Rolf Martens rolf.martens at
Sat Sep 14 04:55:05 MDT 1996


You wrote:

>Surely there is something about sustainability that deserves to be
>claimed for our own.  I see no reason to equate it with genocide
>across the board, if at all, Rolf.

What is the whole point of the main imperialists' talk today of
"sustainability"? The point is, the're trying to make people
believe that those methods of utilizing nature, those methods
of production, which have been used so far are *not*
"sustainable". Meaning, that the "natural resources are becoming
scarce". This is utter nonsense. In reality, the talk of the
imperialists of "sustainable development" is a cover for a
counter-revolutionary program, and a very big and very nasty
one too.

The use of the word "sustainable" here is a little like, for
instance, some openly-bourgeois forces use, some years ago in
an elecetion campaign in Germany I remember reading about, of
the sogan "Freedom or socialism". The socialists of course
are for freedom. It's the bourgeoisie that's against it. Or
to be somewhat more exact, a certain part of the bourgeoisie,
the social-imperialist part, was even more against freedom
than, for instance, the Conservatives in Germany, and so this
slogan contained an attempt at making people believe socialism
was the same thing as social-imperialism.

Of course Marxists want *genuinely* sustainable development.
But they must uncover the reality behind this code-word, so
to speak, of the worst reactionaries, "sustainability". When
you look more concretely at the contents of the "sustainable"-
propaganda, you can see that that propaganda implies that
nuclear energy, for instance, is "not" "sustainable". But it is.
The propaganda maintains that oil and natural gas are "not"
"sustainable" energy sources. But they are. The propaganda
maintains "we're running out of metals" etc. This is pure
cow fart and nonsense.

(I'm using the new expression here coined by Doug H., who
some weeks ago, somewhat jokingly: "Better living through
cow farts?" - referring to methane from cow manure, which
may in fact be used by people in some third world countries
until they get better things, but which of course is a joke as
an energy source for the future. Certain people calling
themselves "Marxists" however seem to like *only* such
*primitive* energy sources and do *not* want methane in those
*big* quantities which can be gotten from deep drilling, do *not'
want oil, do *not* want nuclear energy. This is either very
reactionary or very ignorant or both.)

What's the reason for that "sustainable" counter-revolutionary
programme? Marx revealed the main thing about it 140 years ago,
in a speech in London on 14.04.1856 - I've posted that speech
already and it's in the Marxism archives too:

"Steam, electricity and the self-acting mule were revolutionaries
of an even more dangerous character than the very citizens
Barbes, Raspail and Blanqui."

So the worst reactionaries today have come to *hate* steam,
electricity and some other things.

Strange, isn't it? For steam, electricity etc have also been,
and still are, things that are bringing large profits to the
bourgeoisie. And, as you wrote ealier, Lisa: How about the
good old profit motive?

Yes, this motive of course still is very much there. But the
thing is, these ultra-reactionaries are seeing that *the
entire dictatorship of the bourgeoisie today is endangered*.
And without dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, *no* profits for
them whatsoever. So it's part of the plans of those ultras to
*strike* certain parts of those profits, just to keep up
that dictarorship, which they see is becoming more and more
*outdated*, in relation to the productive forces.

But this program, of *combating* important parts of modern
technology, of *curtailing* industrial growth etc, that's
also, globally, a program of *genocide*.

I'll return to this enormous subject later, to try to
explain these things in more detail than I've already
been doing in several earlier postings.

>I was thinking about keeping erosion down to equal the production of
>new topsoil, and adding organic matter to replace that which is
>decaying, in order to keep soil fertility at a high and constant
>level rather than declining to nothing.

Is this what the "sustainability" program is all about? No.
Keeping soil fertility high of course *is* important to most
people. Can one rely on *those* people who're behind the
"sustainability" program to want to do this? No. You cannot,
because it's known what extremely bad things they're doing
in other areas, precisely under that "sustainability" program

>Or growing crops that work with the local fertilizer/soil ecology to
>be able to produce at a steady rate indefinitely, rather than
>something that produces well for only a few years and leaves the soil
>nearly worthless.
>Are these examples of "sustainability" socialist-friendly?  The
>original conference post was about using technology - surely you are
>not turning anti-technology, Rolf!

The program of "sustainability" pertains to a lot of different
things. Only one part of it all has to do with methods of
agriculture. What the people in question here more precisely
are advocating I don't know. As I wrote above, there's reason
to question the motives of those who in the last instance lie
behind this all, on that question too.

"Sustainability", "Agenda 21" and other watchwords were the
(purported) themes of the biggest summit meeting ever, that
in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Representatives from over 150
countries participated.

What was the real object of that summit, on the part of those
the biggest imperialists, US imperialism above all, who saw
to it that it was convened. Whas it really "concern for the
environment" etc etc?

No. The summit was held in order for the main imperialists
to push certain extreme counter-revolutionary, and indeed
in part genocidal, plans, under those pretexts which were

Shortly before this summit, even some scientists, who
were by no means Marxist but who did see something about
the real objectives of this conference, put out a document
of warning, addressed to governments and heads of state.
This document, originally published in June 1992, has
since received the signatures of over 1000 scientists.
One of the initiators was Linus Pauling. This document,
called The Heidelberg Appeal, is a quite important one
too for seeing, indirectly, what was and is really going
on, what's really being planned by those reactionary
politicians. I've posted it once to newsgroups and
perhaps it wouldn't be wrong to post it once more on
this list, later.

This whole subject, which of course is not only enormous
but also vital to understand for all people who're
really trying to represent the interests of the overwhelming
majority of people, I'll return to later too. The above was
just a rather brief reply where I've been trying to make
some very few points.

Rolf M.

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list