Hi Mark,
I have some very telling criticism for you, but first this condign compliment. Your
defense of the "Principle of Population" to the group of feminists was truly
exilharating. I was particularly taken with these two paragraphs:
"If the Ecological Imperative applied (no growth, and no unsustainable human
activities) then capitalism could not continue, it would cease to exist.
Capitalism entails and depends upon, growth, including above all growth in
the consumption of material resources and growth of relative surplus
population. This was what Marx called the general law of population:
creation of a 'reserve army' is an aspect of accumulation, and not a simply
by-product of capitalism, but something essential and intrinsic to it. Those
who argue that capitalism is not after predicated upon a Grow or Die
dilemma, are wrong. True sustainability is impossible under capitalism,
whose whole history has been evidence of two contradictory but interrelated
and interdependent processes: population growth on the one hand, and
genocides, famines, dieoffs and demographic catastrophes on the other.
Marx's critique of Malthus is one of the least satisfactory of his great
critiques of the philosophical thinkers, economists and socialists of the
Enlightenment (the period 1750-1830). This is not because Malthus was a
greater thinker than Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Ricardo, Smith etc, he was not;
on the contrary, Malthus was a trivialising, pedantic country parson whose
social theory is merely a thin veil over undisguised misanthropy. But
Malthus hit upon a problem which actually has never gone away, and which
strikes to the heart of the unsustainability of capitalism. For this is the
first mode of production which both depends upon and makes possible,
exponential growth rates in production, energy and raw material consumption,
and population. But the planet is not growing"
It is very refreshing to hear this vindication of Malthus. True, he was no saint, but
he was not the scoundrel Marx made him out to be, either, and it is decent of you to
say so. BTW, what Marx did with Malthus was to indulge in a bit of argument ad
hominem; he claimed that Malthus was bought and paid for by the bourgeoisie, and
therefore his conclusions were to be dismissed out of hand. IMO, this is one
beginning of a sordid "labeling" tendency emulated by many who style themselves
followers of Marx -- a practice that I would like to say they have finally outgrown,
but recent personal experience has proven otherwise for me.
Now, on to the main issue: Mark, your criticism of my one or two posts on Mondragon
as irrelevant come as a deep disappointment. In the first place, it is important to
bear in mind the context of these posts. This list has been the scene of a number of
perorations all regurgitating the two-value logic which the Cold War writ large: it's
either imperialistic capitalism or State socialism, either the West or the East, etc.
Though these recent rabble-rousings do not use such dated terminology, the underlying
message remains the same: the only hope against advanced capitalism is some mass
(street/guerilla) action, probably in the Third World, then by contagion elsewhere.
Then we can expect . . . what? Just what is going to follow from even the most
successful militancy of this sort? Never mind that no one ever gives the answer, my
point here is that you never considered any of these unreconstructed Communist
jeremiads "irrelevant." If you did, you never allowed as much p!
ppublicly on this list. But when I challenge this two-value logic with a
fact-on-the-ground called Mondragon, and an ideology called Cooperation, I am treated
to a one-two punch. First Julien tags me as "anti-Soviet," then moderator Mark sends
the warning that my subject is off-limits.
Yes, but people posting here can go on and on about fine points of the Spanish Civil
war, and titillate each other to new heights of "socialist" rhetoric, but when someone
breaks up the little "us vs. them" pas de deux with a novel approach that challenges
this perception, and begins to open up the field of economic praxis to third and (who
knows?) fourth and fifth alternatives, that is "irrelevant." Now everyone must focus
strictly on the eco-crash, and political economy be damned.
Well, Mark, had you been equable in your criticism, I would take it in stride.
Instead, your prejudice is showing. Cooperation as a solution to capitalism has
gotten short shrift not only here, but in many a Socialist International.
Nevertheless, it is theoretically sound, and no one here has put a hole in it. You
have rendered an opinion that it is not "new" (whatever that means), but so what? I
gather from your comments that you are not fond of this notion, but how is it that I,
in introducing it, have thereby to make a special connection with the ecology
question, whereas other more doctrinaire Leftists have been free to politically rant
at will here?
Truthfully, it is folly to try to separate ecology and political economy. As someone
else said on this list today, no matter what happens you're still going to have to
have some kind of political economy, made up of many of the same factors. Doesn't it
make good sense to try to explore which ones might be most conducive to ecological
security? I would hope that we would all be on the lookout for any solution that 1)
replaces capitalism with a "socialist" alternative of some sort, that is, one that
elevates the worker to full control over his workplace, and the receipt of the whole
fruit of his labor, 2) repects the consumer, and seeks quality, not just quantity, of
production and 3) fully recognizes the ecological issue and addresses it as a matter
of course. Despite my current attraction to Cooperation as the best solution to this
problem, I am open to alternatives. ARE YOU? Why should they not be discussed here
then?
Peace,
Ken
------------------------------------------------------------
((( GREAT DEAL: Home Depot: Home Improvement 1-2-3 on CD-ROM )))
Get it FREE! at: http://nettaxi.free-irewards.com ( plus S&H )
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
