On LM Re: Fidel vs LM

Gary MacLennan g.maclennan at SPAMqut.edu.au
Wed Aug 25 21:30:29 MDT 1999

The stuff by Paul, Charles and Lou on LM has been very valuable. The key to
their politics seems to be to be a wholehearted embrace and celebration of

Theirs does seem to be a very un dialectical position to me. While it is
always necessary to be cautious about pre-modernists and romantics, yet we
cannot ignore that we have never had non-capitalist modernity.  That is
modernity as we have experienced it comes to us dripping blood and dirt
from every pore to borrow an expression from Marx. Hegel's description of
the 'slaughter-bench of history is a very apt one.

If we do not manage the transition from capitalist to non-capitalist
modernity then humanity will perish.  LM will go down with the rest of us.

An additional point is that their view of science borders on scientism.
Really it is gung-ho, can do will do, macho Prometheanism which denies
natural necessity.

For example I would suggest that all the scientific evidence suggests
strongly that we  will never be able to render nuclear waste safe.  That is
a natural limit on us. To ignore this is not to do science but to practise
ideology.  think anyway of the odds.  Is it not wiser to act on the
assumption that nuclear waste is permanently dangerous and so to limit its
production, rather than as present simply pile it up by the tonne in the
belief that one day science will fix the problem.

Similarly with global warning.  If LM are correct and there is no danger
then we can always cut down the whole Amazon forest.  But if they are wrong
and we proceed with its destruction then we are in deep trouble.



More information about the Marxism mailing list