> Was "Re: Icecap at North Pole Has Turned to Water"
> My point about the North Pole turning to water, was that this will require
production controlled by social foresight (Marx's phrase to the First
International).
That would be a rational response, no?
> The melting of the North Pole is sufficiently dramatic that despite all the
difficulties of international coordination, governments will come together to
bring increasing aspects of production under social control.
I'm not so such about this. An extraordinary natural disaster, despite rigid analyses of cause and effect, is still like the empty space that Chuck mentioned about people not voting. It can be appropriated for any ideological purpose: the end of the world, a kink in natural phenomena, the destructive capacities of capitalism, irresponsible production... whatever. The 'event' is such that it can be interpreted any which way - because it means nothing. The only meaning it possesses is that which is imposed on it. This is always the problem with environmental disasters qua meaning / power. There is no necessary link between a potential global catastrophe and progressive social transformation or increasing domination and control of social production. If there is a crisis, it will be decided through whichever forces exert the most hegemonic discourse / power.
> The molten Pole may become a symbol of this programme because it requires
not just a revolutionizing of the means of production, but a revolutionizing
of the mode of production.)
Likewise, it could equally become a symbol of the inverse of this... But, despite this, I just love the image of a molten pole so... here here!
How have y'all been? I've been gone for almost a month now.
ken