Prooucng energy an aspect of capitalism's crisis — the need to venerate and consume logarithmically increasing amount of energy, and the 'energy crisis" this contradiction ereates.
Contrary to Charlie Young's wild assertion in the same issue, nukes do not have an excellent safety record. What they do have is an excellent propaganda machine on their side, which has skilfully covered up the hundreds of hair-raising mear-disasters which have occursed, constant irradiation of the environment which is caking place. The masses of safety precautions, warning devices and security arrangements around nukes testify to their danger, not their safety, No process can be made foolproof, even in a workers" state, so there will always be the risk of a catastrophic accident.
Come the revolution, government wonld publicise all the accidents, risks and investigate the environmental damage, and re-assess energy needs in the near tulure. Al the creative potential of the masses could he turned lo rescarching safer, casier, more environment-conscious methods of energy production, it is highly unlikely — io me inconceivable desirable proposision after tas sort al that nakes would still scrutiny.
But right now we live under a less democratic, more oppressive social system, and we sre wilnssne ns headlong rush into exploilation ol ooc of the nskiest least controllable arcas of tecbnology lbere is. his a8scsstent of risk Is not based on 'guilt by association' with COlOS HUILE evidence medicine and pbysics. If we don'! expect the capitalists to suddenly stop killing industrial workers or polloting 1 opening lines ecologists U CEBEC best ecologists are International Marxist Groun Rothman's ecology which сліге analysis questions a workers" power.
.dangers;
same time, the (depenerated)
defend itsell appear Angolati.
соловістсіві Union to ditch nuclear CARL GARDNER aptly summed up what is wrong in his approach in his debate between Marxists overdue is the recognition that the CUnuUC.
Marxists and existi despite comrade Gardner's obvious ignorance they have been around for some time, By far the best book on ecologs published in Britain is by Harry Rochman, nor only a Marxist but at one time a member of the book Murderous Province 15 a brilbant essay does not spare the crimes of the Soviet bureaucracy in this arca. I don't wans to go into an LEUIUS question, so T'll restrict myself to two TC SENTEIS CER EEEICa Carl Gardner is quite correct to separate these Two lisues. Unforsunately he still gets them both wrong. Should we support the possession of a nuclear arsenal by the Soviet Union, a workers state? Absolutely not. While we are certainly for the right of the Soviet Union to against Imperialist aggression we do so bocause the socii guins of the Russian revolution are a gein for the workers and oppressed of the whole worid (Caba, Vietnam, The ability of that same state co wipe out the workers and oppressed the whole word s & caln tor nobody. We should call on the Soviet along wich chemical and biological ones. The Soviet bureaucracy will not do so because it has no faith in the American workers ability to force the USA to follow suit. just as they have no faith in the revolutionary potential less class-conscious Spenons ecology movemeni want to close the book on nuclenr power lorever. WE think that is short-sighted and doesn't recognise that there is a possibility of the safe use of nuclear power. Today however such a possibility doesn"
Weknow the record of the mansacs who control our sociely when il comes to nuclear power. Anyone who thinks that we can saleiy leave them to play mith their nucleur toys is crazy. Oniy a genuinely rational, nologically advanced socialist society safely vestigate power. Till then the book shoukd be shul- lightiy.
COLIN TALBOT (London] IT IS GOOD TO SEE some of th British lefr taking the politics iust teono ae sie lill 10 nucicar assue with argumenr abour technology whiel cems to be common on the left Thie argument suggeits that, in contrast to the bourgeuis concerns of the coo-freaks, we "real" socialists know that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with any techoology, Ir all depends who uses il, ou whom, for whnl. Thes nuclear power is bud capitalism. - good socialism. The argument foften called the ine/abuse model) tries persuade us that technology is neutral it iseif, be it nuclear power, farn sprays, tin openers or assembly limes So science itseli i fine, problem je who owns andror controL it: whouses it and who ahlses it. aily for a mamber of reasons. baln 1 think that chis position is
SOCIALIST CHALLENGE 18 March, 1978 page @
----- pull-quotes -----
Six Theses Against Nuclear Power