merits of this discussion

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Mon Nov 10 10:58:30 MST 2003


In a message dated 11/10/03 2:18:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
ryanhokanson at yahoo.com writes:


>Does anyone here think that there is an endless supply of oil? I
seriously hope not. <

Everything on earth is finite by definition. This is not what is being 
discussed? 

>Does anyone here think that the vested capitalists aren't going to milk
the cow to the last drop? <

The question was presented as the law of thermodynamics; the law of entropy 
and energy conversion within the framework of mankind having crossed the 
threshold " " event horizon, where the quantity of oil of earth begins absolute 
decline. Further, the late Mark Jones wrote from the standpoint that the crisis 
of Soviet socialism – the stagnation in its economy, riveted on the law of 
energy consumption and conversion as fundamental. 

My own point of view sees that, which is fundamental as the inability to leap 
to post industrial society on the basis of the Soviet’s own internal 
compulsion and reaching a juncture where social revolution and political revolution in 
one or more advanced capitalist countries became paramount to freeing the 
resources within the Soviet Union to allow for its reconfiguration. This does not 
dismiss the subjective – political, factors that are very real. The two 
aspects of the subjective are the political forms of the Stalin system – which were 
outdated, and the specific form of industrialism – not the property 
relations. There is of course the actual policy of the Soviet government in its trade 
with imperialism from the end of the Second World War up to the overthrown of 
proletarian property. Oil and the law of entropy was not fundamentality.

Further, the role of oil – petroleum, in the evolution and maintenance of 
industrial society is such as to recast the concept of “use-value,” according to 
the depletionist. That is to say the “use-value” now transcends the economic 
law governing value and this value appears in the real world as “
exchange-value.” Thus, oil is not subject to the law of commodity production as other 
commodities – on the basis of bourgeois property, because of its enhanced “
use-value.”  

This is a bad way to framework a Marxist sounding proposition. Use-value 
means more than simply utility. The point of depletion can be made without 
tampering with and changing the meaning of use-value and exchange value. 

This new theory of “use value” is then applied to the earth as the use value 
of earth and this in turn appears in the guise of “the carrying capacity of 
the earth.” Various concepts were advanced to frame the theory of “the politic 
of depletion.” One such concept is “the carrying capacity of the earth” and 
by implication the question arises, “has mankind reached a point where it and 
the earth begin absolute decline due to overpopulation. Overpopulation exists 
in this scenario as an expression of “carrying capacity” or man and his unity 
and struggle with the earth as use value. 

To strengthen the argument one is confront with the “law of population,” – 
the most important law according to Marx, whose articulation I remain waiting 
for – now over a year. 

Thomas Malthus pure and simple because the equation of women and nature are 
not viewed from the lens of Marx.   

Further, it is stated and implied by the “depletion-ist,” that mankind has 
hit the barrier – wall, or law governing energy conversion, which has always 
existed but at this stage of society becomes manifest as the crossing over from 
unlimited fossil fuel reserves to limited reserves. In other words, no 
scientific breakthrough can be made to create a perpetual motion machine and the 
waste by product of energy conversion – the law of entropy, must at some point 
assume greater mass than the energy that is produced and herein resides the 
essence or fundamental danger to the biosphere. 

Hence, humanity is faced with a new task because every stage in the 
development of new energy forms requires more initial input of energy than the previous 
energy forms.  A computer requires more energy expenditure than a mechanical 
adding machine, etc. No matter what forms of energy are deployed and not 
matter what the mix of different energy forms, we face a zero sum game. 

>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? <

The question is posed: given the finite limits of oil we have arrived at the 
point where the s" 
"well runs dry” and need a radically different approach to 
society and woman. Fine. If oil runs out in seven day this will not alter the 
law that governs reproduction on the basis of bourgeois property. Further, 
the value of the existing oil must continue to fall because the law of value 
rivets on the amount of human labor that goes into production and the 
technological revolution. Price would increase or in the abstract reach an extreme 
polarity with value and separates itself as an independently functioning exchange 
mechanism. This is not possible. Price would simply fluctuate dramatically or 
oil itself would be removed from the market. Whatever oil remained some 
capitalist would make a profit from it. 

> 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

<You're qualified! 

<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 mailing list