[PEN-L:19869] Re: The Nader campaign, part 1

Mark Jones jones118 at SPAMlineone.net
Mon Jun 5 12:33:34 MDT 2000


Well, I don't wanna hog debate, but yes, I think it's fine to fight for the
right to own SUV's so big that they dominate the road, or whatever safety
features seem important today. But if you really want "consumer safety" then
it might make sense to alert people to more fundamental problems. Nader
doesn't do that because he is a witting liar, a political fraud and a creep
who capitalises (to coin a phrase) on the (entirely justified) angst of
normal folks when faced with the lunatic things capitalism gives them in its
anomic, death-dealing way.

You wanna what is a safety issue? Wrecking the soil is a REAL safety issue.

I've just been reading, f'rinstance, about some of the reasons why it's so
hard for scientists to be sure about anything when they try to construct
powerful computerised models of the effects of anthropogenic global warming
(I just posted some stuff about it on the CrashList). Why is it so hard to
understand the multiplicity of ways in which capitalism is fucking the
planet? Because the effects are too indiscernible to be sure about?
Unfortunately not, on the contrary. It's because the effects of
anthropogenic climate change are just so huge, so profound and so very basic
to life itself that they are for all practical purposes, almost
unquantifiable. This horrible fact should make oil corp CEO's and thier
political spokespersons (people like Al Bore, the Beltway frontman for
Colombia-fucking, Russia-fucking Oxy Oil) hang themselevs from their own
braces, but no, what it does do is it gives them one more degree of licence
to argue that, global warming, what global warming? It's all just
scaremongering, and we're into "wise-use" etc, which is Pharaonic
phrasemongering and deserves an Old Testmaent wrathful answer. Y'see, one of
the (possible, not known for certain) effects of global warming is to alter
soil chemistry in profound ways. You have to think hard about this.

Just try to get your head around it: To change soil chemistry is not an
abstraction, it means that global warming has actually already changed the
thin veil of fertile soil everywhere on the planet, the veil on which all
terrestrial life depends and which is the teeming milieu for the whole of
microbial and microscopic flora and fauna (plant and animal) evolution. This
alteration of Nature is far more insidious, and far worse, than what are
really quite small deals like fucking half the Amazon basin with DDT or
fucking the mangrove swamps and coral reefs with pesticide and fertiliser
runoff or fucking the ozone layer; it's worse even than genetic engineering
(imagine that! something we do is actually worse than genetic pollution!):
worse  EVEN than turning the World Ocean into dilute carbonic acid that will
cover it with algae slime,and dissolve the reefs anyway, and terminate most
aquatic life (yes, that is happening); it's worse EVEN than thermohaline
conversion, ie, turning the Gulf Stream around and precipitating a new Ice
Age; the only thing it's NOT worse than, is the runaway warming which might
be caused by the precipitation/release of trapped methane hydrates + which
would quickly turn the Earth into Venus with a surface temp hot enough to
boil lead. You won't be around to cavil about consumer rights if that
happens. Now tell me, when is Ralph gonna make an issue about something so
fundamental as buggering up the chemistry of the soil? When he does that,
I'll be the first to join him at the barricades.

Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-marxism at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-marxism at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Debordagoria
> Sent: 05 June 2000 17:53
> To: marxism at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L:19869] Re: The Nader campaign, part 1
>
>
>
>
> > (Posted to pen-l by Mark Jones)
> > I thought then and I
> > think now that it is all an
> > utter distraction from what really matters; it is
> > based on the crassest kind
> > of self-seeking, privatising solipsism which boils
> > great social/historical
> > issues down to what's in it for me qua passive
> > selfish consumer.
>
> Organizing consumers (that is, everyone) to demand
> from Capital safe products and accurate info is based
> on selfishness, solipsism, and passivity?
>
> > What really
> > mattered then and now for is not car safety but
> > less cars and more public
> > transport. What Nader did is help legitimise the
> > care and ensures its social
> > apotheosis to its current iconic status.
>
> Demanding that auto manufacturers be forced to produce
> cars that don't blow up was really so retrograde???
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
> http://photos.yahoo.com
>






More information about the Marxism mailing list