Jim Sarsgard
by e-mail
 
 
Nuclear power II
In your reply to a letter about nuclear power [July 27 Militant], the editors state that a stance on nuclear power is “a political, not a technical matter.” It is one thing to defend any Third World country’s right to develop whatever energy source it deems necessary. It is quite another to pretend you, yourself, are not making that decision without basing it on some technical criteria. “But we don’t believe that harnessing the atom for productive purposes is impossible” must be based on some kind of “technical” criteria, not political; or are you suggesting that the class struggle can overcome even problems of physics.

You make another assertion based on “technical” criteria when you state: “And the use of coal or oil—not to mention solar or wind—is not the solution to meeting the needs of humanity.” On what do you base that assertion if not on “technical” criteria? Perhaps those sources do not represent a solution to future energy needs, but we will never be able to find any safe alternative source of energy without a major social change in the world.

Starting with that assertion does not prevent you from defending the right of the Third World to solve their problem in whatever form they choose. It is your stance that is counterposing the two questions. Starting with the world, you can point out that as long as imperialism dominates the world, all technology threatens to be a double edged sword against humanity and that the solution to the energy needs of humanity will only be solved by the defeat of imperialism. That is just a fact. In the meantime, the Third World countries have every right to develop whatever technology they deem necessary.

I grew up when atomic energy was thought to provide us with atomic cars, dishwashers, etc. and that is the time during which those books by Cannon, Novack, and Hansen were written about the promise of nuclear power. Since then, we have had Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the WIPP site.

Perhaps you are right that, under socialism, atomic power will turn out to be the most feasible means to solve humanities energy needs, but that will not be just a “political” question.

Allan Cox
Albuquerque, New Mexico
 
 
Venezuela coverage
Hello! My name is Kimura Naoko. I live in Osaka, Japan. I sometimes read the Militant to find out about the Venezuelan Revolution. I am interested in the articles about Cuban doctors, etc. So I translated them into Japanese and introduced them to my friends.

By the way, may I ask you some questions? I am translating the article “75,000 Venezuelan peasants win land titles” [see April 20, 2004, Militant.] Does the Yauca nation have only six members (Jubir Yauca and his brothers)? I think it may be because of persecution. But my husband said it might be unlikely.

Does the fact that “last October the struggle had stalled” mean “The Yauca’s petitions to INTi had fallen on deaf ears”? Is INTi anti-Chávez?

Moreover, the article says, “Until the year 2000, about 1,000 big landowners controlled 85 percent of land under cultivation—a total of 75 million acres.” It adds, “In 2001 the national government announced the nationalization of another 75 million acres of idle but arable land and promised to distribute it to peasants.”

Is it true that 85 percent of land under cultivation is idle and will the government nationalize it? Most of landowners let their lands idle? I think it is too large. I know next to nothing about Venezuelan agriculture and its statistics. Will you give me more of a particular account?

Many thanks.

Kimura Naoko
Osaka, Japan

Editor’s reply: Many thanks from the Militant for your work in translating these articles into Japanese. In response to your questions, the Yauca indigenous nation has only six remaining members, according to interviews with two of the surviving six brothers by our reporters visiting Venezuela. Most native people in that country, as in many countries throughout the Americas, were exterminated by the Spanish and other colonialists. The statement that the Yaucas struggle to reclaim their land had stalled meant that it was not getting anywhere for a period of time. INTi, the National Land Institute, is pro-government; it was set up by the administration of President Hugo Chávez. But as in many government institutions, conflicting class interests are often represented, and the big landowners still have the upper hand since the capitalist class continues to control the means of production and thus remains in power. On the land question, what the article said is that about 1,000 big landowners owned 75 million acres of land that was being cultivated, which was 85 percent of all of Venezuela’s land under cultivation at the time. The government promised to nationalize and distribute to landless peasants an additional 75 million acres of land, which had been largely idle. Some of that additional land was owned by capitalist landlords and another portion belonged to the state or had simply no settled owner, especially in the Amazon and other remote areas.

—Argiris Malapanis

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of interest to working people.

Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home