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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …