re. labour aristocracy

Robert Malecki malecki at algonet.se
Fri Jun 21 10:33:28 MDT 1996


>On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Adam Rose wrote:
>
>>=20
>> So, a short answer to your question : under socialism, it will be quite
>> environmentally sustainable for the vast majority of people in India,=
 China
>> and the US to sustain a level of consumption far in excess of the current
>> consumption of the average US worker today.
>>=20
>
>Louis: Although I am saving up all my energy for the "state capitalism"
>debate, this paragraph cries out for commentary. It is simply not possible
>for the planet to sustain the "current consumption" of the average US
>worker today and survive. If you factor in automobiles and private
>housing, this is just not possible. The problem with automobiles, for
>example, is not the polluting byproducts. It is rather the impact it has
>on the environment in general that makes it so dangerous. The suburban
>culture that automobiles, superhighways and tract housing affords are
>undermining US capitalism's ability to reproduce itself. There can not be
>a socialist workaround on this either.
>
I think that *norms* and *consumtion* has to do with planning for the future=
=20
of the actual people living on the planet. Both in the transitional stage=20
and in the communist stage.

I think J=F6rn had some fairly good ideas on this stuff in an earlier letter=
=20
today..I really hate the envionmentalists who have experienced everything=20
telling the working class and the poor and the million and millions of=20
people in the third world that know we have to go back and live on rice and=
=20
potatoes for the sake of survival shit.

Warm regards
malecki in exile




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




More information about the Marxism mailing list