Stan,
>Are you seriously claiming that the level of fossil fuel consumption we
>presently have could have ever developed on this scale outside of... apart
>from... in spite of... an historically specific mode of production?
Of course this is not what I was suggesting. What I am suggesting is that several
historically specific modes of production can be imagined in which the level of
fossil fuel consumption is unsustainable. A lower consumption level than the one
we have today is still unsustainable.
I don't remember your position on the USSR and such countries if you ever stated it
here, but this is a system which seems to me very different from capitalism as we
know it and its creation did nothing to solve the fossil fuels and other ecological
problems. I'm not trying to say that anti-capitalism or even communism aims at
creating another USSR, but to say that simply overthrowing capitalism won't be
enough because it is only part of the problem.
>But to continually try to tease out an
>escape for the capitalist system is either dishonest, disingenuous, or denial.
This is not what I'm trying to do. I don't care about capitalism. You can blame it for
every evil if you like for propaganda purposes. Since this is not the goal of this
list
as far as I know, I'm simply trying to sort out real from imaginated causes for our
problems.
>Then why wasn't it? Why didn't those feudal barons have tenant-tended deep
>drilling equipment factories on each of their feifdoms?
Those feudal barons had no oil under their feet. They did not have the technical
capability for deep drilling. But why could no feudal baron have this capability?
BTW, despite this "tenant and feudal barons" cliche they were corporations before
1450, as well as urban proletarian revolts, finance, international trade, etc.
>Then why doesn't someone just do it? This is so simple, I can't believe it
>isn't a decree. This is not a facetious question, but a point. The reason
>no one does it is because Shell and Oxy and BP and their minions in various
>governments damn well don't want to, and neither you nor I have to power to
>stop them right now.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean at all.
Charles,
>Point here is not the historical cause , but the FACT that there was a change from
>feudalism to capitalism such that the latter poses an ecological threat that the
>former did not.
This is a nice FACT. But you then choose your dates in an inconsistent manner.
What ecological threat was there in 1550 that wasn't there in 1450 (except maybe a
higher population)?
Anyway, I could also say that now that we had the Reform and especially the
Quacker movement, there is an ecological threat which didn't exist before. Is that
also a FACT?
>CB: Sometime between 1450 and 1550. There have been many posts and
>references on this on the Marxism and PEN-L lists.
That's a too broad reference for me to read, sorry.
What changed between 1450 and 1550? The only really significant change I know
about is the one impersonated by Colombus, Cortez, et al. That's hardly social
change. Was Cortez a capitalist??? I'm not well taught about English history so I
may be missing something.
>CB: One of the main differences between capitalism and feudalism is a leap in the
>rate of technical innovations. The idea is that feudalism would not have made the
>technical innovations made under capitalism for many centuries , if ever. Your
>analysis obliterates a definitive distinction between capitalism and feudalism.
I don't know what is said on Pen-L and other lists but to say that there was a leap in
the rate of technological innovations beyond anything known on Earth before in
England or Europe around 1500 looks like white supremacist stuff to me. This
seems around 200 years too early. What were those stunning innovations? Naval
artillery was important, but is enough to create a change from "feudalism" to
"capitalism"?
Julien
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
