======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
I am surprised by the level of the pro-anti-nuke-power discussion. I
thought we had a decent discussion of this question in October of
2005. In that discussion, I and others tried to make clear that the
element of "social control" of nuclear power was the key, that there
could be neither rational advocacy nor damning of nuclear power
independent of the politics of control, of who's watching the store.
It has been clear for several generations that the American people
are so suspicious of their government and so fearful of catastrophes
that "nuclear power for fun and profit" was and is a suicidal slogan.
It has been equally clear that every horror story about atomic energy
can be profitably used by us to illustrate the need for social
control; control must be in our hands where there is no such thing as
profit, no corner cutting to make a buck, no bribed inspectors. The
socialist has the only persuasive argument that will serve as a
foundation for a solution of the global warming/global energy crisis.
It is pleasing that technological advances make the nuclear option
convincing, but the scientist can only lead the horse to water. For
the drinking part, the scientist must become a politician.
The alternatives to nuclear power appeal to the mentality of the
small capitalist. Heshe doesn't need a grand plan, or any plan at
all. All heshe needs is a market, a vision of profit, of windmills,
now ten, then hundreds, then millions of windmills. And there's a
dollar to be made from every energy saving, energy producing gimmick.
Build your own windmill. (Windmills for pumping water used to be sold
throughout the midwest in do-it-yourself kits—until the water table
sank too low.) For some years now state and federal government have
been offering tax rebates to householders and grants to businesses
and universities all with the intent of creating a profit driven
market. In the end, this process will solve nothing but instead will
remind us of the history of the automobile. We will have a green
anthill with overpasses.
Nuclear power literally screams for a grand plan. Throughout the
world there are billions without jobs, without power, without water
and with little hope. Isn't it for us to present a vision where jobs,
power, water and food can be had if the capitalist class takes a hike
and takes its regressive petit bourgeois green mentality with it?
--rod
On Feb 2, 2010, at 6:53 PM, nada wrote:
[clip]
> ======================================================================
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ======================================================================
>
>
> ______________
> Send list submissions to: [email protected]
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/
> marxism/rholt%40planeteria.net
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
