Re: Massive Starvation For World Feared Over Myanmar And Chile

On May 9, 1:05 am, dusty <trackdu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.

The de-industrialisatin of Britain obviously had an effect on all of
us from the point of view that we assumed that productive forces had
reached saturation point. There is no insoluble capitalist crisis from
the point of view that until those that labor rule, bosses will invent
systems to the detriment of us all. When a transfer of jobs occurred
in the mid-1980's abroad and we adopted the US economic model we
couldn't necessarily see what was going to happen next. But thats
because 'theory' was always disconnected from practice. In the mining
areas miners were being written off as 'disabled' which meant a turn
was being made to create a layer of people who would be permanently
unemployed. This number has ballooned to 8 million. Now because the
left refuses to discuss unemployment so as to not offend the
'disabled' it also refused to discuss 'immigration' so as to not
offend immigrants it was unable to see what was going on or to explain
it.

The Multinationals were being disconnected from the nation state and
two-three processes were occurring simultaneously.
a) production was being globalised using the latest developments in IT
b) non-union 'slave' labour in maquila zones in the Third World parts
of the West were occurring and China came onto the scene- no one could
have predicted that before it occurred based on the experience of what
happened with Russia previously
c) financial re-engineering by offerring a whole array of credit to
keep non-productive citizens afloat in the advanced West

This inevitably would come unstuck as it is doing now...

On overpopulation we can discuss this in a separate thread. The piece
by the Catholics isn't necessarily the issue. Its what the worlds
billionaires state. They want an enforced reduction in populations.
This I believe is being carried out not by nuclear weapons but by
weather manipulation systems which destroy agriculture and lead to
mass starvation leading to deaths. Obviously the lack of education the
lack of contraception implies that if you are poor you end up having
babies indefinitely. The growth in population is probably a sign of
the growth in poverty.

The fact that certain cities have become states within states is to do
with the anarchic nature of capitalism itself. The planned system in
Russia ensured we didn't get the Mexico or Greek effect. Where the
capital city ends up being 40-50% of the whole population. Totally
absurd as cities over 5 million become totally inhuman.