Tom, what this issue here is, is the ways in which the social
metabolism with nature takes place, and what are its institutional,
normative and longstanding forms. There forms are incorprated in the
age-old customs and practice of famers tilling the soil and keeping
their herds, in their use of weather reports, the use of soils with
different natural characters and chemistries, with installing or not,
windbreaks in the fields, and much more of the same on husdandry
including the efforts of the chemical, pharmaceutical and fertiliser
indsutries, of state dept planning for crops, of the weather service
etc. The power which Rob refers to is over all these vast, ramified,
complex, interactive, unstable, dynamic and crisis-prone social
process which over time impact on soil fertility, ecosystems and the
possibilities of continuing with capitalist farming despite the onset
of many adverse trends from pest-control to salination to
carbonisation of the soil to finally new disease vectors (prions in
BSE etc) to the failure of stand-by pharmaceuticals (antiobiotics
etc). Of course *Nature* red in tooth and claw and full of geological
eructations just waiting to happen, is the ultimate arbiter. Since we
all recognise that, the question is actually quite modest.
So when you say:
> Well, actually Rob *Nature* has the power ... and the
> apparent avoidance
> of or lack of perception of that fact is what heated up
> this "value" thread
> to begin with. It was not just an idle discussion about
> mechanisms within
> the economy.
It wasn't 'even' such an idle-minded discussion, that I could see. We
didn't even begin a talk. A few (including me) sounded off, but there
was and us no hard science. But that is what we MUST NOW draw on into
debate.
>
> Tony has attempted to draw our attention to the true nature
> of the "exchange
> relation", but his efforts are like slamming repeatedly
> into a brick wall of
> denial ... or ignorance. Exchange value, use value,
> anti-value, ... whatever
> ... do not well express the basic exchange between society and the
> biosphere.
On the contrary, Marx ALONE OF ALL ECONOMISTS showed how dangerous
how fatal growth would be in the end. His logic is impeccable and
without using it we can explain nothing. It is NO USE just frothing
how bad things are, we have to get a handle on the underlying
analsysis: and we slowly are doing. There is an interface between
social and natrual processes. Only Marxim successfully explains the
dynamic of that interface, and how it produces a specific and
continuing kind of peril. We cannot ignore it.
It is pretty hard to accept a Marxian overview
> that ignores the
> consequences of the exchange from nature,
It's exaclt based upon the exchnage with Nature.
No-one is telling you to read it. All we're saying is that you cannot
undertsand the ideas of economic effects which later do effect
biological processes, and how they emerge, unless youi do.
or is unaware of those
> consequences or the activity that invokes them. I say
> "activity" because
> none of us seems to accept any word that adequately represents this
> exchange. A Marxian overview that is too small to crawl up
> on top of the
> issue and provide a real overview is kind of hard to
> defend, n'est-ce pas?
I think if we accept a mutual commitment to explore the different
terrains of of thought here, from EF! to Marxism, we must also
mutually accept the obligation to read the necessary texts. Between us
we can find them. This can make this debate into a
profoundly-significant political step forward. I believe in you EF!
folks. I want to see less cynicism on your part about us marxists. You
gotta remember that we are the experts in political organsiation even
tho NEED EACH OTHER.
>
> >Our fate is not
> > written by fat well manicured men in smoky rooms at all.
> It's not that
> > conscious and it's not that directed.
>
> Yes it is not conscious; and no .. it *is*directed, by the
> fundamental
> forces and laws of nature, rapidly delivering the
> consequences of the
> misunderstanding of the true qualities of the exchange.
> That is indeed our
> fate, and the fate of those well manicured men.
My Fate won't be theirs, no way. You underestimate the political and
organisational power of Marxism.
> It is not just the bourgeoisie who need to get together. I
> quote wise Tony:
> "It's amazing how little is actually calculated by
> economics, the
> science of calculating all. It's doubtful that marxists
> have added little to
> understanding economic activity, beyond their understanding
> of the struggle
> between classes. .... Unfortunately, this e-list is clear
> evidence, that
> marxists have an over-optimism about the comprehensivenes
> of their partial,
> and seldom
> updated, economic theories. Many believe that class
> struggle and labor
> theory of value, is all there is to it."
These wise words, do not however grip my arguments and decisively
deconstruct them.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
