[PEN-L:29933] Re: Re: Re: From Julian Simon-ites-To Iraqi Stalingrads-MoreHyperbole

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

ken hanly wrote:
>
> Why is the distinction lost on you? Surely it is likely that the planet will
> survive. The idea of a vulnerable planet is a bit weird in itself except
> that a meteorite or MAD atomic blast might destroy it. What is vulnerable
> are some species and perhaps humans are one of them.

The problem is I think political. Suppose Foster et al are substantially
correct in their arguments about resources and their vulnerability. So?

Either the danger can be confronted and overcome under capitalism or it
cannot.

If it can, then (on the assumption Foster & others make) the political
implications are essentially reformist. We had a united front against
Germany in the 1940s, a far lesser threat to the human species. If the
present ecological threat is so great, why not a united front against
it, subordinating revolutionary aims to this desperate need. Now my
prediction is that _most_ (not all) of those who see the ecological
threat in such terms _will_ follow this united front logic. Such panic
fear of the future is simply incompatible with a stable marxist world
view.

I hold that so long as capitalism survives, there will be no real change
in environmental practices. That means (given the position advanced by
Foster) that we face Luxemburg's either/or, socialism or barbarianism,
in its ultimate form.

The problem is then not ecological but political: that of struggling to
achieve the working-class unity necessary for the destruction of
capitalism. Ecology is undoubtedly an important part of that struggle --
but the kind of emphasis which some are putting on impending ecological
doom (even if they are empirically correct) is simply self-defeating.
They will have to choose eventually between their marxism and their
moral fervor.

Carrol