Regarding nuances-- I have to take issue with the moderator's version of Marx's nuances.
Marx's assessment of negative, was not a moral, balancing, or equivocating analysis. It most certainly was not a "one the one hand....., on the other hand......" type of analysis. It is most certainly is an "at one and the same time" analysis. The negative, not good or bad, is hitched to Hegel's negation, and as such the "progressive," "positive," elements of industry, property, or a class, exists precisely and solely to the degree that that those elements create the terms of their own negation, their own overthrow, their own supercession. The failure to grasp nuance is not in "balance" of positive and negative, but in identifying, by ignoring the class basis, capitalist progress, capitalist development as "progress," "development." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Nationalism and State Ownership Seen as Main Threats to Oil Supply > The article the set off this discussion did not mention the disinclination of the > private petroleum companies to contribute to productivity. Instead of exploration, > they use their cash hordes to buy each other's companies. They do little for > modernization. Consider British Petroleum's repeated industrial accidents. Should > we forget their contribution to shutting down alternative energy, first through > buying up startups in the 70s and through political pressure more recently. Now > they will most certainly win huge subsidies with their "public-minded" efforts for > alternative energy. > > Michael Hoover correctly noted that public ownership as such doesn't automatically > mean very much unless the government actually puts the proceeds to good use. I > suspect that prewar Iraq had elements of both the good and bad of public ownership. > The country did put something back into education and health care, but I suspect > with some degree of confidence that only a small portion of the proceeds went to any > public purpose. > > One final note that I cannot resist interjecting here. I recall that Marx had a > concept called dialectics, in which even negative factors, such as slavery, could > play a progressive role. In the same sense, Marx judged England both positively and > negatively. > > Even in discussing something like the organization of the petroleum industry, some > of us have an almost reflexive instinct to declare each player either a good guy or > a bad guy. Nuances seem to elude us. > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > michaelperelman.wordpress.com >
