From: dr.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:10:48 +0000
Subject: Re: M-I: Actually Existing Stalinism



>      A quick point:  US ag is not necessarily all that 
> productive, especially when one takes into account the full 
> social costs of all the petroleum, pesticides, etc. used in 
> its production.  Not even counting that, there are many 
> nations with higher yields per hectare than does the US.  
> The US just happens to have a relatively low population 
> density combined with a lot of very fertile land.  Canada, 
> Argentina, and Australia are in similar situations.  I 
> leave it to those reading the list as to what else these 
> four have in common historically.
> Barkley Rosser
> On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:15:54 -0500 (EST) UticaRose-AT-aol.com 
> wrote:
> 
> The longer point is not only is US agriculture not very productive, 
it is symptomatic of decadent capitalisms putrescence. It involves a 
huge waste in that it produces very expensive [subsidised] luxury food 
for a tiny proportion of humanity, [or is subsidised not to produce]  
squandering resources that would be better utilised to feed those who need 
feeding. 
It is symptomatic of the relative DESTRUCTION  of the forces of 
production, by which I mean that forces are not only actively 
destroyed under capitalism,  [humans who die prematurely from preventable 
causes, etc]  but are under-utilised, or misutilised to meet luxury needs. 
To use this STANDARD of productivity in order to set the BENCHMARK
for the former USSR or any other would-by competitor to capitalism is 
FETISHISM in the extreme.  To even begin to answer the one-sided warped 
judgement of so-called "socialism" as "barbaric", in relation to 
capitalism, it is necessary to throw out these illusions about how 
good capitalism is as the model that has to be bettered - in output, 
efficiency, body-count etc. Then and only then, can we objectively 
produce a balance sheet of the "gains" and the "costs" of so-called 
socialism.

Dave.


> > << To ask whether there would be a greater sum of human happiness in any of
> >  the ex-socialist countries had they never broken with capitalism is to
> >  ask an unanswerable question. There are too many variables >>
> > 
> > the "ex-socialist" countries appear to have had an all too frequent tendency
> > to justify large scale human slaughter. whether the kulaks or the trotskyists
> > or the capitalist roaders or urban residents, this does not seem to me to be
> > a question of the "greater sum of human happiness". Gulags, purges, cultural
> > "revolutions" and so on and so forth, the catalogue is nauseating and
> > something which marxists have not yet honestly or adequately dealt with. the
> > human costs are not "unanswerable". given the regularity with which
> > "socialist" revolutions have produced carnage, it would appear incumbent upon
> > the left, if it is ever to regain any credibility as promoting revolutions
> > which are not just feared or rallying points for bullies, to come face to
> > face with "socialism" with a barbarous face.
> > 
> > by the way, much of the world does use the US economy as a yardstick and the
> > agricultural economies of many more countries will have to become as
> > productive as the US if we are to avoid worldwide prolonged famine and, i
> > seem to remember, many marxists not so long ago had no problem comparing the
> > socialist bloc with the US and western Europe.
> > 
> > 
> > 
 



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---