[OPE-L:2301] Nature, value and wealth -- an advertisement

From: P.J.Wells@open.ac.uk
Date: Sun Jan 30 2000 - 12:56:59 EST

[ show plain text ]

Those who have been following this thread will want to know that "Capital &
Class" will be producing a special Red/Green issue later this year (#72, due
out in November, I gather)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald Levy [SMTP:glevy@pratt.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2000 6:09 PM
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: [OPE-L:2275] Re: nature, value and wealth
> Re Jurriaan's [OPE-L:2274]:
> > Jerry wrote:
> > Yet, the Sun and the Wind (and other natural forces)
> > >can be appropriated by people without necessarily being privately and
> > >exclusively owned by individuals.
> > In saying this I take it you do then acknowledge that, in this way,
> > "climate" can play a role in political economy, in economic analysis as
> > well - something which you previously questioned.
> To begin with, let me correct myself above. The Sun and the wind are not
> socially appropriated, rather some portion (a *VERY* small portion) of
> the *energy* from the Sun and the wind has been socially appropriated.
> This has significant consequences vis-a-vis energy development. I.e.
> whereas coal and oil are non-renewable resources, solar and wind power are
> sources of energy that almost limitless. Nonetheless, labor and means of
> production are required to transform this natural energy into energy that
> is socially appropriated.
> (Lenin once said, during the NEP if I remember correctly, that "communism
> is the power of electricity". If there is any truth in that saying then
> perhaps one could assert that the locomotive of communism will be fueled
> by the harnessed force of the sun and the wind, etc.?)
> As for your question, I don't think this speaks to the debate that we had
> some months ago on the role of "climate" in regional economic development.
> If one is, though, examining the creation of wealth from a
> trans-historical perspective, then clearly natural forces are part of the
> process of wealth-creation. This is true even in capitalism. What is at
> issue is whether under capitalism nature helps to create wealth and value
> or whether it is just part of the process of wealth creation. If we were
> to
> assert the former then would we have a N&LTV?
> btw, I'd be interested in hearing the perspectives of any of the
> participants in the "value-form theory" thread on Paul Burkett's _Marx and
> Nature: A Red and Green Perspective_, especially Ch. 7 on "Capitalism and
> Nature: A Value-Form Approach" (although the previous chapter on
> "Capital's 'Free Appropriation' of Natural and Social Conditions" also has
> relevance to the current discussion). [Hi Paul!]
> In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:09 EST