Re: Massive Starvation For World Feared Over Myanmar And Chile

On May 9, 8:40 am, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Cyril Smith was always a hard read. The issue of the productive forces
> was an issue which developed in the mid-1980's with the full climax of
> the de-industrialisation of Britain. I remember of few of them well.
> They were linked to another topic as to whether stalinism was
> counterrevolutionary through and through. The Transitional Programme
> was taken as gospel and bits of it taken out of context and advanced
> in such a manner to justify present political machinations ie their
> position via Dave Temple of sup****ting the Scargill leader****p.
>
> There never was a real discussion on the productive forces. Even when
> Trotsky wrote the Transitional Programme the productive forces were
> stagnant but during WW2 the USA developed but the world in general
> didn't.
>
> Ted Turner once stated there are too many people on earth. By
> investing in basic commodities and wiping out millions they probably
> seek to achieve two things...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually that bit about whether stalinism was "counterrevolutionary
through and through" was always answered in the affirmative by
Slaughter which is a sad caricature of "anti-Pabloism". I think the
adaptation made by the WRP (Slaughter) and the WRP (Classic) to
Solidarnosc - uncritically sup****ting a body under reactionary
clerical leader****p hell bent on capitalist restoration - more like a
state capitalist position than one defending a deformed workers'
state. The Catholic church later came clean on the question as to
their role and collaboration with "US diplomacy" (read CIA / State
Department). And Kuron was in it deeply too. History has also shown
that stalinist parties are not homogeneous and that there are today
and always were elements who are subjectively socialists.

As to the discussion on the productive forces, my feeling is that
Slaughter doggedly refused to come to grips with what was going on in
the real world by using "doctrine" - as a barrier to engaging with the
real world realities. In  fact using such a phrase was frowned upon -
as impressionism!

Capitalism develops the productive forces alright =96 in a most dynamic
way =96 it=92s an essential part of the heart of the system - but it does
so singularly in the service of profit =96 directly or indirectly (eg.
manufacture of ideology, war and conquest) =96 and this leads for some
to continuous catastrophe and periodic catastrophe for others.


Whilst I think it necessary to crush any attempt to blame the m*****
for their own poverty =96 rather than this global system I too believe
that world population is a subject worthy of discussion by Marxists =96
=93oo else=94? It certainly isn=92t a non-issue and notwithstanding the
donations of Ted Turner and so on, capitalism needs cheap labour and
reserve armies of workers and markets and therefore without doubt
exerts huge pressures opposing population control.