< < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > >

pop goes the rainforest

by John_Groves

01 June 2000 21:13 UTC


Jason Moore correctly points out that: "Forest clearance in the Brazilian
rainforest, and elsewhere, by
displaced peasant producers today IS a response to overpopulation, but
clearly an overpopulation produced by the deepening of capitalist
agrarian relations in zones of established settlement. This is whole
thrust of the modern history of town-country division of labor.
Capitalist transformation of the countryside produces a surplus
population which then finds its way to the cities and to new zones of
settlement, near or far according to conditions."


I agree that economic and pop pressures are linked.The question is how we
go about changing the situation once we are in it. If we can lessen the
pressure on the forest by reducing pop, then why not? I would also propose
other socio-economic changes to help matters. I jut don't want to rule out
pop simply because others may have given it a bad name.

Now I am not optimistic on this point since we are so late in responding to
the problem. The forest is going to be gone before any policy will stop it,
populationist or socialist.

On a separate point we see Mr. Moore respond to my use of language: "As for
socialist "utopianism" and other such red-baiting language, this
seems misplaced and mis-used. This line of argument appears aimed at
generating more heat than light."

On the contrary, the language was chosen precisely to move the argument
forward. Most of those who are arguing against pop (on this list) as a
lever of social policy do so from a socialist position. I consider myself
somewhat of a socialist in that I argue for lots of government intervention
in the marketplace. But since I argue for pop optimization, I am labeled a
"capitalist reactionary" if not a racist. As to the use of "utopian," this
is meant to distinguish between effective piecemeal reform (non-utopian)
and implausible, radical and wholesale reform (utopian).

So how is this "red-baiting?" This term has been used twice against me, so
I wouldn't mind having an explanation.

Randy Groves



< < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > > | Home