|
|
|
|
|
| | Capitalism and the environmentPage 1 of 2 (1, 2) | The environmental statistics have been pouring in, and the prognosis for the planet looks dire: global warming is accelerating, leaving environmental destruction in its wake. Already we are witnessing some of its devastating consequences and there are trends which, if allowed to proceed unchecked, will culminate in humans huddled around the two poles in search of respite from the heat. The environmental statistics have been pouring in, and the prognosis for the planet looks dire: global warming is accelerating, leaving environmental destruction in its wake. Already we are witnessing some of its devastating consequences: temperatures are rising, bringing more intense heat waves; sea levels are rising, producing more flooding; droughts and severe weather patterns are more frequent; wildlife is disappearing because of loss of habitat. These are trends which, if allowed to proceed unchecked, will culminate in humans huddled around the two poles in search of respite from the heat.
Here are some of the statistics that tell the story:
A report announced just a few months ago that the north pole ice cap is melting more than 3 times faster than was previously believed.
The greenhouse gas effect is up 20 percent since 1990.
According to NASA scientists, glaciers were melting at a rate of 6 feet per year in 2000. Now they are melting at a rate of 75 feet per year.
Deserts have been expanding throughout the planet, from 624 square miles per year in the 1970s to 1374 square miles in the 1990s.
Of course, all these trends could be dramatically reversed if the US government, as head of the world’s biggest contributor to greenhouse gases, resolved to attack them. It would have to begin with a drastic reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels, such as gas, coal, and natural gas, which are the principal causes of carbon dioxide emissions and therefore global warming.
Since vehicles account for roughly one-third of the carbon dioxide production in this country, the government would immediately need to mandate the conversion of gas-propelled cars to electricity. And we already have the technology for electric cars, so this program would pose no insurmountable problem.
Power plants account for 40 percent of the production of carbon dioxide. Here the government would have to launch a Herculean effort to create the technology that would allow us to generate power without detriment to the environment. But it could mount the same kind of campaign that culminated in the construction of the atomic bomb where the best scientific minds were assembled and assigned the task that many believed was impossible to accomplish. And in this case the project would have the virtue of benefiting humanity rather than destroying it. In the meantime, the government could expand the research and development of solar energy by providing generous subsidies.
Building structures account for 12 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, but already environmentally-friendly buildings are being constructed.
Air travel produces 15 percent of the total production of carbon dioxide. For starters, the government could outlaw corporate jets since they transport a mere handful of people at a relatively tremendous cost to the environment. Then, after the U.S. government reversed its own global warming trends, as the richest country in the world it could turn to other countries and help them do the same.
So solutions to global warming are available, but is there a desire to pursue them among the general U.S. population? A recent poll has provided a definitively positive answer to this question, concluding that a majority of Americans registered serious concern about the state of the environment and indicated they were even prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of its well-being.
With the environmental Damocles sword hanging over our heads, we need to act decisively and promptly. Let us now turn to the solutions proposed by those the US media hold in high esteem.
First, Stephen Hawking, the world’s best known theoretical physicist, offered this unique suggestion: “It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species. Life on earth is at an ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of.”
Leaving aside Hawking’s underlying assumption that the human species seems to be the only one worth saving, several questions “naturally” emerge: Given that global warming and nuclear war are human creations, not products of nature such as earthquakes and meteor showers, shouldn’t we analyze the root cause of these threats to life on earth so that they can be eradicated on this planet? Otherwise wouldn’t we simply carry these afflictions with us when we migrated to other parts of the universe? And these questions lead in turn to another: How can anyone who is considered so intelligent offer such an uninformed “solution?”
Secondly, George Bush has finally weighed into the debate, after denying for years that global warming is a scientific fact. Unfortunately he is moving in slow motion, as reported in The New York Times (June 1, 2007): “President Bush, fending off international accusations that he was ignoring climate change, proposed for the first time on Thursday to set a ‘long-term global goal’ for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and he called on other industrialized nations to join the United States in negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement by the end of next year.”
In other words, nothing needs to be done in the present, and when we finally get around to tackling the problem, we will move very slowly.
Finally, let us turn to Al Gore, a politician who has positioned himself as the supreme champion of the environment, thanks to his informative and popular documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” In a recent New York Times (July 1, 2007) op-ed article he made an impassioned plea:
“We – the human species – have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.
“Our home – Earth – is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.”
Gore went on to argue that decisive action must be taken immediately for otherwise the forces set in motion by global warming will be irreversible.
Gore’s approach, unlike Hawking’s, has the virtue of recognizing and emphasizing the fact that humans have the power to reverse global warming if they so resolve. And unlike Bush, Gore acknowledges that time is of the essence. But might not his call for the human species to engage in a collective decision-making process within the confines of capitalist society be self-delusional or deceitful?
Under normal operating conditions, capitalist society never includes the vast majority of the population in the decision-making process concerning public policy. There was no public debate followed by a referendum over whether the US should instigate an entirely unprovoked war against Iraq. The vast majority of us have absolutely no say in whether nuclear power plants should be constructed or what kinds of cars Ford and GM should produce. These decisions are made behind closed doors by corporate America with the intent of promoting their own special interests, in particular, raising their profits. They are not concerned with the well-being of the general population, but in order to thrive, they must pretend they are operating in everyone’s interests.
For example, when Ford discovered that the Explorer easily overturned, management got out their calculators and concluded it would be cheaper to keep the same faulty design while paying out settlement fees in court to the victims and their families of this deadly vehicle. Of course, they informed no one of the dangers at the time. Honesty would not have been in their interest.
Capitalism divides the members of society into two very different classes of people: workers and capitalists. Those who work for a living work long hours, if we are lucky we can buy a house, and after purchasing a car or two, there is little left over. The capitalists, the owners of businesses and industry, on the other hand have millions, if not billions, of dollars, thanks to the work we do for them, and they use much of this money to influence governmental policy in their favor. Moreover, since within capitalist society money speaks with the loudest voice, they are very successful in this endeavor. Here are some examples:
Coal-burning utilities are giving money to one of “the few remaining climate scientists” who is critical of claims of global warming. (The New York Times, July 28, 2006)
The federal agency responsible for protecting Arctic polar bears has barred two scientists from speaking about their plight due to global warming. The bears face extinction due to loss of habitat. (The San Francisco Chronicle, March 9, 2007)
The New York Times (May 12, 2007) reported Detroit’s auto makers are lobbying hard against tough fuel economy standards.
“The Bush administration is drastically cutting back efforts to measure global warming from space....” (The San Francisco Chronicle, June 5, 2007)
A New York Times editorial (June 10, 2007) stated:
“When Americans elected a Democratic Congress last November, they were voting to end politics as usual and special interest legislation. On the vital issues of energy independence and global warming they are not only in danger of getting more of the same but also…winding up in worse shape than they were under the Republicans.”
Because political decisions in capitalist society are driven by money and deceit, Gore’s call for a collective decision on the part of humanity is indeed, as he suggested, “laughable.” One can only wonder why he did not notice this fact when in office.
We in the Workers International League are convinced that only a socialist movement, led by working people, is capable of meeting the challenge of environmental destruction. Only when the economy is collectively owned and democratically operated will the possibility of a collective decision-making process become a reality. With all the relevant information at our disposal, all members of society will be able to discuss and debate which way forward and then determine policy by voting. Socialism means that the majority will rule in the interests of the majority, and a healthy, vibrant environment is in everyone’s interests.
See also:
The findings of the Stern Report on climate change by Mick Brooks (December 20, 2006)
Socialists and “Green” politics – Letter and Reply by Phil Mitchinson (October 3, 2006)
Capitalism and the Environment by Mick Brooks (August 21, 2006)
Global Warming: The Arctic is Melting by Rob Lyon (August 18, 2006)
After the Hague "Summit": Global Warming - The deadly threat of capitalist anarchy by Mick Brooks (November 2000)
Global Warming - A Socialist Perspective by Colin Penfold April 2000) | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/15/2012 3:56:29 PM | Well, suffice it to say, I think you all are almost entirely wrong.
Not so much about the problems of globular warming and such, rather about the notion that capitalism versus socialism has anything whatsoever to do with dealing with it all.
Capitalism is not to blame for pollution and such, careless people are to blame. It is a fact, that the now defunct Socialist empires, especially the Soviet Union, were the worst polluters around.
The problem isn't how control of the "means of production" are apportioned which results in how well coordinated they are with concerns over the environment.
The solution is to be found, in including the total REAL costs of all enterprises, in calculating profits and rewards. That is best done within a capitalist system, not one ruled by arbitrary idealism or fantasies of justice. All that is needed, is to stop permitting people to declare for themselves, based upon their personal desires alone, what is to be considered profit, and what is to be considered cost. | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/15/2012 4:40:39 PM | THIS is the problem:
" ... See also:
The findings of the Stern Report on climate change by Mick Brooks (December 20, 2006)
Socialists and “Green” politics – Letter and Reply by Phil Mitchinson (October 3, 2006)
Capitalism and the Environment by Mick Brooks (August 21, 2006)
Global Warming: The Arctic is Melting by Rob Lyon (August 18, 2006)
After the Hague "Summit": Global Warming - The deadly threat of capitalist anarchy by Mick Brooks (November 2000)
Global Warming - A Socialist Perspective by Colin Penfold April 2000) ... "
Step. Away. From. The. Communist. Manifesto. | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/15/2012 7:49:44 PM | | Buddy, if you're still scared of the Red Menace it might be time to get some help. They have pills for that now. | |
|
Bezoa
| | Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 5 | |
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/15/2012 9:49:09 PM | I think money and/or the concept of it as brought us this far, and I dunno how it could be done, but dropping the profiteering aspect of our actions seems like a big positive step towards progress to me.
There are so many things we could do, but don't because it's not worth the money, and then so many we do and shouldn't because of money. Wouldn't it make more sense to do things because they are, considering all we know, the best things to do? | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 12:52:33 PM |
As far as environmentalism goes, the former soviet bloc countries and all other self styled communist countries have the worst records on the environment, AND, the whole world looks to give them a pass card and looks to slam the cleanest countries.........................
A recent study conducted in England shows that the top 10 air polluting countries are:
1. China
2. United States
3. Mexico
4. Russia
5. India
6. Japan
7. Germany
8. Canada
9. United Kingdom
10. Italy
| |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 12:58:43 PM |
" ... A recent study conducted in England shows that the top 10 air polluting countries are:
1. China
2. United States
3. Mexico
4. Russia
5. India
6. Japan
7. Germany
8. Canada
9. United Kingdom
10. Italy ... "
You DO have a SOURCE for this ... ( ahem ) ... 'study', right ... ?
You know, like the IPCC or the UN ... no source, no validity.
Since the IPCC's HQ is in England, well ...
Fill in the blank. Or - preferably - not ... | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 1:09:54 PM |
Could it be that those who proclaim themselves to be the saviors of "mother earth" want to see captialist countries fail?
Speaking as one who would like to see ALL countries fail in my ongoing attempt to save Mother Earth by saving humanity from itself, and with the false regret that I'd actually enjoy seeing the human race kill itself off (more room for us ducks), I'll try one more time to enlist the aid of at least some of humanity in the good cause of not ruining the planet for all living creatures. Won't you join us Paul?
Donations may be sent to:
Justdukky Save the Earth Foundation*
Nest 3 - 666 Marsh Road
Turtle Island
*(a capitalistic, charit a bill and deduct a bill non-profit corporation and NGO dedicated to saving Mother Earth and/or the habitat & property of at least one capitalist duck) | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 1:22:03 PM | That Air Polluting Report thing is too vague, and suspect for other reasons, but even if it is 100% true, it again provides absolutely no support whatsoever for the notion that capitalism versus communist/dictatorship/socialism has anything at all to do with the issues of global warming or pollution. If anything, it proves the exact opposite: China and the old Soviet block nations are mixed neck and neck with their capitalist comrades.
That proves my point, rather than the OP's. | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 2:23:49 PM |
You DO have a SOURCE for this ... ( ahem ) ... 'study', right ... ?
You know, like the IPCC or the UN ... no source, no validity.
Since the IPCC's HQ is in England, well ...
Fill in the blank. Or - preferably - not ...
g.o.o.g.l.e .. you can do it dewd, i can't be arsed to find the first one i c/p from a huge list
but here's another, and since you do want a source (loosen the necktie willya) it's from the u of adelaide:
1.Brazil
2.United States (US)
3.China
4.Indonesia
5.Japan
6.Mexico
7.India
8.Russia
9.Australia
10.Peru | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 4:07:48 PM | Step. Away. From. The. Communist. Manifesto.
kings_knights
First, I am more anxious to capitalism
Capitalism, which ended in the seventies of the world was supposed to give birth to communism as a solution
But the petty-bourgeois class prevailed and destroyed the world in the world capitalist and socialist
That class which the world is suffering from and will continue to suffer | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 4:28:35 PM | The problem isn't how control of the "means of production" are apportioned which results in how well coordinated they are with concerns over the environment.
i think it wrong
the problem is how to control means of productoin
Planned economy takes into account all the priorities and the environment
It is true that the Soviet Union was a socialist state, but veered off since Khrchoof receipt, the date of the victory of the petty bourgeoisie in socialist countries | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 4:38:48 PM | Well, Paul K
I am ready for your discussion in my view, provided that convince me your opinion
I have a questions and answers is part of the solution or diagnosis of the problem
- Do you now there is capitalism?
What is the alternative to capitalism?
Is this alternative led the world to prosperity or to the problems and destruction | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 4:50:01 PM |
Hey Igor.........
You wrote in reference to who polluted more:
"China and the old Soviet block nations are mixed neck and neck with their capitalist comrades."
Umm... not even close.
Paul, no offense, I'm on your side on this one, you missed that I was responding to the guy who tried to claim that some "study" in England showed that the US was the number two worst air polluter or something. I'm 100% with you. I've seen the pictures of how incredibly sloppy and callous especially the old Soviet Union was about managing their own back yards.
It's my contention that the OP's idea that the Earth will be better off ecologically under a Communist system, is complete nonsense. | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 5:45:40 PM | Paul K
I asked: Do we still have a capitalist system in the world? You did not answer, and settled for giving advice to change the question was asked
Now I will prove to you that there is now a capitalist system in the world, located a distorted economy does not create wealth.
It is known that the capitalist economy is on the surplus value, which is the only source of profit.
With the liberation of peoples from colonialism, capitalist countries have lost their markets, because the capitalist system consists of center and parties, these parties are the place of sale of goods.
Also characteristic of the capitalist system is a huge working class and the huge abundance of production of goods
Does this exist now? This is just the answer to the first question | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 8:09:32 PM |
It's my contention that the OP's idea that the Earth will be better off ecologically under a Communist system, is complete nonsense.
It's MY contention that the Earth would be much better off in a state of complete anarchy where there are no systems at all and the law of the jungle prevails, where everyone is only out for themselves, killing their less affluent neighbours for whatever resources they might be good for and letting those with insufficient resources to to bother robbing them of die off in the game called "survival of the fittest", thus aiding in depopulation of the useless eaters for the greater good of all.
RATS!…I forget now…Is that anarchy, capitalism, or just a free market economy?…Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 9:29:53 PM | Whatever it's called JustDukky.... how you just described the Earth should be.... well it already is the law of the jungle.
The Imperialist Capitalist elite just like to give it a different name.
The Free Market title is hilarious.... free... with all it's rules.
The Fair market with rules that ensure the benefit of all should be the law governing the world economy.
Compassionism based on compassion instead of capitalism based on capital sounds better to me....
But some greedy, arrogant self-centered person would fight the rules and taxes that would feed, educate and provide healthcare for all... because they would no longer be able to play with their 4x4 monster trucks and the rest of the luxury toys .... | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/16/2012 9:54:14 PM |
Actually, capitalist systems do sell to other nations, both free and former colonial states, but most sell what they produce largely to their own citizens.
The ones that sell the products they make to themselves.... are taking care of their own nation... instead of selling out and leaving the citizens to suffer.
U.S, Olympic team uniforms.... Made in China | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/17/2012 8:29:54 AM |
The Fair market with rules that ensure the benefit of all should be the law governing the world economy.
Get that idea out of your head. Monopoly wouldn't be any fun at all if the winner couldn't drive the losers into bankruptcy, homelessness & starvation. Hey…Somebody's gotta win and the losers deserve to suffer and die for not being as good at the game.
I wonder when it's gonna dawn on the 99% that the only way to win is not to play the game in the first place.
Compassionism based on compassion instead of capitalism based on capital sounds better to me....
Sounds better to me too, but that seems to be a hard sell around here, so I gave up and joined the other side in its headlong race to mass suicide for the sake of profit. It is now my hope to be buried in a Bugatti Royale lined with T-bills as proof that I won the monopoly game before I croaked (unless I am the last to die, in which case I'll try to live as long as I can by eating my money to stay alive)
The ones that sell the products they make to themselves.... are taking care of their own nation... instead of selling out and leaving the citizens to suffer.
I talked about this for years too. I called it internalizing the economy. Unfortunately humans must have severely limited intelligence, because whenever I mentioned it they tilted their heads back and forth ... like dogs who didn't understand the master's command. | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/17/2012 9:55:42 AM | The viable solution to capitalism is not communism, marxism, socialism, anarchism or any of the other isms. They are not the only choices. For one thing they are all dependant upon the use of a monetary system as a means of exchnage, and the perpetuation of scarcity. We realise now that we have the technological means to overthrow scarcity once and for all. Thus every single train of economic thought that has ever been conceived is now invalid and obsolete when we consider the applicaton of technology to create an access abundance of the necessities of life for all humanity.
This is one of the reasons why I advocate a Resource-Based Economic Model. | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/17/2012 12:19:54 PM |
" ... This is one of the reasons why I advocate a Resource-Based Economic Model. ... "
Okay. Fine. A 'resource-based economic model'. Like Obama says: "Just words. Just speeches." ... you maybe have a CONCEPT you'd like to use to flesh out the words ... ? Why would your 'resource-based' model be superior to capitalism - which is, itself, 'resource-based' ... ? Right now you're sounding an awful lot like Rosa Luxemburg, who cited a line from Engels re the beginnings of WWI: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” ... which leads me to suspect your 'resource-based economic model' is nothing more than the usual Utopian / Dystopian warmed-over Socialist / Communist 'economic pablum' the OWS / 'revolutionary' / 'social justice' types love to deify as they bleat condescendingly to those of us whom they regard as the 'great unwashed masses' ... talk about the 'pot' and 'kettle' analogy ...
In the third volume of 'Capital', Marx distinguishes between the “realm of necessity” and the “realm of freedom.” He maintains that, in the realm of necessity we must “wrestle with Nature to satisfy [our] wants, to maintain and reproduce life”, by means of physical labor in production. This realm of necessity, Marx says, exists “in all social formations and under all possible modes of production”, including - presumably - socialism. What distinguishes socialism, then, is that production is rationally planned and democratically organized, rather than operating at the 'whim' of the capitalist or the market.
In your 'resource-based economic model', however, the world would, by necessity, be characterized by simultaneous abundance and scarcity. The liberation of production would occur jointly with planning and management of the inputs of production. So, while the need to control labor disappears, you would still need to manage the inevitable scarcity.
To sum up, capitalism, at its base, is not defined by the presence of capitalists, but by the existence of capital, which is inseparable from the process of commodity production by means of wage labor.
And your definition of the 'resource-based economic model' would differ from my explanation how ... ? I'll wait. | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/17/2012 3:30:32 PM | In the third volume of 'Capital', Marx distinguishes between the “realm of necessity” and the “realm of freedom.”
Marx was explaining the evolution of human societies as physical dialactic
So your example is misplaced | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/17/2012 5:06:17 PM |
Okay. Fine. A 'resource-based economic model'. Like Obama says: "Just words. Just speeches." ...
Not that the above statement actually says anything but I don't think Obama would have anything to say on an RBE.
you maybe have a CONCEPT you'd like to use to flesh out the words ... ?
Of course, and I’m happy to do that. It also depends on how willing you are to hear out the lengthy explanation that is required to fully describe it. In a couple of pararaphs it is as follows:
First define the terms, a Resource-Based Economic Model (RBEM) is an approach to socioeconomics which takes into consideration the finite resources of the planet, uses automation to liberate human beings from life-wasting labour in addition to helping provide an access abunance of the necessities of life, and uses the scientific method for social and environmental concern as a means of arriving at decisions. A true "economy" as it were. This orientation of intelligent resource management is also bolstered by a shift in our value systems to take into consideration the fact that we live in a world where everything is always changing in addition to the fact that we are all interconnected through the processes of this biosphere we live on.
The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) is a global grassroots sustainability advocacy group. It is our task to spread information as to how the current system works and is not sustainable, in addition to how a viable solution can be sought through the transition to sustainable systems. Our efforts comprise multiple approaches such as street activism, lectures, media events/projects and charity work.
Essentially we recognise that the current monetary-market model is an anti-economic system that does not have the interests of humans or the planet at heart. It is based upon infinite growth and infinite consumption, but we live on a planet of finite resources. Thus a shift in our values, and therefore a shift in methodology is required. We advocate the process of addressing the root causes of problems and solving them through technical and compassionate means instead of merely treating the symptoms with patchwork legislation and subjective human opinion which does nothing to solve anything and in fact perpetuates problems.
This is one of the reasons we advocate the move away from a monetary system. Money in of itself is already obsolete. It is not money that any of us need, it is access to what that money would have bought. We are alive, thus we are all inherantly deserving of what this planet can provide, and the fact that we are the only species that puts a system of debt, exchange and indentured servitude in between ourselves and our survival is ridiculous. We have the resources and the technology to feed, clothe, educate and provide for all 7 billion people on this planet. Probably billions more, however money will never achieve this goal.
The inherant logic of our current system is inflationary. It is what is causing the escalating debts, deprivation, suffering and death, at its foundational logic. We owe it to both ourselves and future generations to take the humane and logical step to ceise consuming and polluting this planet and embrace the survival of life on the planet as a whole. Only then could be earn the right to call ourselves "civilised".
Just to make it clear, this proposal is neither communist, marxist, socialist, anarchist or technocratic. No system that mankind has proposed before has existed without the need for money, social stratification, and a human labour force as the prime driver of the "economy". Neither have they proposed what we propose. In order to survive and thrive on this planet we need to be moving forward, not backward, aligned with the symbiotic and emergent aspects of natural law, not stagnating under outdated mentalities of politics and money. We call for love, not fear, understanding, not ignorance, and unification, not segregation. We as Earth are one singular organism. It is time we behaved as such.
Why would your 'resource-based' model be superior to capitalism - which is, itself, 'resource-based' ... ?
First off, its not MY RBE. As I said, I'm an advocate of it. Second, capitalism is based on money, not resources. It is money that is used as the medium of exchange. But that doesn't necessarily mean that an RBE is based on resources themselves instead. RBE is just one of the names that could apply to this socio-economic model. Other termms would be “Steady-State Economy” and “Natural Law Economy”
Right now you're sounding an awful lot like Rosa Luxemburg, who cited a line from Engels re the beginnings of WWI: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” ...
Wow, nice appeal-to-fear fallacy. Could you cut out the prima facie labels you feel inclined to throw in the absense of an objective understanding of what we're talking about here?
which leads me to suspect your 'resource-based economic model' is nothing more than the usual Utopian / Dystopian warmed-over Socialist / Communist 'economic pablum' the OWS / 'revolutionary' / 'social justice' types love to deify as they bleat condescendingly to those of us whom they regard as the 'great unwashed masses' ... talk about the 'pot' and 'kettle' analogy ...
How about you stop thinking that you can hold anyone else accountable for what irrational leaps of logic you choose to make in your head? Just coz you "suspect" something while clearly not having any objective data on the proposal don't you think your incredible and ridiculous labels, which all clash with each other by the way and thus cannot co-exist in the same proposal, are a touch premature?
Or are you trying to throw out as many perjoratives as you can in the hope to tar me with an existing corrupted brush?
I have already stated that an RBE is not any economic proposal that has ever been conceived. I find it funny that you included OWS in that little diatribe, since OWS as a wholeHAS NO economic policies/proposals. lol
In the third volume of 'Capital', Marx distinguishes between the “realm of necessity” and the “realm of freedom.” He maintains that, in the realm of necessity we must “wrestle with Nature to satisfy [our] wants, to maintain and reproduce life”, by means of physical labor in production. This realm of necessity, Marx says, exists “in all social formations and under all possible modes of production”, including - presumably - socialism. What distinguishes socialism, then, is that production is rationally planned and democratically organized, rather than operating at the 'whim' of the capitalist or the market.
I couldn't care any less what Marx had to say. I'm not proposing Marxism. I don't see how you can bring him up while having any relevance to the proposal of an RBE. And I agree with Adamoof. It is misplaced. You're just trying to use to words of a man who has been painted out as a tyrant as a prima facie association.
In your 'resource-based economic model', however, the world would, by necessity, be characterized by simultaneous abundance and scarcity.
What information exactly are you basing this upon? The official materials of either TZM or TVP? Or your own opinion?
The liberation of production would occur jointly with planning and management of the inputs of production. So, while the need to control labor disappears, you would still need to manage the inevitable scarcity.
Finally, I agree, to a point, however, as I have already stated, a point which I'm surprised you haven't picked up on, we have the technological and resource means to erradicate scarcity. There simply is no need for it when we consider what we can provide for humanity, and since we can create that access abundance, there is no need for money. For instance, if you lived in a town where orange trees grew everywhere, how could you sell oranges?
To sum up, capitalism, at its base, is not defined by the presence of capitalists, but by the existence of capital, which is inseparable from the process of commodity production by means of wage labor.
I like how capitalism’s apologists always have to refer to capitalism at its foundation, not for the monstrosity it has become. Capitalism is a system of infinite growth on a finite planet. There’s only one other thing that behaves that way; Cancer. And what we are realising now with the wonderful means of machine automation, we are raising productivity, speed, accuracy and liberating us from life-wasting labour, we find that because we curretly live in a system that needs human labour coz of money, the automation of jobs causes an increased drop of general purchasing power. Did we make the mistake of allowing technology evolve to the point of making our labour obsolete and hense a destructive force to life, or, have we made the mistake of creating an anti-system that is threatened by the development of technology which can liberate us from wage-slavery? If you're so into your Marx quotes, what he called the replacement of human beings by far more efficient machines, was the "Contradiction of capitalism".
And your definition of the 'resource-based economic model' would differ from my explanation how ... ? I'll wait.
Well for starters you haven't even described an RBE whatsoever. mainly because you haven't even shown any evidence for knowing anything about its specifics. Now I will wait for you to look this material up for yourself, learn what an RBE actually is, then we’ll both be on the same page and be able to converse properly about this. | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/17/2012 5:29:48 PM |
" ... This is one of the reasons why I advocate a Resource-Based Economic Model. ... "
(1) And this is why I said: "you maybe have a CONCEPT you'd like to use to flesh out the words ... ?"
" ... Well for starters you haven't even described an RBE whatsoever. mainly because you haven't even shown any evidence for knowing anything about its specifics. ... "
(2) It's not my task to describe your mythical 'RBE' - that's your baby. Now you've gone and posted a long anti-capitalist screed in which you say you're 'not proposing Marxism' while proposing concepts that flow exactly along that line of 'economic thought'. What's sad is that you remain unaware that's what you're doing.
" ... Now I will wait for you to look this material up for yourself, learn what an RBE actually is ... "
(3) With all the words, space, & bandwidth you used for that 'reply', you still fail(-ed) to address my question and chose instead to go all snarky and 'petulant child' on us. "Well, YOU do it! I won't do it for you!" ... please ... Your refusal to post a simple, understandable response to a simple question is an overt admission that you have no rational basis to advocate what is, essentially, an emotional 'warm-fuzzy-feel-good' construct of homespun nothingness. I said I'd wait, and look what I got for my time ...
It's your conceptual burden to provide proof for your assertion - not anyone else's. | |
|
| Capitalism and the environment
Posted: 7/17/2012 6:01:20 PM |
(1) And this is why I said: "you maybe have a CONCEPT you'd like to use to flesh out the words ... ?"
Which I have. It is now up to you to read through what I have put, consider the inforation on its own merit and address it. Not just cherry-pick the very few bits that you have a condescending remark for. And considering how quickly you have put this response up, I don’t believe that you have really read through and absorbed what I’ve posted.
(2) It's not my task to describe your mythical 'RBE' - that's your baby.
Then why did you claim to know what it is? If you truly don’t claim to, then that proves your attempted definitions as prima facie label attempts and appeal-to fear fallacies.
Now you've gone and posted a long anti-capitalist screed in which you say you're 'not proposing Marxism' while proposing concepts that flow exactly along that line of 'economic thought'. What's sad is that you remain unaware that's what you're doing.
So what? I said lots of things criticising capitalism. Get over it. That doesn't make me a marxist. Sorry, but that's another logical fallacy otherwise known as the "false dichotomy". Just because I criticise capitalism, does not make me a marxist. I have stated several times now that marxism is not a solution. For one thing you cannot even demonstrate which exact parallels an RBE has to marxism, besides the superfical fact that I have criticised capitalism.
(3) With all the words, space, & bandwidth you used for that 'reply', you still fail(-ed) to address my question and chose instead to go all snarky and 'petulant child' on us. "Well, YOU do it! I won't do it for you!" ...
Yet another logical fallacy. This time the “appeal to mockery”. I have provided a legible and understandable brief introdction to the train of thought. It is not up to me to spoonfeed you. I can explain it TO you, but I can't understand it FOR you. And if every explanation I give for an RBE is gonna be treated as "snarky" purely because you refuse to consider the train of thought, then we don't have anything further to discuss.
please ... Your refusal to post a simple, understandable response to a simple question is an overt admission that you have no rational basis to advocate what is, essentially, an emotional 'warm-fuzzy-feel-good' construct of homespun nothingness. I said I'd wait, and look what I got for my time ... A lot of words here, but you've not actually said anyting of substance. You’ve merely strung a bunch of words together which don’t actually say anything about anything. You cannot even answer the questions I pose to you in regards of what you base your assertions on, so please don't try to cry foul that I'm being evasive. It's your conceptual burden to provide proof for your assertion - not anyone else's. Absolutely. And I have discharged my burden of proof. Like I said a moment ago, it is now up to you to read through what I have put, consider the inforation on its own merit and address it. Not just cherry-pick the very few bits that you have a condescending remark for. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
