Goff has long been a peak oiler, with certain identifiable Malthusian overtones in his writings on this matter. Overtones. I am not saying he is a Malthusian (but maybe he's become one; haven't read him in a while).
Goff has certainly spun out doomsday scenarios regarding the end of petroleum man. As you say, Goff explicitly rejected Marxist analysis a while ago, and I think, advocated supported Democrats in the 06 election. And he got what he asked for, IMO, which is down below zero. But the real issue is that the bourgeoisie do NOT do what they do to maintain an average consumer lifestyle, or in order to bribe workers and pay a higher wage. They do what they do as required in order to reproduce, and secure, profits; to expand the domination of capital; to protect private property. Subtle distinctions? Maybe, but the devil really is in the details. As for rejecting Marxist analysis as being inherently flawed in any ability toward implementation in the US-- yes, that's Goff's position, and it ranks right up there with peak oil, and vote for the good Democrats. It's just another flip on "American exceptionalism" that has been used to excuse any number of retreats. Actually that "American exceptionalism" is nothing but the left-wingers' complement to the "This Time It's Different. We've figured out how not to end the end of the business cycle" theory. ----- Original Message ----- From: "The Buffalo In Da' Midst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The 'Bone of Contention' -or- Why no one cares to discuss 'Peak Anything' > On 9/15/07, sartesian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > What's simple and stark is that the relation between profits and "the > > general welfare" is inverse; has become inverted. And to explain that, > > we need economic, social, historical, Marxist analysis, not natural, > > geological, catastrophe scenarios. > > > > I'm not seeing the "...natural, geological, catastrophe scenarios." > you speak of, in this article. Although without economic, social, > historical analysis of a socially humane nature (...and Stan Goff, as > I do, rejects so-called 'Marxist analysis' as having a terminally > flawed implementation in, at least, American society), that other > group of catastrophic events are quite likely, quite soon. > > Leigh >
