> You should not attribute all dangers to relations of prodution.> If people have to struggle with a recalcitrant nature, applying> large quantities of force in the process, then this is like to be> a more dangerous activity than clerical work for example.
Hi Paul:
Well with Gustav threatening, we could talk about the lessons
of Katrina and New Orleans. The devastation which happened was not
simply a consequence of a recalcitrant nature: the design of the
City and its infrastructure (which was influenced to a great extent
by the state) was crucially important.
> Being a deep sea fisherman is going to be a relatively more> dangerous than being a schoolteacher whatever the social relations.
Being a schoolteacher can be dangerous in some settings!
In any event (turning to a subject i have an interest in),
seagoing vessels can be designed and outfitted to be MUCH
safer. It is technically possible to design 'unsinkable' and
self-righting vessels. It is possible to design tankers with double hulls.
Fishermen can be provided with safer gear and protective clothing.
But, why isn't it generally done? Well, because it's too costly, of
course. And that brings us back to a design objective for capitalist
firms: whether you are designing a building, a fishing vessel, or
another means of production, the imperative is to build at the
lowest cost possible. This means that M of P are often designed
to injure and kill or, at least, are designed with relative
indifference to that possibility. That would have to change in any
socialist society worthy of the name.
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Mon Sep 1 08:36:37 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 15:12:31 EST