The argument below seems to me to ignore Luxemburg's _second_ alternative: barbarism. That is, it assumes that because a social order _must_ chose Q in order to survive it _will_ change Q. In the past particular 'cultures' have 'chosen' death rather than social change. And capitalism, with its anarchic production, does not seem immune to that alternative. During WW 2 even a totalitarian state such as Germany could not (at least in Hamburg) achieve full mobilization for war production until allied bombers conveniently blew up most places of employment _except_ the industrial plants. I agree that renewable energy is urgent (necessary), and I accept your assurance that it is technically possible, but it does not follow that it _will_ be adopted. Consider the model of the individual who goes on smoking even after developing emphysema, and societies change more slowly than do individuals. I hope that your are right and I am wrong.
Carrol Hans ehrbar writes: Renewable energy is only one piece in this puzzle, but it is urgent because of global warming and ocean acidification. The question what the obstacles are for renewable energy and how energy can be stored etc must be solved by every social organization of production, whether socialist or capitalist. It is not a trivial question. The view is widely held in the US that a complete switch to renewable energy is impossible, while Europe is making great strides to do exactly that. It is important to understand the true limits of renewable energy. In other words, I don't think we are glossing over the question of political power if we discuss this. Hans _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
