>So I am redbaiting?!? Are you a bit paranoid sometimes?
Automatically assuming that a critique is developed of a system for
propaganda purposes is quintessential caricature-constructed redbaiting.
Do I need to explain this further?
>>The very fact that you say you don't care about capitalism indicates to me
>>that you don't get it. ...
>
>Misunderstanding. That's my approximative english. I meant that I do not
have any
>interest in defending capitalism.
But you also seem to have no interest in how ***inextricable*** capitalism
as the EXISTING SOCIAL ORDER is from the very problem we have under review.
>
>>The problem with capitalism is not that it's evil. It's
>>that it's in very essential ways undirected and uncoordinated. There is
>>quite simply no chance of gaining the kind of comprehensive control
>>necessary to confront the problem being discussed here without social(ist)
>>planning.
>
>Maybe we have slightly different ideas of what social planning might mean in
>practice, but I agree.
Not likely that we have different ideas, when in the absence of a clear
picture of what things will look like if and when we replace the old system
(as opposed to devolving directly into anarchy and barbarism), I wouldn't
presume to begin designing measures at this point. We quite probably have
very similar ideas about some of the goals, however, as they relate to
reversing our current evolutionary direction.
>>Then why do you continually discard any reason that can be interpreted as
>>systemic? Is the social order imaginary? Last I saw, the police and the
>>army were carrying real, not imaginary, guns.
>
>I don't understand where you're getting at. I discard not any systemic
reason, but
>any systemic reason which is not backed by a good argument. And mere
historical
>coincidence is not a good argument.
Julien, there is no such thing as "historical coincidence." Methods of
production and social systems did not accidentally evolve alongside one
another. They are part and parcel of the same reality.
>
>>But who held political power? This is a key point, then and now. It's not
>>an abstraction. Who held then and holds now the legal monopoly on deadly
>>force? And which class does this political establishment represent?
>
>Yes, this is the key issue.
>Before 1450, in some places and times, bourgeois power did exist, but not
on a
>scale large enough to survive for several centuries. But I don't see how
bourgeois
>power did exist after 1550 in England. So much for historical hairsplitting.
Huh? I am absolutely sure that you have written something which you did
not intend here. You have just said that bourgeois power did not exist
aftet 1550. Re-look. This is obviously a typo.
>Now, to the real issue: How does bourgeois power correlate with ecological
>problems? I do not see any reason for which only bourgeois power would yield
>exploitation of fossil fuels and other problems.
NO one said that only bourgeois power yields exploitation of fossil fuels
or that capitalism is the only system with "problems." Our point is that
bourgeois power exists NOW, and that this class NOW stands in the way of
effecting the very changes we need for the survival of civilization. This
is not a question of comparative morality. It's practical.
Historically, there has been
>numerous cases of societies without bourgeois power exploiting fossil
fuels. OK,
>the techniques are techniques created by a bourgeois-dominated society.
But why
>couldn't these techniques outlive it? The techniques would be applied in
another
>social context as they already have been in the past, but the ecological
problems
>remain whatever the social context.
No one's arguing with you about this. Socialist states directed their
economies along a path of development mapped out by capitalism--for a lot
of reasons--and along a path that was utterly dependent on fossil fuels.
No one's arguing that the very techniques we now apply are wrong-headed,
and ultimately destructive. No one is arguing for a return to the Soviet
development model. What we are saying is that while socialism in itself is
no guarantee of a reversal of continued petroleum dependent development,
the continued existence of the current system is an ABSOLUTE guarantee that
we can never do what's necessary for that reversal.
>Also, other environementally damaging and unsustainable techniques than
>exploitation of fossil fuels were created by other types of societies than
the
>bourgeois-dominated ones. Not to mention the demographical problem.
Which demographical problem? And how do pre-capitalist techniques,
whichever ones you are referring to, change the fact that the current
"techniques" are privately owned and secured by the states which those
owners control?
Capitalism=private ownership and control of the means of production
Socialism=social ownership and control of the means of production
>
>If any kind of society wants to stop to use fossil fuels, it has to find a
way to sustain
>itself without it. Even if capitalism was destroyed, there is no way that
we can do that
>now.
Maybe I'm missing the entire point. Is it that nothing can be done, so we
can all just grieve together over email? Sorry, but if it's the end, I
think Sherry and I should just hole up with some good marijuana, a
collection of exotic films, and a lifetime supply of Nacho Cheese flavored
Doritos. You guys are history.
We could concievably enter a long path to that goal, but even without
>capitalism this road would not be an easy one but a road that many would
refuse to
>endure when it is so easy to carry on as if there was no problem.
Weeeelllll... I can't say about this. When the oil is gone, there won't be
much choice, will there?
But for right now, I think I have good reason to continue to work toward
smashing imperialism. Even if it's utterly hopeless, because I've known a
few capitalists, and by and large, they are disagreeable people, and it
gives me some personal satisfaction to afflict them in every way possible.
If by some miracle, we win in my lifetime, we will begin seriously to make
a plan for the bioregionalist, advanced organic, socialist reorganization
of society. If not, we'll all be dead anyway at some point, so we won't
have to experience the horrors of our failure for too awfully long. I
figure I have around 25-30 years, barring special disorders or accidents or
a pissed-off CIA agent.
Yours,
Stan
"...all truly great scientific abstractions are both universal and simple.
They are simple not because they explain so little but because they explain
so much. Generality does not arise because an abstraction represents
everything that could possibly happen, but because it remains valid no
matter what happens."
Alan Freeman
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
