Malthusians on the March

[Russell Grinker]

Dunno about LM - I would have thought a more traditional marxist critique
would have sufficed.  A critique (in opposition to the Malthusians) would
merely point out contradictions at the level of accumulation and not
overconsumption and waste as the fundamental problems.  The side effects you
describe have always been symptoms of the anarchy of the market and I doubt
there's much disagreement there (even with LM).  The issue would probably be
where you place your emphasis.  The green "critique" (obsession) is of
(with)
symptoms, not fundamentals.  Their solution is of course that "the other"
should get their houses in order and practice sustainability, or we shall
just have to help them to do so for their own good. Speaking of houses - I
personally wouldn't quote Venturi - he's a lousy architect.  Maybe my modern
movement prejudices are showing here.  And speaking from South Africa, most
people here would certainly not be bored by a darned side MORE in the way of
modern consumables.

Russell

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Malthusians on the March


>Russell Grinker wrote:
>
>>But surely you are not implying that too much consumption by some
>>(mal-distribution?) and too much waste production are the fundamental
>>problems with the system?
>
>"The" fundmental problems? I don't know that I'd use the definite
>article; there are many problems with The System. But here's where I
>strongly part company from LM & its sympathizers: yeah, the present
>structure of production and consumption is environmentally
>disastrous, and the work effort required to produce and consume at
>that level is socially disastrous. I'm certainly no neoprimitivist,
>but in this case, less can be more. I know the LM response would be
>to quote Robert Venturi - less isn't more, less is a bore.
>
>Doug
>