[Marxism] Not a conspiracy theorist, a marxist!

brad babscritique at gmail.com
Mon Jul 12 11:42:08 MDT 2010


Sure it's political because the state let BP drill where it had no
business drilling.  But Mark, how does saying that there is no way to
fix this advance any sort of politics for the left?  I never said BP
can fix it, I said the opposite: that BP probably cannot and Obama
won't either if he stays within the confines of bourgeois ideological
limits on the role of the capitalist state.  I don't except that there
are limits to science preventing them from fixing this but that there
are limits to science when put under capitalist constraints.  Your
approach bypasses the social and class construction of science and
posits an absolute limit to its ability to solve the leak.  My
approach focuses on said social and class produced limits on
scientific knowledge and the ability or inability to solve the leak.
That is why it is important to not simply ape the M$M's claim that
there is no way to fix this...that's really a claim that could never
hold up to any sort of scrutiny...all we know for sure is that they
haven't fixed it and I would say its because they are operating within
the bourgeois induced limits on science.

And I also think we should say things for their effect and what I am
saying is both for effect and the truth.  We simply don't know if
bombing would close the leak or not.  All we know is that BP won't
bomb it and if they let the state step in to fix it then the whole
capitalist class has an ideological issue to deal with.  So we are
stuck with either advancing a position that pushes on the political
system to act against BP and bourgeois ideology or one that throws its
hands up and says 'we don't know how to fix this and they (BP, Obama)
are doing all they can'.  How does this approach or uncover the truth
in anyway?  It just reinforces, and worse reifyies, bourgeois
ideological limits as natural ones and reduces the social, political
and class (really the parts of the same thing) role to one of passive
observer.

Brad

PS. The theory of bombing it shut is much more easily undermined by
the fact that they relief wells are now said to be being drilled to
kill the well, not to relieve the pressure.  This is different from
what was previously being said and I am not sure if it is true or not.
 But it does render the idea that they don't want to blow it up
because they want to save the well untenable, if true.  However, it
still does not address the issue of costs and no, they couldn't have
known before the costs of clean up ect.. so the argument that we can
post hoc add up costs and then read back in history the logic of BP is
bogus.




More information about the Marxism mailing list