Rain

Lou Paulsen wwchi at SPAMenteract.com
Thu Nov 16 07:01:47 MST 2000




-----Original Message-----
From: Jose G. Perez <jg_perez at bellsouth.net>
To: marxism at lists.panix.com <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: Rain


>Macdonald,
>
>    The point of my post wasn't about whether or not there is global
>warming, but about the absurd economic reductionist methodology that was
>proposed in the previous one, as well as the "great nation" chauvinist
>economist blindness that allows one to immediately spot how the coal bosses
>would use one scientific hypotheses to their benefit, but does not allow
the
>same individuals to see how the imperialist bourgeoisie as a whole uses the
>alternative hypotheses to further its goals of subjugating the vast
majority
>of humanity.


Naturally I want to avoid "great nation" chauvinism in all my writing and
activity.  I don't dismiss this accusation lightly.  And naturally I agree
that the imperialist bourgeoisie intend to subjugate the vast majority of
humanity regardless of whether there is global warming or not.

If I understand what you are saying, it is that the imperialists are using
global warming as a club to prevent the oppressed nations from developing
their own industrial production.  Of course this is true, and of course we
have to unite in fighting it.  So I hope we have agreement in practice
anyway.

However, I don't think the imperialists NEED climatological hypotheses to
subjugate the vast majority of humanity.  They were doing well enough
without them.  Furthermore, it seems to me that it is still true that the
imperialists extract surplus value in the process of production.   Which is
to say that they would make more money by exploiting the labor of the
oppressed countries in industrial production than by leaving them alone.
And if they had the free unfettered choice between, on the one hand,
restricting production in the oppressed nations, as they now propose, and,
on the other hand, exporting capital there, and exploiting their populations
in unpleasant, unsafe, and super-exploitative industrial plants on the
Bhopal model, under the thumb of neo-colonial or colonial oppression, they
would PREFER to do the latter and would make more money by it.  And if they
are moving away from this option, they are doing so grudgingly and only
because they feel themselves forced to it by grim reality.  That at least is
the tone of the Economist article.

If it were true that the global warming hypothesis is mere bourgeois
propaganda, then it would seem to imply that certain important sectors of
the bourgeoisie (those associated with oil, auto, highway construction,
coal, electrical power generation) have been bludgeoned into silence, or
marginality at any rate, by the rest of the bourgeoisie.  When did this
happen?  Wasn't there any struggle around it?  Why were they so unable to
defend themselves?  If the Greening Earth Society has it right, why aren't
the Rockefellers and Mellons funding it, instead of a rather marginal
federation of western-states coal companies?  These are some of the problems
which, in my view, result from the hypothesis that human-caused global
warming is merely a bourgeois lie.

Lou Paulsen








More information about the Marxism mailing list