Jim H's is onto something here: there a sort of productivist Prometheanism in classical Marxism that is tied to the idea of transcending justice by overcoming scarcity. It's not the only current, as recent work on Marxism and ecology by Benton and others had brought out. It's a current I reject: I think scarcity is inescapable.
I think that Jim H's version of this Prometheanism is very vulgar and not Marxist--since I don't claim to be a Marxist, that is not a criticism. Jim's version misses something important and desirable that Marsx's version of the Prometheanism locates: the socialization of consumption as well as production. Jim's version is more Gompersian: just More! And more in the way of individual, unplanned consumption, damn the consequences. Jim trusts the unfettered forces of production to Provide, and thinks that if there are problems with clean air and water, congestion, etc., Technology will fix it, somehow or another.
Marx, whatever his (to my thinking) naive optimism about overcoming all limits, at least was keenly aware that socialization would change patterns of consumption. But those of who do consider yourself to be classical Marxists ought to recognize that Jim's views are probably closer to an important streak in Marx than the Greenish views widely held on this list, by me among others. --jks
> >James Heartfield wrote:
> >>
>Well, I wish I could claim authorship, but the argument against limits
>was central to the origins of Marxism in the British labour movement.
>. . . . >But I am surprised that you counter pose race divisions to
>austerity
>arguments. In my experience, the idea that 'there is not enough to go
>around' has been a key component of the anti-immigrant argument. The
>current environmental movement has an in-built tendency towards
>chauvinistic arguments, witness the growing storm of anti-American
>protectionism in Europe.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com