Sam Pawlett wrote:
so what if fuel costs become higher in the short
run? can't it just pass them along to the consumer?
Yes, but fossil fuel is one of the main inputs into modern industrial
agriculture. Passing costs on to the consumer will mean higher food
prices, perhaps
Ian:
Capitalism has come to be dependent on fossil fuels, yes, but *so has
actually existing socialism been, it will remain so in the
foreseeable future*, so oil dependency does *not* define *either*
mode of production -- it has become common to both, which is an
empirical fact.
Yoshie
solutions than the current proposed ones well
"i'm all ears" as Perot said.
norm
-Original Message-
From: Lisa Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 4:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:4507] RE: Re: RE: Re: Oil Socialism
I
Similarly, the transition to a post-oil economy is, in all probability,
independent of whether it is done under capitalism or socialism.
Yoshie:
Not quite. I think that abolishing the logic of M-C-M' makes it much
easier to plan implement more rational resource uses.
*
How so?
: martin schiller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 7:58 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4516] Re: Oil Socialism
Jim Devine said on 11/16/00 3:31 P
I guess I don't accept the premise that fossil fuels define capitalism. Do
you? does anyone?
That's what I
the CPUSA
at the time.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:20 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4519] Re: Re: Oil Socialism
At 07:55 PM 11/16/00 -0500, you wrote:
Yes, but I'm more concerned about
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. said on 11/17/00 10:50 A
To say that capitalism is based on fossil
fuels would be to argue that there was no
capitalism prior to the coal-based industrial
revolution in the 1700s in Great Britain. That
can be argued, but most on this list would
probably not agree.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/16/00 07:55PM To my mind, the key issue with fossil
fuels is not the absolute
shortage that Mark talks about but instead the environmental impact.
So for that issue, the previous paragraph applies.
Yes, but I'm more concerned about the politics of oil supplies than
" ... I've disagreed with Mark Jones on his prophesy of capitalism dooming
itself due to its fundamental dependence upon oil in the near future ..."
Yoshie
---
i must have missed mark's post.
i'm curious how mark arrives at this conclusion. capitalism
i must have missed mark's post.
i'm curious how mark arrives at this conclusion. capitalism can't exist w/o
fossil fuels? why can't it just switch to other fuels: nuclear, solar,
hydrogen, biomass, etc.? so what if fuel costs become higher in the short
run? can't it just pass them along to
IMO, total nonsense.
norm
-Original Message-
From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:4501] Re: Oil Socialism
i must have missed mark's post.
i'm curious how mark
" ... I've disagreed with Mark Jones on his prophesy of capitalism dooming
itself due to its fundamental dependence upon oil in the near future ..."
Yoshie
---
i must have missed mark's post.
i'm curious how mark arrives at this conclusion. capitalism
:4501] Re: Oil Socialism
i must have missed mark's post.
i'm curious how mark arrives at this conclusion. capitalism can't exist
w/o
fossil fuels? why can't it just switch to other fuels: nuclear, solar,
hydrogen, biomass, etc.? so what if fuel costs become higher in the short
run
Yoshie writes:
... capital takes no account of environmental concerns unless society
forces it to do so; and it seems evident that environmental movements are
unable to make capital the state take more than greenwashing measures.
I think it is not very likely that the world makes a transition
IMO, total nonsense.
norm
***
Well I shudder to learn what you think of this great prediction, then...
"If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be less crowded (though
more populated), less polluted, more stable ecologically, and less
vulnerable to resource-supply
Jim Devine said on 11/16/00 12:51 P
To my mind, the key issue with fossil fuels is not the absolute shortage
that Mark talks about but instead the environmental impact. So for that
issue, the previous paragraph applies.
The oil has to be used up first in order to maintain control over
At 02:16 PM 11/16/00 -0800, you wrote:
Jim Devine said on 11/16/00 12:51 P
To my mind, the key issue with fossil fuels is not the absolute shortage
that Mark talks about but instead the environmental impact. So for that
issue, the previous paragraph applies.
The oil has to be used up first
A month I could imagine in a small village economy, contained in something like
the biosphere project, and with rough equality, a market economy could possibly
be compatible with some sort of environmental rationality. In the world with
so much power concentrated in the corporate sector, the
- Original Message -
From: Lisa Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 3:53 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4507] RE: Re: RE: Re: Oil Socialism
One of my sons is an economist working for the Saskatchewan government. Part
of his responsibility
g absolute scarcity of said items.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Lisa Ian Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 4:59 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4507] RE: Re: RE: Re: Oil Socialism
IMO, total nonsense.
norm
*
Jim Devine said on 11/16/00 2:30 P
But by definition you've found the tool to dissolve capitalism by
removing their fossil fuel. Become conservative!
I don't understand. Please explain.
IF: Use of fossil fuels defines capitalism
THEN: Not using fossil fuels dissolves capitalism.
Mikalac Norman S NSSC wrote:
i'm curious how mark arrives at this conclusion. capitalism can't exist w/o
fossil fuels? why can't it just switch to other fuels: nuclear, solar,
hydrogen, biomass, etc.?
I don't think Mark is on Pen-l but I think this is what he would say:
there are no
At 03:22 PM 11/16/00 -0800, you wrote:
Jim Devine said on 11/16/00 2:30 P
But by definition you've found the tool to dissolve capitalism by
removing their fossil fuel. Become conservative!
I don't understand. Please explain.
IF: Use of fossil fuels defines capitalism
THEN: Not using
Jim Devine said on 11/16/00 3:31 P
I guess I don't accept the premise that fossil fuels define capitalism. Do
you? does anyone?
That's what I thought that this thread was based on.
Jim D. says:
Yoshie writes:
... capital takes no account of environmental concerns unless
society forces it to do so; and it seems evident that environmental
movements are unable to make capital the state take more than
greenwashing measures.
I think it is not very likely that the world
I guess I don't accept the premise that fossil fuels define capitalism. Do
you? does anyone?
That's what I thought that this thread was based on.
No -- the thread began with my reply to Lou's posting on Cuba, which
contained good news of Hugo Chavez (of Venezuela) aiding Cuba through
steady
At 07:55 PM 11/16/00 -0500, you wrote:
Yes, but I'm more concerned about the politics of oil supplies than either
of the above, since it tends to make hundreds of bloody imperial flowers
bloom unleash the dogs of war. I feel this way perhaps because I'm from
Japan (remember World War 2!)
Jim D. writes:
Yes, but I'm more concerned about the politics of oil supplies than
either of the above, since it tends to make hundreds of bloody
imperial flowers bloom unleash the dogs of war. I feel this way
perhaps because I'm from Japan (remember World War 2!)
Yes, I understand. I was
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 6:58 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4518] Re: Oil Socialism
I guess I don't accept the premise that fossil fuels define
capitalism. Do
you? does anyone?
That's what I thought that this thread was based on.
No -- the thread began with my
I think it is not very likely that the world makes a transition from
fossil fuels to non-fossil fuels under capitalism. Mark thinks that
it is technologically impossible to do so; I, in contrast, think that
it is politically impossible to do so under capitalism.
These led me to believe that
Capitalism has come to be dependent on fossil fuels, yes, but *so has
actually existing socialism been, it will remain so in the
foreseeable future*, so oil dependency does *not* define *either*
mode of production -- it has become common to both, which is an
empirical fact.
Yoshie
**
Lou posted:
The best news is Hugo
Chavez's announcement that Venezuela will supply Cuba oil on a barter
basis--Cuba will supply trained medical personnel.
And this fact shows how essential oil has will be for a functioning
economy. No oil, no socialism. While I've disagreed with Mark Jones
32 matches
Mail list logo
