Re: Rifkin

[boddhisatva <kbevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

                Rahul,



        You wrote:


"Bullshit. The first world easily produces enough. It may in fact have to
produce less under any sensible eco-socialist order. Its rate of production
is already so high that it has to monopolize the resources of the entire
planet. What happens when the rest of the world wants this standard of
living? Will more reserves of oil be discovered on Mars? In this day, if
you are a pro-growth-in-the-first-world socialist, you might as well be
waving banners for Clinton.

The change in the first world will be in quality of life, not standard of
living.

Rahul"



        Bullshit.  First of all, a change in the quality of life and the
standard of living are the same thing.  Second, you are falling for the
bourgeois "scarcity" argument which is complete crap.  Mother Nature does not
dole out a year's allotment of natural resources and the first world does not
"take" a disproportionate share.  It BUYS resources with the money it makes
PRODUCING goods.  Poor people are not poor because they don't have the
natural resources, they are poor because they can't produce goods, because
they are getting screwed by relations of production.


        We don't buy up Africa's arable land, do we?  Costa Rica and Honduras
have to be STOPPED from selling their tropical hardwoods as raw logs by the
industrial bourgeoisie.  Brazillians have to be STOPPED by "eco-socialists"
>from dumping tons of mercury into the Amazon to get gold.  Nobody in the west
wants that gold.  Gold prices can barely be maintained.  They are selling
natural resources because they can't sell finished goods, not because we
are taking more than some pre-ordained share.  For that matter oil
is being used so "rapaciously" that it requires a CARTEL to keep the price
up.


        It is perfectly clear that the proletariat is not going to be told
that it has enough.  You are kidding yourself.  It is also clear that the
proletariat would, left to its own devices, like not to turn the world
into a shit-hole to make a buck.


        "Eco-socialism" puts the reformist cart before the dialectical horse.
The ecology is of vast importance to me, and I see that the current reformist
mode of ecological protection is a "let them eat cake" ideology.


        First: accede to the reality that the world belongs to the
proletariat and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. Then find
out what they want to do with it (the answer is surprisingly benign)
THEN you try and convince them of your position.


        The ecology can be a devastating tool against the bourgeoisie as long
as we take the attitude: "Hey! this is yours.  Look what these bastards are
doing to your world!".  If we start preaching about frugality and scarcity
and all the other WASP bourgeois crap, we throw them right into the arms of
their oppressors.


        Socialism is the belief that prosperity is the inalienable right of
all the people.





        peace



                boddhisatva





     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---