>> C.B.: "Malthusian", or "neo-neo-Malthusian" as Waistline says, gets used indiscriminately , but not specifically the theory that the population increases geometrically and the food supply increases arithmetically.
Basically, the definition of "Malthusian" put forth here is that any argument that in any way mentions overpopulation is Malthusian error. But Marx argument against Malthus is more specific. << Reply: Population has not outstripped the ability of the earth to provide for our nutrimental needs or the latent capacity of our current state of development of science and the technological regime. What is being produced and the basis or reason for its production is the cardinal issue of our lives. Over production as a feature of bourgeois production and the concept of the "carrying capacity of the earth" are very different concept approaches to the social organization of our species. Any argument that mentions overpopulation is in fact neo-neo Malthusianism. Overpopulation means a population that is "over" the ability of something. Overpopulation means a population mass that exceeds the metabolic process of the earth and what is being exceeded is the capacity of the social organization of bourgeois property. I do not like to speak for others but DMS is correct is framing the issue. ******** >>CB: The hypothesis of oil "depletion" is a different qualitative element in the technological matrix than the concept of food production that grows at a relative rate that is too slow for population growth. Arithmetic increase of food production is a qualitatively different problem than oil "depletion". Reply: Oil depletion, with the word depletion in quotes is not how the authors DMS mentions, present the issue. Further oil "depletion" is not a different qualitative element . . . as a commodity. Under bourgeois property oil is produced for its exchange property . . . period. It's utility is why it can be converted into a commodity in the first instance, in as much as nothing without use can enter the world of exchange. Oil has to be treated first as a commodity to compare it with food production or food as a commodity. Food obviously is more important to our species than oil. OK! In the absence of the commodity form, the comparison between oil and food is on the basis of their metabolic quality as spontaneously springing from the earth. The moment modern utility and consumption enters the question we are talking about social organization and property relations on which sits . . . or more accurately, as this social organization and property governs reproduction, exchange and distribution or the commodity form and the law of value. It is not the "use value" - in quotes or the utility of oil that is decisive, but in fact its commodity form which gives our market pattern (infrastructure and productivity infrastructure) its general shape and reality. This is the dispute or the different sides on the issue of oil utility. The issue is not posed as the role of oil in an industrial society but the role of oil as a commodity in a commodity producing industrial society whose use and reproduction is driven by the law of value. In this respects Soviet socialism was an industrial form of socialism and a commodity producing society with different property relations. >>CB: Arithmetic increase of food production is a qualitatively different problem than oil "depletion". Reply: This is true if one proceeds from a concept of "Arithmetic increase of food production," which I consider bad math. An "Arithmetic increase of food production" is not abstract but governed by the bourgeois property relations, as it inherits "food stuff," and then creates needs unique to its self impulse for reproduction and in this sense, determines what is produced and exchanged. An "Arithmetic increase of food production" as a concept is Malthusianism. Even if one proceed from this "bad math" and Malthusianism . . . sorry comrade, it would mean measuring all the food stuff produced in relationship to 6.3 billion people on earth and then presenting a framework assigning each individual a portion of the food supply. The world population has not exceeded the food supply, even from this point of view of bad math. This conclusion is observable on the basis of obesity in America and all imperial centers. The fact of these citizens (as an average) carrying with them for a lifetime at least 10-20 lbs of un discarded food in their body, which is the living proof of over consumption, gluttony, wrong eating and imperial privilege cannot be easily ignored. Comrade, consider the evidence carefully. World hunger is real. Hunger throughout continental Africa is not due to population expanding faster than the metabolic ability of the earth to provide for the populations nutrient needs or the "Arithmetic increase of food production." Modern hunger is exclusively the result of the social organization of the productive forces, with the property relations within, buttressed by a historical ignorance of the authentic science of the human body. People are not hunger because the carrying capacity of the earth has been violated on the basis of population mass and density or the "Arithmetic increase of food production." In a happy communist world Africa alone could probably provide the fundamental nutrient needs of 10 billion people. The neo-neo-Malthus champions of depletion theory and over population (carrying capacity of the earth) drift into an ideological alignment with the imperial theorists in league with the criminal bourgeois elements in the less developed countries, crying crocodile tears over population size, when they know in their hearts it is the social organization and property relations that starve humanity. It is the exchange relations of bourgeois property that starve people and not some abstract concept of the carrying capacity of the earth and "sustainability" or as brilliantly stated . . . "Arithmetic increase of food production." Honest to God . . . liquidate the bourgeois property relations and watch the carrying capacity of the earth leap ten fold. We have not run into the wall of thermo-dynamics or the wall beyond which the metabolic process of the earth is exceeded. Nor has any credible evidence been offered that says we have cross the point where oil existence begins to decay. In fact what is stated is that we are approaching the top of the bell curve based on accounting of oil reserves. Is hunger in India the result of exceeding the earth's carrying capacity or the social organization of the productive forces? Is hunger in China - if any exists as such, the result of exceeding the earth's carrying capacity or the social organization of the productive forces? Is hunger in Mexico the result of exceeding the earth's carrying capacity or the social organization of the productive forces? Food production is a bourgeois property relations. DMS is correct and firmly within Marxism to state: <<<To argue as Mark Jones and his followers do, that this is the manifestation of absolute geological scarcity is to set the stage for an ideological alignment along lines of overpopulation, i.e. Malthus. And if you read the followers of Hubbert, Campbell, Deffeyes, etc. they are most certainly Malthusian. >>> Waistline _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
