Tom 's post( apart from his personal assessment of his own perceived
inadequacies, but would that we all were as mature and insightful)
resonates for me in that he expresses much of my frustrations with
clarity, and so much better than I .jo*
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:44:02 -0700 "Embarkadero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Writes Carrol about "value":
>
>In the sense it is a useful word in understanding history, and
>thus in understanding ourselves and our condition, it names
>a social relationship that came into existence with capitalism
>(though it has some shadowy existence in some pre-capitalist
>formations). It is a technical term in political economy, not
>a vague word which means "something good."
>
>Writes Mark:
>
>>What matters from the point of view of the crisis of capitalism
>> and the dynamics of the Crash, is the interplay of market
>recessions,
>> booms and slumps, with the availability at any given time of finite
>> resources, eg fossil fuels.
>
>Writes Tom:
>
>
> I'm gonna try to ignore the flames from CC -- I was a bit snappy
>m'self --
>and try to move us a bit closer to some consensus ...
>
>I have given up much hope that I personally can communicate in
>marxian
>language well enough to discuss the finer points in a way that grants
>me a
>fair hearing. At different times Tony, Tahir, Carrol, Mac, Mark and
>others
>have adequately demonstrated to me my inability to break through the
>barriers and biases I hold and they hold in a way that is
>constructive. (It
>seems I am constantly setting off antagonistic tripwires even when I
>try NOT
>to "flame." Mea maxima culpa.)
>
>Is the idea of nature contributing value (or wealth .. whatever small
>distinction that affords you all, it honestly seems like hair
>splitting) is
>anathema to those who hold marxist positions? What value, then, is
>marxism
>to a discussion of the Crash? In the few months that I have been
>trying to
>understand the marxist position thoprugh those on the crashlist, I
>have not
>seen a marxist theory put forward that addresses the fundamental
>problem of
>the environmental crisis, or even the oil crunch. (This may have
>happened, I
>am not always aware of the subtlties that go back and forth via
>marxist
>jargon, forgive me if I missed it. I am honestly looking. Proof: ...
>I'm
>still here on the list.)
>
>Just because MY inability to frame the problem in an acceptable way
>is so
>obvious does NOT mean that the very real problems of environmental
>collapse
>and the plunder of the biosystem by global economic activity are
>going to
>go away ... or slink off as if those problems have lost some grand
>debate
>with marxism. Does anyone not see that clearly? If Tony steps outside
>the
>class rhetoric to make common sense --and truthful -- observations
>about the
>nature of the threat to the planet, calling him a heritic does NOT
>make the
>problem disappear. Anyone not see that either?
>
>Whether it is using the word "value" or speaking about "immigration"
>or
>WHATEVER, I find it disheartening that the list seems to quibble
>endlessly
>about the meaning of words and what is or is not an acceptable
>interpretation of the marxist ideology.
>
>I genuinely welcome being set in my place based upon something other
>than
>calling me an asshole or stupid, or flaming Tony because he speaks the
>truth
>about the nature of the rape of the ecosystem. I welcome some
>constructive
>discussion as to what marxist thought or theory has to say about
>confronting
>the envrionmental issues or even just one part of it : the oil
>crisis.
>
>Does marxist theory have ANYTHING to say about the "dynamics of the
>Crash",
>as Mark puts it?
>
>Does marxist thought offer us any constructive avenues to approach
>either
>understanding the crash or acting in some way to ameliorate what most
>of us
>see as a world-wide catastrophe?
>
>Is there anything marxism has to teach us about what mark terms the
>current
>looming "crisis of capitalism"?
>
>...Or are we to face endless rounds of word games and correction
>after
>correction of post after post about "value"? ( I dimply percieve that
>Ricardo contradicted Marx, and therefore "value" is somehow a hot
>button for
>you guys. Unfortunately some of Ricardo's beyond-the-pale insights
>are
>bearing terrible fruit.)
>
>Outside marxist discussion Hardin, Hanson (and Hawking in the NY
>Times)
>Ehrlich, even HENwood at least speak to the issue of the crash, with
>some
>expertise. So do hundreds of others. Not all of them are stupid
>assholes and
>eventually you are going to have to deal with their arguments, (I
>hope.)
>
>C'mon marxists ... put up or shut up.
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
>To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
>http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
