[Marxism] (no subject)
shmage at pipeline.com
Sat Mar 10 09:27:10 MST 2012
On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:46 PM, David P Á wrote:
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> On 10/03/2012 2:20, Shane Mage wrote:
>> But sooner than that the differential life insurance premia asked
>> Fukushima victims will give a clear picture.
>> Just as the economic impossibility of insuring nuclear power plants
>> commercial rates already proves the unviability of nuclear power.
> The same way the economic impossibility of insuring everyone's
> health at commercial rates proves the unviability of universal
The same way as the need for subsidies to Insurance Companies and
compulsion against self-insurers in the Obama plan demonstrates the
economic unviability of the US health-care system.
> Since when do Marxists follow the dictates of the law of value when
> assessing if something is viable or not?
It is the law of value that determines whether something is
economically viable, not self-styled Marxists who don't understand the
law of value which, as stated by Marx (letter to Dr. Kugelmann) is:
"...even if there were no chapter on value in my book, the analysis
of the real relationships which I give would contain the proof and
demonstration of the real value-relation...the mass of products
corresponding to the different needs requires different and
quantitatively determined masses of the total labor of society.
That this necessity of distributing social labor in definite
cannot be done away with by the particular form of social
but can only change the form it assumes, is self-evident. No
laws can be done away with...
> Nuclear power should be assessed on the light of the world's need
> for carbon-free energy, not on whether capitalists can make it
> produce profits.
But in fact capitalists make it produce huge profits. How? By
exempting these monopolistic capitalist firms from accounting for the
real cost of insuring against compensation for the actuarially
expected victims of the technology; by providing them interest
subsidies in the form of federal government guarantees of their loans
(equity financing, of course, being unthinkable for nuclear power); by
charging ratepayers for the plants even while still under
construction; by including cost-overruns in the rate base; by fast-
tracking (ie., emasculating) the process of environmental review. As
exemplified by the very recent Obamist approval for Georgia Power's
two new plants, the first to be built in decades!
Nuclear power should be assessed like any other technology--by
comparison of its cost to the value of its output, relative to other
technological paths over time. Nuclear power is an overmature
technology so expensive and slow to construct that it can never make a
significant contribution to ending the world's need for CO2-producing
energy consumption. It is hopelessly uneconomic compared to the
rapidly developing, steadily cheapening, range of technologies
(especially nanotechnologies) associated with deriving useful forms of
energy from our central electrical power plant, the sun.
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
kindling in measures and going out in measures.
Herakleitos of Ephesos
More information about the Marxism