The flaw being, there is a finite amount of resources in the world, yet capitalism, combined with liberalism, says that anyone has the right to accumulate as much capital as they want-if they have the resources.

The problem is, the finite amount of resources in the world means that some people have to be "winners", and most other people are "losers" in the capitalist system.

Wealth is tangible, and wealth is finite. Capitalism, in its nature, means that as much wealth is accumulated as possible into the fewest hands possible. But with the depletion of resources and the increase in capital, the value of the capital decreases, while the value of resources increases. Thus, capitalists become even more greedy, more power-hungry, and more aggressive. We are seeing that play out now.

How can a system that says that wealth can be accumulated forever be reconciled with a world with finite resources?

'Traditionally', by putting the squeeze on labor, techno innovation(those two closely related) and expansion of markets. This finite world is the fly in their ointment, and if this goes on, in ours too.

The madness of finance capital run amok is one way they keep the money mill humming, until it's massive contradictions blow up. Commodifying what was previously commons, like education, the resources of the open sea is another. Technology which allows access to previously untapped resources, deep water drilling, fraking, mountain top removal is another fix and damn the 'externals'.

Needless to say, all 'fixes' are unsatisfactory and drag us further into misery. Gotta do something about it....

Not to mention the moral flaw with the entire thing. For the few on top to have so much, so many go without basic needs. It's flawed both logically and morally, yet folks cling to it.

Not to mention the moral flaw with the entire thing. For the few on top to have so much, so many go without basic needs. It's flawed both logically and morally, yet folks cling to it.


Just recently, a family member told me that "anybody should be allowed to make as much as they want, with no limits." She also acted like most people who don't make huge amounts of money "choose" to be that way.

The flaw being, there is a finite amount of resources in the world, yet capitalism, combined with liberalism, says that anyone has the right to accumulate as much capital as they want-if they have the resources.

The problem is, the finite amount of resources in the world means that some people have to be "winners", and most other people are "losers" in the capitalist system.

Wealth is tangible, and wealth is finite. Capitalism, in its nature, means that as much wealth is accumulated as possible into the fewest hands possible. But with the depletion of resources and the increase in capital, the value of the capital decreases, while the value of resources increases. Thus, capitalists become even more greedy, more power-hungry, and more aggressive. We are seeing that play out now.

How can a system that says that wealth can be accumulated forever be reconciled with a world with finite resources?






Allen17, I have to tell you that I don't think I agree with anyone else on this site on this particular issue/question with the exception of anaxarchos (but he might not agree with me either ;)).

Here is the thing: you are asking a long run question, but the "long run" you're asking about does not apply. Its not simply Keynes dictum "In the long run we're all dead" and its not to say that capitalism isn't driving us right towards a cliff.

The problem is that the Earth is an unbelievably big place and the "cliff" in question isn't geological but social. Yes, the Earth's resources are finite if you take the macro-macro-macro view. But, by the same token, you could just as easily lament that one day the sun's fuel will be exhausted and the solar system will cease to exist.

Yes there is incredible ecological degradation going on under capitalism, but the argument about infinite expansion vs finite geological/ecological limitations is still basically one of "one day the sun will explode and we're all gonna die". Shit floats.

The finite limitation that capitalist relations runs into is excctly what Marx and Engels state it to be in the Manifesto: the serfs who would feed the capitalist must instead be fed by the capitalist. This is only a hop and a skip from saying that markets are bounded while the need for capitalist expansion is unbounded.

The game clock on capitalist social relations is ticking but it only runs out when we wind it down to zero..and not before. Now if this all continued for 10,000 years the planet might fart and kill us all. But if things continued as they are for 10,000 more years we'd have long before descended into barbarism.


How can a system that says that wealth can be accumulated forever be reconciled with a world with finite resources?

One of the first and most obvious principles of science is that nothing is forever and nothing can be immutable. The capitalist fights for the continuation of his system TODAY and will employ whatever mantras and incantations advance that goal. You have indeed pinpointed what Marx called a contradiction but it is one of enforced separation: Man is completely a part of Nature and yet his productive activity maintains itself to be at odds with Nature (in this certain sense). Its not an esoteric point, but its not quite on the nose either.

EDIT: actually, and this IS esoteric, one thing I've thought about at some length is the fact that the entire field of thermodynamics basicall insists that Man is at odds with Nature. In fact, it actually insists the all of the visible universe is at odds with Nature in the (very) long term. But thats a discussion for a much lazier day.

Yes there is incredible ecological degradation going on under capitalism, but the argument about infinite expansion vs finite geological/ecological limitations is still basically one of "one day the sun will explode and we're all gonna die". Shit floats.
Well and good, humans can tolerate damn near any amount of shit, the revolution will come, but what kind of world will be left to it?

If it is a world of dead seas, Paleocene climate, massively simplified ecologies and vastly diminished biodiversity with the difficulties for human survival which these thing imply then we as a species have suffered an irredeemable loss of part of what we are and what we might be. That is the urgency which many of us feel. The lessons of history are of little solace in this regard, and though discipline is required this urgency is real and is a great impetus to our project.[/quote]


I'm wondering if those who "feel the urgency more", are those who've been more directly impacted by nature? I grew up with my belly on the forest floor, quite literally "communing" with nature, catching newts, gathering lichens, playing war or fugitive, hiking for miles through old growth woods and over old farms being reclaimed by nature, or being chased by cows on those farms which were still active. I'm a fucking hick, and always will be to my soul.

Those hills, those woods are home, and when the assholes strike that close to home, its really, really hard not to take it personally, not to want to fight really hard to not have your home decimated by the capitalists.

When I rail against hydro-fracking, I know the source, and I talk about capitalism and that that is the context this is happening in, reminding any I talk to that this is all about the owners making money. Always pointing out the many ways capitalism is killing people and nature. The opportunity is ripe to gather farmers, hunters, and other hicks to awareness of the class war..."the rulers don't give a shit about the woods, the farms, your cows, they don't care about anything but money and power."

I actually think the rulers get satisfaction from destroying people, land, its a perk that illustrates their power... (along with its people, how decimated is Iraq's nature/environment? how many even think about that? Or the Congo, how many think about how the way of life that is being destroyed, the people are made refugees, they will survive, but how many people lose their "home", their way of life, how many are deeply wounded by the loss of the nature they know?).

Very sorry for being personal, I feel personally wounded, and I'm working on not being like that; it is all due to the system...

Anyway, the profit mongers have to be stopped on all these "fronts" created by them in their unquenchable thirst for profit and power...The Class war is the War, the battles are innumerable within that context, and that context must always be kept in mind.

Until something is organized to fight the Class War on its own front...I'll be a thorn in as many ways as I can. The system must be brought down...

The finite limitation that capitalist relations runs into is excctly what Marx and Engels state it to be in the Manifesto: the serfs who would feed the capitalist must instead be fed by the capitalist. This is only a hop and a skip from saying that markets are bounded while the need for capitalist expansion is unbounded.


I agree with you on this. The important contradiction involves the social relationships, not limitations on resources. That is not to say that the environment is not being trashed out.

Your post is good. I think this relates to the discussion about fracking with blf. Focusing on the damage to the environment from fracking misses the forest for the trees. It is the social and political aspects that are important. It is not a question of talking about the political and social aspects in lieu of talking about the environmental impact let alone abandoning doing something about it. If we ignore the social and political aspects the liberals will hijack it as a cause and that will mean that it will be much less likely that it can be stopped. It is a trap to think that we have a choice between "doing something to stop it" - the environmental issue - as opposed to "looking at the bigger picture" - the social issue. These things can only be stopped by analyzing them as social issues. Tackling it as yet another isolated environmental cause is certain to fail, certain to lead us down blind allies. People signing these leases and the oil companies corrupting government agencies and lying about this are where it is happening, where it can be stopped, and that can only be effectively approached as a social issue.

The finite limitation that capitalist relations runs into is excctly what Marx and Engels state it to be in the Manifesto: the serfs who would feed the capitalist must instead be fed by the capitalist. This is only a hop and a skip from saying that markets are bounded while the need for capitalist expansion is unbounded.


I agree with you on this. The important contradiction involves the social relationships, not limitations on resources. That is not to say that the environment is not being trashed out.

Your post is good. I think this relates to the discussion about fracking with blf. Focusing on the damage to the environment from fracking misses the forest for the trees. It is the social and political aspects that are important. It is not a question of talking about the political and social aspects in lieu of talking about the environmental impact let alone abandoning doing something about it. If we ignore the social and political aspects the liberals will hijack it as a cause and that will mean that it will be much less likely that it can be stopped. It is a trap to think that we have a choice between "doing something to stop it" - the environmental issue - as opposed to "looking at the bigger picture" - the social issue. These things can only be stopped by analyzing them as social issues. Tackling it as yet another isolated environmental cause is certain to fail, certain to lead us down blind allies. People signing these leases and the oil companies corrupting government agencies and lying about this are where it is happening, where it can be stopped, and that can only be effectively approached as a social issue.


Of course. Either human society seizes the reins determines its own course and plans its own future, or we go down in a ball of flames. That is precisely what this is all about.

(wrote this before Kid's latest post)

Don't think it is a matter of one or the other. Environmental considerations are a sub-set of the over-arching issue and should be dealt with within that context, as examples rather than 'issues'. Say some kind of 'progressive' group somehow mounts a successful campaign against fraking(unlikely as that is). That money that was invested in fraking is just gonna find another way to fuck with us.

That said, the urgency which any given problem inspires need be harnessed to attack Capitalism. It is nerve wracking for those 'invested' in a given 'issue' but that is part of that discipline thing. However it is counterproductive to dismiss these problems as of no great concern, rather, they need be included in the greater narrative.

Of course "limits" are social. Any other cut on the issue is not only demonstrably wrong but an invitation to either the Malthusian path ("over population", etc. etc.) or to some quasi-religious theorizing about the "natural balance".

Nevertheless, global capitalism underscores the lengths to which capitalism will move globally... and the degree to which it will bulldoze anything in its path to get there. There is still a lot of oil. That does not mean that they will not have a "crisis" because they will run out of cheap oil nor that they won't fill up the Gulf of Mexico with the shit because they own the system, own the politics, and get a little "aggressive" about diggin' the shit up. It is in the nature of the beast and globalization gives it a new character. Still, they have been turning forests into "moors" for hundreds of years and now do it on an unbelievable scale.

It is a truism that human beings can decide what is and is not human... and the their own creation, capitalism, can not. It has got to be killed.

Go back to Allen's question. He is actually asking about a "bounding question". "If capitalism is 'limitless' but accumulation is limited by social circumstances, isn't there an inherent contradiction?"


Sure there is, quite aside from any physical limits.

Of course "limits" are social. Any other cut on the issue is not only demonstrably wrong but an invitation to either the Malthusian path ("over population", etc. etc.) or to some quasi-religious theorizing about the "natural balance".

Nevertheless, global capitalism underscores the lengths to which capitalism will move globally... and the degree to which it will bulldoze anything in its path to get there. There is still a lot of oil. That does not mean that they will not have a "crisis" because they will run out of cheap oil nor that they won't fill up the Gulf of Mexico with the shit because they own the system, own the politics, and get a little "aggressive" about diggin' the shit up. It is in the nature of the beast and globalization gives it a new character. Still, they have been turning forests into "moors" for hundreds of years and now do it on an unbelievable scale.

It is a truism that human beings can decide what is and is not human... and the their own creation, capitalism, can not. It has got to be killed.

Go back to Allen's question. He is actually asking about a "bounding question". "If capitalism is 'limitless' but accumulation is limited by social circumstances, isn't there an inherent contradiction?"


Sure there is, quite aside from any physical limits.





I guess that what I was trying to say was that social (economic) and environmental factors are forever linked. The economic system known as capitalism is the root cause of global environmental destruction. As the international capitalist predators become more powerful globally and resources become more scarce, the demand for resources will increase. This will lead to even more resource depletion, which will lead to more demand, more social unrest, etc.

Social problems are the root of environmental problems, which lead to more social problems. A vicious cycle with a snowballing effect.

And yes, accumulation is limited, and varies, by social circumstance. Great way of translating my question...heh.

(wrote this before Kid's latest post)

Don't think it is a matter of one or the other. Environmental considerations are a sub-set of the over-arching issue and should be dealt with within that context, as examples rather than 'issues'. Say some kind of 'progressive' group somehow mounts a successful campaign against fraking(unlikely as that is). That money that was invested in fraking is just gonna find another way to fuck with us.

That said, the urgency which any given problem inspires need be harnessed to attack Capitalism. It is nerve wracking for those 'invested' in a given 'issue' but that is part of that discipline thing. However it is counterproductive to dismiss these problems as of no great concern, rather, they need be included in the greater narrative.


I think it makes a big difference whether we approach this as environmental issues within a context of social and economic analysis rather then the other way around. I am seeing this with fracking - people are talking about it as an environmental issue (some think that we will somehow get to a social and economic issue eventually with this approach but I think we are going one direction or we are going the other and the two are not compatible.)

Kid's post cleared something up that I couldn't figure out before. The liberal causes are carefully constructed in such a way so as to preclude the drawing of any conclusions about social and economic aspects of the problem. It is not really omission, it is not an oversight.

The anti-fracking movement says "this is really terrible, it is ruining the environment, and the water is getting screwed up and people are being poisoned. We have to stop it." That sounds good. Who could be opposed to that position? Everything - the political, economic and social context is then inevitably subordinated to the cause. "We will get to the bigger picture later! Right now we have an emergency! People are in danger! We have no time to talk about this, we need to do something!" Again, that sounds reasonable. But the more of an emergency people perceive it to be, the more the resistance to the "bigger picture" - right when we need it the most. Fracking is not merely an opportunity for people to see the bigger picture, it cannot be stopped without the bigger picture.

Here is the approach - there is this problem called fracking and it is really bad; we need to educate people with the facts; this will get people to rallies or to write their officials or something; we will then lobby the officials to stop it; somehow, we hope, it will be stopped, or delayed or mitigated. With so many liberal causes, it takes years and years to work through this process, and results are only very rarely achieved, which makes it strange that the more urgent the issue the more people insist on this approach. That strongly suggests that the urgency is not really to stop the fracking, but rather the urgency is to get busy and feel as though you are doing something about it, as well as an urgency to avoid the very really possibility that many people will be able to see the larger social and economic context.

Yes there is incredible ecological degradation going on under capitalism, but the argument about infinite expansion vs finite geological/ecological limitations is still basically one of "one day the sun will explode and we're all gonna die". Shit floats.
Well and good, humans can tolerate damn near any amount of shit, the revolution will come, but what kind of world will be left to it?

If it is a world of dead seas, Paleocene climate, massively simplified ecologies and vastly diminished biodiversity with the difficulties for human survival which these thing imply then we as a species have suffered an irredeemable loss of part of what we are and what we might be. That is the urgency which many of us feel. The lessons of history are of little solace in this regard, and though discipline is required this urgency is real and is a great impetus to our project.


I'm wondering if those who "feel the urgency more", are those who've been more directly impacted by nature? I grew up with my belly on the forest floor, quite literally "communing" with nature, catching newts, gathering lichens, playing war or fugitive, hiking for miles through old growth woods and over old farms being reclaimed by nature, or being chased by cows on those farms which were still active. I'm a fucking hick, and always will be to my soul.

Those hills, those woods are home, and when the assholes strike that close to home, its really, really hard not to take it personally, not to want to fight really hard to not have your home decimated by the capitalists.

When I rail against hydro-fracking, I know the source, and I talk about capitalism and that that is the context this is happening in, reminding any I talk to that this is all about the owners making money. Always pointing out the many ways capitalism is killing people and nature. The opportunity is ripe to gather farmers, hunters, and other hicks to awareness of the class war..."the rulers don't give a shit about the woods, the farms, your cows, they don't care about anything but money and power."

I actually think the rulers get satisfaction from destroying people, land, its a perk that illustrates their power... (along with its people, how decimated is Iraq's nature/environment? how many even think about that? Or the Congo, how many think about how the way of life that is being destroyed, the people are made refugees, they will survive, but how many people lose their "home", their way of life, how many are deeply wounded by the loss of the nature they know?).

Very sorry for being personal, for being selfish, I'm trying to use myself as an illustration about others? I've seen the hurt in the farmers' faces, in the hunters' faces. I feel personally wounded, and I'm working on not being like that; it is all due to the system...

Anyway, the profit mongers have to be stopped on all these "fronts" created by them in their unquenchable thirst for profit and power...The Class war is the War, the battles are innumerable within that context, and that context must always be kept in mind.

Until something is organized to fight the Class War on its own front...I'll be a thorn in as many ways as I can. The system must be brought down...

I'm wondering if those who "feel the urgency more", are those who've been more directly impacted by nature? I grew up with my belly on the forest floor, quite literally "communing" with nature, catching newts, gathering lichens, playing war or fugitive, hiking for miles through old growth woods and over old farms being reclaimed by nature, or being chased by cows on those farms which were still active. I'm a fucking hick, and always will be to my soul.

Those hills, those woods are home, and when the assholes strike that close to home, its really, really hard not to take it personally, not to want to fight really hard to not have your home decimated by the capitalists.

When I rail against hydro-fracking, I know the source, and I talk about capitalism and that that is the context this is happening in, reminding any I talk to that this is all about the owners making money. Always pointing out the many ways capitalism is killing people and nature. The opportunity is ripe to gather farmers, hunters, and other hicks to awareness of the class war..."the rulers don't give a shit about the woods, the farms, your cows, they don't care about anything but money and power."

I actually think the rulers get satisfaction from destroying people, land, its a perk that illustrates their power... (along with its people, how decimated is Iraq's nature/environment? how many even think about that? Or the Congo, how many think about how the way of life that is being destroyed, the people are made refugees, they will survive, but how many people lose their "home", their way of life, how many are deeply wounded by the loss of the nature they know?).

Very sorry for being personal, for being selfish, I'm trying to use myself as an illustration about others? I've seen the hurt in the farmers' faces, in the hunters' faces. I feel personally wounded, and I'm working on not being like that; it is all due to the system...

Anyway, the profit mongers have to be stopped on all these "fronts" created by them in their unquenchable thirst for profit and power...The Class war is the War, the battles are innumerable within that context, and that context must always be kept in mind.

Until something is organized to fight the Class War on its own front...I'll be a thorn in as many ways as I can. The system must be brought down...




I have a tremendous sense of urgency, and take it personally. I think it is a false dichotomy to say that there are those feeling urgency and hen there are those talking about root causes. The question is whether or not we approach this as a social issue. When we say "the root cause is Capitalism" and "until the revolution comes" and imagine that this is the choice: get something done now while we wait for the right time for attacking the root cause, or attack the root cause and forgo getting anything done now - we are walking into a trap. There is a contradiction between "until something is organized" and "the system must be brought down."

I am saying that in anything you do regarding fracking, when you talk about it, put it in a social context. That will be more effective, right now. Be alert to the ongoing effort to steer this. The idea that we will get to the root causes later but right now we need to do something is NOT opposition to fracking. It is opposition to the very real danger that the fracking issue could lead many people to look at the social aspect, to connect the dots. That is what the liberals are worried about, not fracking.

The other thing of note here is that different social relations and overthrowing the capitalist system doesn't mean the world is going to stop drilling for oil, or going to go "green" or not have the challenges in front of it as we face today. It simply means the motives that compel the capitalist class to cut every corner to the point that shit blows up in their fucking faces (and this spill is not the first or worst, by a longshot) won't exist -- and neither will the capitalist class.

Planning is hard you guys..I don't think there are easy answers on any of those fronts and I don't think any pre-requisite to provide those "answers" as a test of legitimacy exists either.

(wrote this before Kid's latest post)

Don't think it is a matter of one or the other. Environmental considerations are a sub-set of the over-arching issue and should be dealt with within that context, as examples rather than 'issues'. Say some kind of 'progressive' group somehow mounts a successful campaign against fraking(unlikely as that is). That money that was invested in fraking is just gonna find another way to fuck with us.

That said, the urgency which any given problem inspires need be harnessed to attack Capitalism. It is nerve wracking for those 'invested' in a given 'issue' but that is part of that discipline thing. However it is counterproductive to dismiss these problems as of no great concern, rather, they need be included in the greater narrative.


I think it makes a big difference whether we approach this as environmental issues within a context of social and economic analysis rather then the other way around. I am seeing this with fracking - people are talking about it as an environmental issue (some think that we will somehow get to a social and economic issue eventually with this approach but I think we are going one direction or we are going the other and the two are not compatible.)

Kid's post cleared something up that I couldn't figure out before. The liberal causes are carefully constructed in such a way so as to preclude the drawing of any conclusions about social and economic aspects of the problem. It is not really omission, it is not an oversight.

The anti-fracking movement says "this is really terrible, it is ruining the environment, and the water is getting screwed up and people are being poisoned. We have to stop it." That sounds good. Who could be opposed to that position? Everything - the political, economic and social context is then inevitably subordinated to the cause. "We will get to the bigger picture later! Right now we have an emergency! People are in danger! We have no time to talk about this, we need to do something!" Again, that sounds reasonable. But the more of an emergency people perceive it to be, the more the resistance to the "bigger picture" - right when we need it the most. Fracking is not merely an opportunity for people to see the bigger picture, it cannot be stopped without the bigger picture.

Here is the approach - there is this problem called fracking and it is really bad; we need to educate people with the facts; this will get people to rallies or to write their officials or something; we will then lobby the officials to stop it; somehow, we hope, it will be stopped, or delayed or mitigated. With so many liberal causes, it takes years and years to work through this process, and results are only very rarely achieved, which makes it strange that the more urgent the issue the more people insist on this approach. That strongly suggests that the urgency is not really to stop the fracking, but rather the urgency is to get busy and feel as though you are doing something about it, as well as an urgency to avoid the very really possibility that many people will be able to see the larger social and economic context.


Ain't that what I said? It is focus and discipline that is needed to make that urgency a laser. I am guilty of the urgency to get busy as well as a lack of discipline but always strive to put things in the greater context. At least that's what I try to do.

The other thing of note here is that different social relations and overthrowing the capitalist system doesn't mean the world is going to stop drilling for oil, or going to go "green" or not have the challenges in front of it as we face today. It simply means the motives that compel the capitalist class to cut every corner to the point that shit blows up in their fucking faces (and this spill is not the first or worst, by a longshot) won't exist -- and neither will the capitalist class.

Planning is hard you guys..I don't think there are easy answers on any of those fronts and I don't think any pre-requisite to provide those "answers" as a test of legitimacy exists either.


That is understood. First there will be great needs to be met. Secondly there is no guarantee than the post capitalist world will take the measures necessary to stabilize the ecological holocaust. Marx would not 'write recipe books for chefs of the future' and damn if I'll be so presumptuous. Still, a rational economy is the best and only option for that happening.

Ain't that what I said? It is focus and discipline that is needed to make that urgency a laser. I am guilty of the urgency to get busy as well as a lack of discipline but always strive to put things in the greater context. At least that's what I try to do.


Yeah. Choppedliver and I have a running debate going about this.

The other thing of note here is that different social relations and overthrowing the capitalist system doesn't mean the world is going to stop drilling for oil, or going to go "green" or not have the challenges in front of it as we face today. It simply means the motives that compel the capitalist class to cut every corner to the point that shit blows up in their fucking faces (and this spill is not the first or worst, by a longshot) won't exist -- and neither will the capitalist class.

Planning is hard you guys..I don't think there are easy answers on any of those fronts and I don't think any pre-requisite to provide those "answers" as a test of legitimacy exists either.


Once upon a time, Chlamor posted a quotation from Engels (either from the Peasant Wars or German Revolutions) which talked about how the revolutionaries during the Reformation found themselves doing everything they were against - forced on them by the circumstances and the undeveloped character of what they "inherited". One of the things that is not mentioned there (but, is mentioned many other places) is the pressure of war. The Reformation was one continuous war.

The character of society will change when Capitalism is dead. I agree that there will not be an instant eco-Nirvana, and that planning is hard... particularly in a world in which so much of the population is left in marginal conditions. Still, the need to pave the earth is a uniquely capitalist drive. The Greeks felt no such impulse, nor the Romans, nor Charlemagne, nor even the absolute monarchs. The early socialists made many mistakes but continuous war and 50 million dead have a way of altering one's priorities.

Still it is only capitalism which sees a mountain and thinks, "I wonder what I would find if I knocked that over... and how much money I would make?"

The other aspect of this is the utter fraud of political "democracy" which makes all such "mountain-knocking" a purely personal decision. Once the property issue is settled, the question of "to drill or not to drill?" is between only the owner and his maker... as private as prayer and as certain as predestination.

I'm wondering if those who "feel the urgency more", are those who've been more directly impacted by nature? I grew up with my belly on the forest floor, quite literally "communing" with nature, catching newts, gathering lichens, playing war or fugitive, hiking for miles through old growth woods and over old farms being reclaimed by nature, or being chased by cows on those farms which were still active. I'm a fucking hick, and always will be to my soul.

Those hills, those woods are home, and when the assholes strike that close to home, its really, really hard not to take it personally, not to want to fight really hard to not have your home decimated by the capitalists.

When I rail against hydro-fracking, I know the source, and I talk about capitalism and that that is the context this is happening in, reminding any I talk to that this is all about the owners making money. Always pointing out the many ways capitalism is killing people and nature. The opportunity is ripe to gather farmers, hunters, and other hicks to awareness of the class war..."the rulers don't give a shit about the woods, the farms, your cows, they don't care about anything but money and power."

I actually think the rulers get satisfaction from destroying people, land, its a perk that illustrates their power... (along with its people, how decimated is Iraq's nature/environment? how many even think about that? Or the Congo, how many think about how the way of life that is being destroyed, the people are made refugees, they will survive, but how many people lose their "home", their way of life, how many are deeply wounded by the loss of the nature they know?).

Very sorry for being personal, for being selfish, I'm trying to use myself as an illustration about others? I've seen the hurt in the farmers' faces, in the hunters' faces. I feel personally wounded, and I'm working on not being like that; it is all due to the system...

Anyway, the profit mongers have to be stopped on all these "fronts" created by them in their unquenchable thirst for profit and power...The Class war is the War, the battles are innumerable within that context, and that context must always be kept in mind.

Until something is organized to fight the Class War on its own front...I'll be a thorn in as many ways as I can. The system must be brought down...




I have a tremendous sense of urgency, and take it personally. I think it is a false dichotomy to say that there are those feeling urgency and hen there are those talking about root causes. The question is whether or not we approach this as a social issue.

Did I say this anywhere here? I am both feeling urgency and talking about this in the social context of class war, always.


When we say "the root cause is Capitalism" and "until the revolution comes" and imagine that this is the choice: get something done now while we wait for the right time for attacking the root cause, or attack the root cause and forgo getting anything done now - we are walking into a trap. There is a contradiction between "until something is organized" and "the system must be brought down."

I never said either or?


I am saying that in anything you do regarding fracking, when you talk about it, put it in a social context.

Always do, in fact I drive many crazy because I always point out how all this or that is a result of capitalism or the class struggle.




That will be more effective, right now. Be alert to the ongoing effort to steer this. The idea that we will get to the root causes later

Never put this off until later, keep it in front with everything...no time to put it off...


but right now we need to do something is NOT opposition to fracking. It is opposition to the very real danger that the fracking issue could lead many people to look at the social aspect, to connect the dots. That is what the liberals are worried about, not fracking.


The social context is always front and center when I do anything, anything...I know what you mean about the liberals using issues to obfuscate the discussion about the class war...I don't do this, I'm not a liberal, Mike.

Ain't that what I said? It is focus and discipline that is needed to make that urgency a laser. I am guilty of the urgency to get busy as well as a lack of discipline but always strive to put things in the greater context. At least that's what I try to do.


Yeah. Choppedliver and I have a running debate going about this.


Yet I completely agree with bp here...so why do you debate me? I'm in concurrence. I think you've got me confused with someone else maybe... :) I'm used to that.

In regards to the above, I'm not trying to undersell what is happening. Obviously it has to stop, and in a hurry at that.

In regards to the above, I'm not trying to undersell what is happening. Obviously it has to stop, and in a hurry at that.


No worries, class struggle has to be brought forward. Yesterday at the festival I got talking to some folks from Olean in Western NYS. They are very concerned about all the drilling, and the accidents south of the border in PA, very close to them. They said a farmer they knew was told by the gas company that water would be available if there was an accident. They didn't know if this was gratis or eternal. I was able to point out how the rich would be able to profit twice, first for the gas, second for the water and that they really didn't care...They agreed and said the rich only want to make money and don't care about the poor farmers or anybody ...I said "bingo, the people have to start standing up to this"... they agreed...seed planted.

I don't do this, I'm not a liberal, Mike.


I know, I believe you. Done ranting about it. Thanks for indulging me. My brain gets stuck on a theme sometimes.

I don't do this, I'm not a liberal, Mike.


I know, I believe you. Done ranting about it. Thanks for indulging me. My brain gets stuck on a theme sometimes.


Me too, nuff said! :)

I don't do this, I'm not a liberal, Mike.


I know, I believe you. Done ranting about it. Thanks for indulging me. My brain gets stuck on a theme sometimes.


Me too, nuff said! :)


LOL.

Well, Starry posted about the water pumping by Nestle in Michigan, and we got to talking about the Mackinac Center and I went off on another rant about this.

I don't do this, I'm not a liberal, Mike.


I know, I believe you. Done ranting about it. Thanks for indulging me. My brain gets stuck on a theme sometimes.


Me too, nuff said! :)


LOL.

Well, Starry posted about the water pumping by Nestle in Michigan, and we got to talking about the Mackinac Center and I went off on another rant about this.


and a mighty fine rant it was!! :)

Man, I gotta be the thread killers' thread killer!