up

Re: Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)

I just read that NY City is the largest consumer of pesticides in the state. Now that you have that part of the agricultural system, may the rest won't be too hard. Doug Henwood wrote: > > It's weird to hear this coming from someone who lives & works on > Manhattan Island, but I'll leave that as

Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)

>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 m

Re: Re: Re: [Fwd: Position in the World-System and National Emissions of] (fwd)

Karl & Fred wrote: >"Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual >abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable >distribution of the populace over the country." Compared to many other countries, the U.S. has a version of this, only we call it