Re: Your comments on "Does Hubbert Peak Bode Ill for World

Dear Charles,

Thanks for the criticism.

> Well, this does take a bit of unpacking...
I'll say. Sometimes comments presuppose so much
understanding I just give up trying to decode the
language.

Another point is that the subject line becomes irrelevant
and no longer reflects the content of the message and
I waste a lot of time trying to parse the language for
some real insight into the original meaning.

These items posted to an archived list then become
misleading and the archive of increasingly marginal
importance.

> Really, might we not ask just a bit more consideration
> for 'readability' on a list that goes out people of various
> backgrounds and interests?
Many of the arcane and incomprehensible comparative
"ist" and "ism" generalities sown into the texts of some of
these missives seem more to attempt to communicate the
writers' academic merit within the intelligentsia than to
communicate anything clearly.

Tim


At 6:56 PM -0800 12/05/2003, Charles Jannuzi wrote:
> LP:
>
> > > 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.<<
>
> Well, this does take a bit of unpacking (like most of
> what Louis writes). Louis's definition of 'dogmatic
> Marxmism' seems to be any brand of it that doesn't
> coincide with what a handful of ex-SWPers daily post
> on Marxmail list. In other words, if you dare to
> disagree with Louis and his pals from the 70s, you
> will be called 'ultraleftist plotter' or worse
> 'dogmatic'.
>
> Next LP writes:
> > > 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".<<
>
> Well what you might get asked instead is, Then how in
> the heck did the planet get to triple that population,
> with most of that population living outside the the
> most develoved forms of consumerist, industrial
> society? BTW, I actually found Malthus a better read
> than some of the stuff I saw on Marxmal list.
>
> LP again:
>
> > > 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.<<
>
> But having discussions about it does not really make
> capital somehow capable of responding to any situation
> besides its own artificial shortages. Look at the
> current high price of oil. Does it reflect some sort
> of megaconsciousness on the part of capital concerning
> a looming peak of production? No, they are concerned
> with how to have a sustained high price of oil,
> trending somewhat upward (or somewhat downward,
> depending on how they've hedged) while growing
> profits. Look at the industry's profits before the war
> against Iraq, and after the war against Iraq, and you
> will see they are doing very well.
>
> > > 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.<<
>
> One might think this a bromide of some sort, but you
> need a more easy to swallow form than the 'Julian
> Simon type bromides from either capitalist
> intelligentsia like Gregg Easterbrook or "Marxists"
> have to be rejected"' pill. Really, might we not ask
> just a bit more consideration for 'readability' on a
> list that goes out people of various backgrounds and
> interests?
>
> Charles Jannuzi
> University of Fukui, Japan 
>
>
> =====
> http://www.literacyacrosscultures.org
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/literacyacrosscultures
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/

--
<http://www.groundtruthinvestigations.com/>