Writes Mark:
>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.
Unfortunately this analysis falls short on two counts, Mark.
1) the characterization of nature red of tooth and claw is part of the
problem, as I think you are actually aware from having read Naess. And ...
nature is not just waiting to happen, but happening now.
2) I as yet have seen no comprehension in the marxist positions of the role
of nature as arbiter -- that they "recognize that." Instead, merely vague
lip-service as if nature was some thing very far away in time and geography
that might from time to time shake up the market. Yes, there is of course
some theoretical extrapolation by you guys based upon interpretations of
Marx that can be bent to the issue. But you have yet to recognize nature as
a major player in the immediate socio-economic-political game, and your
arguments betray this.
> 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.
Agreed.
Tony and then I and then Hallyx began to move beyond "idle minded", and met
with something less than serious debate. Hallyx was invited to shut up, Tony
was called stupid and misguided, and I was hailed as a hero of the people
and given the Order of Lenin, ... no .. wait ... I don't actually think
that last part is verifiable.
> 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.
Again, wrong on two counts.
1) Find the old tomes by Heilbroner for a different approach to fatal
growth. Start with "Enquiry into the Human Prospect".
2) we seem NOT to be "slowly doing this" except by virtue of exposing the
denial of the marxist position to come to terms with the natural forces at
work here.
If you accuse me of simply frothing at the mouth, you misjudge. I have been
and still am asking for some serious attention to the very debate you keep
asking for. Instead I keep hearing the same mantra Tony so rightly
identified from you guys. Yes, we have to get a handle on the underlying
analysis. So far, all the marxist clues to the location of such handles
remain hidden, or at the very least obscured by the jargon, the endless
redefinition of "value" and the quick resort to belittling any other path.
> No-one is telling you to read it.
I urge you to search your archives for the number of times I have been told
to "read it." I have read "it." That I don't ACCEPT it brings you back into
the sound-bite loop to say again "read it", because you mistake my
non-acceptance -- and my relative inability to speak your language -- as
ignorance. (albeit I DO grant that I paid little attention to the
hairsplitting differences of use value which seem so precious to you guys).
Alas, to read the Word is not always to be granted Salvation.
Meantime, aside from yourself, I see no evidence at all of any marxist on
this list having lifted one finger to turn one page on any volume regarding
the biosystem. Just a general avoidance of the idea of moving outside the
boundary of Marx to obtain information. Again, go to your archives for the
all-too-ubiquitous -- and uninformed -- misapprehension that "the doomsayers
have always been wrong".
>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.
AaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaa! At last a way to find common ground! I am holding up a
sort of mirror: You cannot understand economic processes unless you read
something about the environmental processes which affect them, and how they
emergED. As yet ... no evidence that marxist theory is even aware of the
effects of the biosphere.
Disagree? ... "put up"!
> 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.
Thank you Mark, I wholeheartedly endorse that sentiment.
However a fair reading of the posts of anyone but YOU in the last week will
reveal this: 1) no thought of mutuality by marxists, no indication of having
read the necessary texts, in fact some rather fundamental questions and
suppositions being offered which demonstrate no reading of the necessary
environmental texts. 2) Less cynicism on my or Hallyx' or Tony's part than
has been displayed by others. 3) No comprehension by those lauding the
marxist position that they need anything or any one. (ex.: see also below,
starting with "My Fate ...)
Disagree?
> My Fate won't be theirs, no way. You underestimate the political and
> organisational power of Marxism.
Yes, yes I do underestimate them. This is soooooo close to the X-tians
saying "You don't know the power of the Lord!" You have to admit your track
record so far is generally percieved in the same light as the perception of
doomsayers as crackpots. Our fates are all entwined, Mark, and you actually
know that you have less control than your statement implies. I would like us
to come together so that the underestimation of both marxists and doomsayers
is an anachronism. I look back at my tracks on the pathway and see that I
have walked further toward you marxists than you have hesitantly stepped
toward me.
> These wise words, do not however grip my arguments and decisively
> deconstruct them.
> Mark
That was not the intent of his words, but merely to awaken you.
Tom
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your
side, kid"
-- Han Solo
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
