[PEN-L:7239] Re: Re: jim o'connor on harvey review

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> Rob Schaap <carob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 05/26/99 11:18AM >>>
G'day Penners,

Chas writes:

> It would be difficult to prove which culture and tradition definitely has
the best practice regarding living and using the > earth in North America
and elsewhere in the long run of the future. But overall, in the historical
larger picture, the
>methods of the indigenous peoples are closer to modes and means of
production that have DEFINITELY not
>destroyed the human habitability and rehabitability of the earth for
200,000 years and more. Harvey comes from a
> culture and tradition that has invented in the last 500 years nuclear
waste and weaponry and other means of production > (fossil fuel industry)
and destruction that are impacting the earth in new orders of magnitude. We
have probable cause > to believe (that is ,a lot of preliminary evidence)
and to take pause to consider that this is more destructive than the life >
ways of the original inhabitants of this continent. Anecdotal evidence of
how some Indian  here or there may have had > a practice that
European-ecologists-come-lately think might be "dangerous" does not rebut
the prima facie case against > the dystopic nature of the capitalist mode
and means of production relative to the indigenous.

Rob:

You're losing sight of the little matter of context here, Chas.  If you want
us to live like Amerinindians, you'd have to wipe a fair few of us out (I'm
sure there were never 260 million Amerindians at a time, for instance - they
would have needed very different modes and relations of production if there
were).  And those of us of whom you would not divest yourself would have to
live without a few things (no bad thing in many respects, perhaps, but the
list would be a formidably long one).


Charles: Here's what I would take to be the context of the above comment: Harvey makes a claim that some Indians' lifeways may have contributed to the destuction of some species sometime. All I said was that in the implied comparison with  lifeways alternative to the Indians',  Harvey's point is not proven. In deciding how to live at an ecological optimum that fact should be straight. More specifically, the lifeways of the indigenous peoples may have a lot of lessons on how even larger populations can live more harmoniously with the earth.

((((((((((((((((((
Rob

Yes, each one of us uses many more of
the earth's resources than did the Amerindian of yore, and, yes, some use
twenty times more, and, yes, we subscribe to social cleavages and inequities
no Amerindian could ever respect or understand (nor should have) - but let's
not deny humanity its potential for a better life, eh?
((((((((((((((((((

Charles: With respect to the social dimension of Amerindian lifeways, I am all in support of the abolition of exploiting classes. So, in that regard, Amerindian culture seems a goal for us FOR THE FUTURE, not just something from some distant olden days.  This abolition of exploiting classes  (private property)  is better for the large populations of 1999 ,too.

((((((((((




On balance, we may indeed not have a better life right now (although it
probably averages out a fair few years longer), but that's not to say it
ain't available to us to arrive at one (I'd find it difficult to tell people
bereft of hydroelectric or thermal resources that they're not allowed
nuclear power, for instance).  Capitalism got us heaps of potentials for a
richer, more agentic, more comfortable, less contingent, etc etc existence,
Chas.  Come the time it exacts a price higher than the benefits it generally
bestows, or becomes unnecessary in light of what its dynamics have already
bestowed, it should be transformed into something new.  Something new, Chas.
 Not something old.  Just as the Amerindians of 1700 were not those of
2000BC, so must we become something new.  The past has lessons for us - but
it's only the past.  Unless you're Dr Who, you won't ever get there.

Charles: You are arguing with a strawperson, because you exaggerate what I said . I never advocated a return to the past or the "old" as you mockingly say. The idea is a dialectical spiral. The revolutionary new is a return to a previous point on the spiral but at a higher level. Thus, future communism is not identical with "old" communism, but it does repeat some of its characteristics on a higher level of the spiral. Also, class exploitation is getting really "old" don't you think ? Finally, species extinction, not an impossibiity by the nuclear weapons scientists' own statements, would make us really "old", in the sense of never being "new" again.


((((((((((

Rob:
I reckon we can all do better than anything we've done before, anyway.

Charles: Not only that. We can do better than we are right now.


Charles Brown