Foot and Mouth Genesis- An Eco-Marxist Explanation
hillbily at SPAMintergate.ca
Mon Mar 26 15:21:53 MST 2001
> Brian, I rather think you are reading your own desire to parody the
> Ecology Movement onto the positions of the author of that article.
No, I'm just going by what she wrote in her article.
> Who do you think could be in a position to pay farmers a living wage?
If we were talking about a social redistribution of wealth, which you
mistakenly assumed was so, I would support it. Even though that would
still be wealth created by exploitation of labour, it would be a step in
the right direction and therefore supportable. The middle class using
its power as a consumer, on the other hand, fails to take into account
the class structure of the food market. The middle class will get its
healthy food at a higher premium, while the poor either have to put more
of their tight budget into feeding the kids, or eat the poisoned crap
the enlightened bourgeoisie has rejected. What is to prevent a
two-tiered food economy from developing? (I think we already have one).
I don't know the answer, but at least I'm raising the question.
> She calls for boycotting supermarkets! Horror of horrrors!
> This must be middle-class liberalism, indeed. The unions would never
> call for boycotts, would they?
There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.
> I have a hard time understanding this sort of thick headed hostility
> towards criticizing capitalism for its ecologic destruction.
Criticise away. But marxism entails a class analysis too.
> Too bad the unions and the Labor Party never could find much time to do any of
> this? Nor could most of the communists in the many countries building
> socialism in one country. These are not proud parts of marxism for
> you, I hope?
Cuba is a model of "green" socialism, and is the supreme example of
"socialism in one country."
> Since you are so sure of what eco-marxism would be, I would like to see
> an example chosen by you that would illustrate the 100% correct version
> of marxist analysis regarding hoof and mouth disease, desertification,
> overconstruction of highways, or misuse of chemicals in the environment.
> The author touched on all of these themes in a very short space.
The article "Foot and mouth - a disease of the profit system"
http://www.marxist.com/Europe/foot_and_mouth.html posted on the list
last week, is pretty good.
> In contrast, many marxist journals spend reams of paper without ever
> hardly addressing the environment. Would it have satisfied you if
> the author had ended her article with.... Down With Capitaliism!...?
> I think she was hopng that you could draw that conclusion through your
> own resources.
I was hoping she would end with a plea for a "society of associated producers."
> The Prince Charles came out against ugly and dysfunctional architecture.
> Does that mean we should be for it?
I'm sure Prince Charles' aesthetic standards are quite laudible, if
you're into palaces. However, he also attacks science--going right back
to Copernicus--and holds that religion should be the basis of modern
He is also an organic farmer and avid ecologist. But his ecology is one
that envisions a world with few people in it--Edenic playgrounds for the
rich, etc. I think it is the duty of marxists to point out such things.
More information about the Marxism