I regret if Mark is indeed not contributing to the list at present although he obviously cannot respond to every question about oil.
Anyway I think some of the cross purposes are that people are looking at it from different perspectives. Despite the recent fall in the oil price I have been fully convinced by arguments that Mark has presented that world production is reaching its limit in terms of available oil. As the most efficient mobile store of energy, not requiring electric cables, a very large section of the means of production is dependent on oil. A large price rise over one or two decades would greatly impede the existing pattern of circulation of goods and services, and force the destruction of capital in these means of production. It therefore also illustrates, like the problem of the finite nature of other naturally-occurring use values, such as water, land, and air, the inability of the private ownership of the means of production, capitalism, to address environmental and social needs coherently. Such crucial naturally-occurring resources therefore may become limiting factors to the development of an economy. >it's not about oil but about the limiting conditions, the points of >singularity in the world system, the straws about to break camels' backs. *However* from a marxian point of view the cycles of capitalist circulation, have as their limiting factor, the sum total of exchange value produced by all the commodity-producing labour in the society. That is the fundamental limiting factor in capitalism. Theoretical confusion about this can lead to conclusions that ironically mystify the issue of private ownership of the means of production and practical implications for a strategic struggle. I do not see these viewpoints as necessarily incompatible in any way. It is a question of from what perspective you are analysing the phenomena. Chris Burford London
