Skip to main content

The Shining Path to a Nuclear Workers' Paradise

Stuart Jordan over at Workers' Liberty proposes an interesting reason to oppose nuclear energy if oppose it we must:

Whether or not we believe there is a role for nuclear in a future society, we should be absolutely clear that the bourgeoisie views nuclear technology in a way fundamentally opposed to the how Marxists should see it. Their concern is for profit, ours is for human need, and the nuclear power stations that they are proposing to build will reflect this difference.

I think he means the plant will reflect the drive for profit, not the difference between that and human need. Marxists know how to create loaded terminology, but it turns their prose into spaghetti-like strands of thought that sound densely intelligent but are often just plain dense.

But any particular technology developed under capitalism will invariably bear the mark of this ecological[ly?] destructive and alienating system. In some cases the technology can be modified in ways that will restore the metabolic relationship. But in the case of nuclear this seems unlikely.

I wonder how he would "modify" the technology to give it a pass or, shall we say, restore the metabolic relationship. Enquiring minds want to know.

But let's at least give Stuart points for thinking big.

A socialist reconstruction of society will involve knocking down a lot of walls and welding together a lot of cars to make more communal, ecologically sound use of our technology.

For us bourgeois types, that would be busses and those lovely communal apartments that made Soviet romantic comedies so sparkling.

There are a fair number of articles on nuclear energy over at Workers Liberty, but you may be sure that if these scraps cause your brain to liquefy, then the site should definitely be given a steer clear. We'll just call it a little fun on a Friday afternoon.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Don't forget, there are other socialists who are actually pro-nuclear.
Anonymous said…
As every Marxist knows, to resolve the dispute one just needs to line up few intelligentchicks up against a wall and shoot.
Anonymous said…
It's too bad more socialists aren't like David Walters. Sadly, however, the embrace of a philosophical system that has murdered untold millions in the USSR and the People's Republic of China, and continues to do so today in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, does tend to liquify the brains of its most ardent adherents, hence the anti-nuclear power stance of most of these brain-washed disciples.

Pope John Paul II, President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher indeed defeated the old USSR, but we remain in a three way struggle between Christendom, atheistic humanism (including its chief offspring, Marxism), and Islamic Fascism. We know Who wins, and He is neither Karl Marx, nor Mohammed. In the meantime, nations that want to prosper materially will use nuclear power and nations that are suicidal will abandon its use. If the atheist humanists have their way, the US will be in the latter category.

But that won't change Who wins in the end - thankfully.
Josh said…
Hardcore Marxists like to believe in straw mans. Less rabid people recognise the benefit to workers, hence Unite's lobbying of the Scottish government to alter their anti-nucelar position.

And Unite can be pretty red eyed at times too.
Anonymous said…
In response to anonymous #3:

Support for nuclear power does not imply a belief in supreme beings, or vice versa. I have been a supporter of nuclear power for over 20 years, and my support has always been based on logical reasoning about resource usage, air pollution, land-sparing, and risk.
Mark Flanagan said…
I'd be cautious about trying to fix a religious or spiritual agenda onto an energy source. All the categories of peoples our anon friend lists - and hey, where are the Hindi - have found something to appeal to them in nuclear energy and all of them enjoy having electricity when they can. Dividing the world into clean little slices easily leads to dirty little generalities that don't stand up to scrutiny.
Anonymous said…
This is Anon #3. Support of or opposition to nuke power is irrelevant with respect to a belief in a Supreme Being. But a belief in a Supreme Being is not irrelevant to the subject of Marxism. The atheism of Marxism in the 20th century has murdered untold millions of people, and continues to do so today in China and North Korea and Cuba and a few other places. However, perhaps Islamic fascism in the 21st century will exceed the horrific atrocities of atheist humanism

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…