Mark made another important point in his post of 14 Sept (S11) which I wanted to come back to. (The intensity of Mark's posts and the quality of his information makes it difficult to keep up, but the problems of the global economy will not go away anyway, so here goes.) I accept the broad case Mark argues, for example in his persuasive piece "A New Energy Crisis" of 13th Sept. Also the Crash List has been pursuing this theme, and among other things I have picked up from there, I agree the arguments first presented by Hubbert, and now called the Hubbert Curve, about the peak of oil production. www.hubbertpeak.com However the point I wanted to come back to seems to be not quite right from a marxist point of view, or if it is right, it raises some interesting questions about how to apply the marxist theory of crises to the present phenomena. Mark wrote: >to anyone who's done their >homework this cannot hide the fact that (since 1973 at least) >energy-shortages have been behind economic cycles, have >led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and to >3 mideast wars, and are now resulting in the Fourth and Final Oil Shock Now the marxist theory of capitalist crises, as I understand it, describes the endless tendency for surplus value to accumulate more surplus value, to the business cycle accelerating until it reaches its rate- limiting step in the contradiction between capitalist accumulation and the limited purchasing power of the masses of working people. There are sub-phases to this as stocks of overproduced commodities accumulate, which usually first trigger a financial crisis, before a general economic crisis ensues, with the destruction of a significant amount of capital, living and dead. This theory of crises depends on exploitation of labour power. Marx recognises exploitation of resources too, but his theory of capitalist crises is not dependent on them. Mark's point above is compelling enough in that a short supply of a basic commodity like oil may imperil the profitability of certain sectors of the economy short of a general economic crisis of capitalism. But it would be theoretically risky to substitute important ecological arguments for the marxian theory of crises. That theory is independent of what technology is used by capitalism. Indeed it presumes constant revolutionising of the means of production under capitalism. Mark is persuasive about the arguments that the human race is coming up against the finite limits of extractable oil. But that does not necessarily unfortunately mean the end of capitalism. Capitalism wobble as a result. But if you don't push it, it won't fall. Chris Burford [forwarded from Thaxis, which I had to unsub from because of pressure of work. I'll try to respond. Mark] _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
