IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Re Jurriaan's [OPE-L:2274]: > Jerry wrote: > Yet, the Sun and the Wind (and other natural forces) > >can be appropriated by people without necessarily being privately and > >exclusively owned by individuals. > In saying this I take it you do then acknowledge that, in this way, > "climate" can play a role in political economy, in economic analysis as > well - something which you previously questioned. To begin with, let me correct myself above. The Sun and the wind are not socially appropriated, rather some portion (a *VERY* small portion) of the *energy* from the Sun and the wind has been socially appropriated. This has significant consequences vis-a-vis energy development. I.e. whereas coal and oil are non-renewable resources, solar and wind power are sources of energy that almost limitless. Nonetheless, labor and means of production are required to transform this natural energy into energy that is socially appropriated. (Lenin once said, during the NEP if I remember correctly, that "communism is the power of electricity". If there is any truth in that saying then perhaps one could assert that the locomotive of communism will be fueled by the harnessed force of the sun and the wind, etc.?) As for your question, I don't think this speaks to the debate that we had some months ago on the role of "climate" in regional economic development. If one is, though, examining the creation of wealth from a trans-historical perspective, then clearly natural forces are part of the process of wealth-creation. This is true even in capitalism. What is at issue is whether under capitalism nature helps to create wealth and value or whether it is just part of the process of wealth creation. If we were to assert the former then would we have a N<V? btw, I'd be interested in hearing the perspectives of any of the participants in the "value-form theory" thread on Paul Burkett's _Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective_, especially Ch. 7 on "Capitalism and Nature: A Value-Form Approach" (although the previous chapter on "Capital's 'Free Appropriation' of Natural and Social Conditions" also has relevance to the current discussion). [Hi Paul!] In solidarity, Jerry
- [OPE-L:2300] Re: civil society, Gerald Levy Sun 30 Jan 2000, 17:21 GMT
- [OPE-L:2295] Announcing Growth and Distribution, Duncan K. Foley Fri 28 Jan 2000, 15:21 GMT
- [OPE-L:2287] Re: "Common Sense", Gerald Levy Mon 24 Jan 2000, 18:37 GMT
- [OPE-L:2274] nature, value and wealth, Gerald Levy Sat 22 Jan 2000, 17:30 GMT
- [OPE-L:2275] Re: nature, value and wealth, Gerald Levy Sat 22 Jan 2000, 18:08 GMT
- [OPE-L:2276] Re: Re: nature, value and wealth, Jurriaan Bendien Sat 22 Jan 2000, 22:03 GMT
- [OPE-L:2283] Re: Re: Re: nature, value and wealth, clyder Mon 24 Jan 2000, 09:49 GMT
- [OPE-L:2288] Re:civil society, michael a. lebowitz Mon 24 Jan 2000, 19:38 GMT
- [OPE-L:2291] Re: Re:civil society, clyder Tue 25 Jan 2000, 09:51 GMT