"Second contradiction" of capital and green politics
Louis N Proyect
lnp3 at columbia.edu
Thu Apr 25 08:03:29 MDT 1996
On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, boddhisatva wrote:
> The environmental movement is the desire of the proletariat to TAKE
> ON personal responsibility for the consequences of their commerce. Naturally,
Louis: This "movement" exists nowhere except in your imagination. The
proletariat, unfortunately, lacks any connection to the green movement.
> In the specific case of the small agriculturalist, the temptation
> is to create a public safety net around private industry sufficiently
> small that it may be considered a one-family "syndicat". The problem is
> that this reverses the desired relationship of capital (the land) to
> worker and consumer of product. Socialism contends that the capital
> should benefit the consumer first, and, then the controller of that
> capital, through social relation. Propping up small syndicats isolates
Louis: one-family "syndicat"? What sort of gobbledy-gook is this? Don't
use the passive voice, it is an evasion. Don't say "may be considered".
Rather say: I, the enlightened one, choose to call small family-owned
farms "syndicats". I am like the catepillar in Alice in Wonderland who
assigns meanings to words in my own private way.
> Because he has no rational
> basis by which to compare his use of capital to other uses of capital, he
> quickly becomes over-capitalized and inefficient. He views public efforts
> to reform his production as artificial, state intrusions. The state plays
Louis: What are "public efforts"? This is a Marxism list, you dodo. We
don't use terminology like this. That is what you hear from the
run-of-the-mill economics professor at a community college. There are
only "efforts" (attacks) by one class directed at another. The big
bourgeoisie attacks the petty-bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
> value of any single productive unit. The worker and citizen should be
> made to bear personal responsibility for the side-effects of his industry.
> The industrial proletariat is eager for this responsibility, the farmer,
> rancher and logger are really not.
Louis: Your posts exist in cloud cuckooland of abstractions. You never
talk about historical events, just constructions that you spin out in
your mind. Talk about Nicaragua. Talk about a real place in real history.
Nicaragua defies your formula. Rather than adjust your formula, you
ignore reality. This is what makes for sectarianism. In your case it is
Buddhist anarcho-syndicalist libertarian sectarianism. Potent and rancid
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism