Re: [Marxism] Indo-US Nuclear Deal: EPW Editorial

[dave.walters@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Louis is of course correct that I have not brought up (mostly) the issue of 
property relations and the 
need to integrate this into a discussion. That the discussion has not involved 
"... the question 
of how all forms of energy production under capitalism are riddled with 
contradictions." 

We have done this at left-atomics.blogspot.com but not on this forum. Partly, 
I've done this on 
purpose. The reason being that there simply is so much most of us don't 
understand (includng me) 
about the technology, and since nuclear power is being attacked on this basis, 
it is necessary to 
respond at the same level and in kind, so to speak.

Having said that, the real *immediate* issue facing energy resources is almost 
exactly the same as 
that facing a host of public services like education and health care. The rapid 
privatization 
and deregulation that imperialism has been pushing hits energy production and 
distribution everywhere, 
in developed as well as developing countries. So...the order of the day is to 
respond to 
this privatizatoin:  Venezuela nationalizing some of it's energy resources, 
developing hydro under 
state auspices, etc. One of the hottest areas of the class struggle in Mexico 
is the privatization of 
it's electrical industry and the fight the SME (electrical workers union) has 
waged against this. 

I would say all of the above is part of the answer to Louis' legitamate 
complaint. I think too, it should 
not "just be the way David Walters 'totally ignores' all forms of energy 
production under capitalism 
are riddled with contradictions", this would true of anti-nuclear and 
'renewable' advocates as well. 
The push for wind power, for example, in the US, which has been slow but 
steadily increasing, is 
pushed *totally* within the paradigm of a deregulated and for-profit energy 
geneation sector in 
general and around 'tax subsidities' specifically which are only significant to 
privately held 
energy companies (FPL, PG&E, etc). The energy discusission is a multi-edged one 
I would argue.

At least I've spent many hours, days, weeks of actively campaigning against 
deregulation and for public power. Of course I'm active in a union that has to 
take seriously these issues so maybe comparing 
my own actual activity, as opposed to others intellectual proclivities, isn't 
fair. But I stated this to 
show that my own interest in this is real-world for me at both the tenchical 
level and the politcial one.

So, how do we evolve this discussion in the direction Louis suggests? One way 
is to discuss some of 
the topics raises in list members Ian Agnus's "Socialist Ecology" blog. Another 
is consideration of 
the Socialist Alliance's rather detailed non-nuclear and non-coal (!) energy 
plan for Austailia.

So, for the pusposes of Marxmail, I will plead guilty to Louis' charge. Will 
anti-nuclear activists do 
the same?

David 
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism