Re: Massive Starvation For World Feared Over Myanmar And Chile

On May 9, 6:55=A0pm, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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 =A0fact 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
doe=
s
> > 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.- Hide quoted
text =
-
>
> - Show quoted text -

My experience in Eastern Europe confirmed for me the very tangible
benefits of central planning without consideration for profits, but
for rational allocation of resources to achieve ends designed to serve
the people and to elevate their tastes - in a whole number of areas. A
large number of public officials involved in this planning were
genuine servants of the people - actual public (civil) SERVANTS -
unlike what has increasingly happened to this layer in the west - self
serving neo-liberal ideologues. Urban planning is no exception to this
- its "high" point being the locked gate/guarded condominium.

I think it is a mistake for Marxists to neglect discussion of these
questions with the alibi that the future will answer them. Bull****.
Marxists are the vectors of higher ideals and the modern world is
seriously lacking in this and large sections of the people seek
answers to an impasse. Look at urban planning - I dare say anywhere in
the capitalist world - it is a nightmare based on the most philistine
tastes and the most stinking motivations.

And democratically determined and sound population policies fall into
the same logic.

To contradict Daniele, in a sense the world is NOT finite, if that
word means what can be produced now is equal to what can be produced
in the future. The use of superior production technology and the use
of LESS and often cheaper, more abundant resources can actually result
in the satisfaction of far more needs then was possible before. There
is a lot more possibility for this than a static view would suggest.
Take cereal crop production. Once weeds were controlled by cultivation
requiring a massive use of fosssil fuels - now tiny amounts of
chemicals replace this waste - and they pretty quickly disappear from
the ecosystem. Just about all electronic goods we use today contain
less and less raw materials and are much lighter and have far greater
capacities and are much more reliable than they were 5 or 10 years ago
- and their production requires a fraction of the energy and labour
that it once did.

His view about population is no doubt deeply felt but it often arises
from ones own micro experiences in the very large cities which you
rightly consider de-humanising.