merits of this discussion (join hands and educate an "ultra-leftist")
ryanhokanson at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 10 03:16:45 MST 2003
>i was wondering... although it may be rehashing some stuff that's been
>said before, could each side restate their positions with less of the
>emotional baggage? for example, could those more intimately familiar
>mark jones' analysis (louis?) please explain in detail once more (or
>to a previous post or articles) why the use-value of oil is so unique?
I want to agree with everything xzy said, and would also like to hear
the answer to his question above... and...
As further effort to defuse the situation, and invoking the
disingenuous, deflecting shield of lurking, browsing ignorance, let me
ask some more basic questions that have probably been answered
indirectly, at least.
Does anyone here think that there is an endless supply of oil? I
seriously hope not.
Does anyone here think that the vested capitalists aren't going to milk
the cow to the last drop?
Does anyone here think that the vested capitalists aren't fully prepared
to assume control of "new" energy when the well runs dry? Does anyone
believe that they won't dictate the where and how and exactly _when_ if
left to their devices?
Does anyone here think that the conquest of Iraq is <<simply>> about
oil? The vulture surely isn't expending any of his own "energy" here, as
a matter of fact the vulture is engerizing himself. The vulture is a
war-machine profiteer too, no? The eternally "renewable" "energy"
Does anyone think that any of these doomsday prognoses call for anything
but proletarian revolution, asap? Are Grimes and/or the DOE calling for
> I would qualify this. There is no shortage of [fill in the resource],
but society will >have to be radically restructured in order to make use
of it intelligently and
>to husband it for future generations. -- Proyect
So stop bickering amongst yourselves -- a <<real>> idiot has arrived!
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism