{5} Why "reds" are "nukes" - Debate with Louis N. P.

Louis N Proyect lnp3 at columbia.edu
Fri Aug 9 06:29:02 MDT 1996


On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, Rolf Martens wrote:

>
> You wrote about "air pollution". Because of the so-called
> "environmentalist" policy, which above all has attacked nuclear
> energy, in the last 20 years, practically no new nuclear power
> plants have been built in the United States. But coal use there
> in that time has *doubled*. That's "environmentalism" for you.
> In some third world countries, a doubled coal use might be
> progress; in the USA, with the technological possibilities
> that country has, it's massive systematic retrogression.
>

Louis: Rolf, please stop announcing to the list who you are cross-posting
your replies to. This is of no interest to us.

The environmentalist movement in the United States is not "pro-coal", it
is anti-pollution. It is opposed to nuclear reactors because the greed of
the bourgeoisie has caused terrible accidents and leakages over the years.
These incidents cause cancer. It is opposed to the uncontrolled emissions
>from oil or coal burning plants. These emissions lead to acid rain.

"Greens" are opposed to uranium contamination. They are also opposed to
acid rain. Red greens like myself argue that these problems are a function
of the capitalist system itself. The solution to the environmental crisis
is not nuclear energy. It is elimination of the profit motive. We need
socialism.


>
> And speaking of "Marxists", it's so far been quite difficult to
> discuss factual things with you, Louis. I've asked you to be more
> specific about why you think nuclear energy is a bad thing, and
> all you've came up was, firstly, that you "don't" (which contradicts
> earlier statements of yours), secondly, that those and those
> people have been making people "conscious" of its "dangers",
> which again means you do think it's bad.
>

Louis: Nuclear energy is not something I take a stand on. I take a stand
on capitalist nuclear energy. The death penalty is not something I take a
stand on, except to oppose it in capitalist society. I was opposed to a
military draft during the Vietnam war. If I had been a citizen of Vietnam
in that period, I would have not opposed a draft. You don't seem to see
things in class terms. Could I recommend something for you to read? Take a
look at Trotsky's "Their Morals and Ours". This was written while Trotsky
was still one of god's children, before his expulsion from heaven by
our glorious all-knowing Father Joseph Stalin. It gets into the whole
question of how to distinguish thorny questions such as hostage-taking in
class terms.

As soon as I am done with my Che Guevara post, I will be more specific on
the nuclear energy question. (By the way, Rolf, you would gain more
credibility if you found other things to talk about besides nuclear energy
and the Cultural Revolution. To dwell on these things to the exclusion of
just about everything else would lead one to suspect that you are a bit of
a crank. Perish the thought.)



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list