Re: Does Hubbert Peak Bode Ill for World System?

Luke Rondinaro wrote:
> What are we to make of this “bearish” outlook on the world (system) and 
> socioeconomic systems?  And for that matter, what’s the merit of such 
> “bullish” and “bearish” perspectives in the first place? … Markets, in 
> their systemic context, go up … and markets … go down.  I wonder really 
> what the use is in the framing of paradigms that are exclusively 
> upward-focused or downward-focused.  I’d argue the general trend is 
> neither exclusively in a climb or a plunge; it’s in an economic process 
> regulating itself in its cycles.  The system is balancing itself around 
> a point of equilibrium.
This sounds a bit too Olympian to me. One of my big problems with ws 
theory is its tendency to take an almost left Viconian or Spenglerian 
approach that seemed to be one of the big problems with Andre G. Frank's 
 Reorient. Long waves, global frameworks, etc. invite a kind of 
detachment from the class struggle. When you couple this with the sort 
of disavowal of state-based socialism found in some of Wallerstein's 
articles, you veer dangerously in the direction of quietism.

On the question of ecological disaster. I have noticed a tendency in 
certain kinds of dogmatic Marxism to assert that capitalism will always 
find substitutes for whatever. In a sense this is true. It also 
undermines the sort of "second contradiction" millenarianism of 
O'Connor. It doesn't matter if the planet goes to shit. As long as the 
stock markets function and as long as there are getaways like St. Barts, 
I doubt that the big bourgeoisie will care very much.

It seems to me that the challenge facing socialism (is that a dirty word 
here?) is to present a clear alternative to capitalism. To be taken 
seriously by scientists, you have to address the question of ecological 
sustainability. On the Marxism list, a couple of subscribers mentioned 
that the planet can sustain about 2 billion people. If you mention that 
in some quarters, you get called "Malthusian". It is not Malthusian to 
understand that we are rapidly approaching the point where industrial 
society as it is presently constituted cannot continue, whether under 
private or public ownership of the means of production.

We have to reintegrate the town and the country, as the Communist 
Manifesto called for. Energy, water and soil have to be carefully 
husbanded. Wildlife must be protected. There can be a better future, but 
Julian Simon type bromides from either the capitalist intelligentsia 
like Gregg Easterbrook or "Marxists" have to be rejected.



--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org