David Harvey wrote:Can capitalism survive the present trauma? Yes. But at what cost? This question masks another. Can the capitalist class reproduce its power in the face of the raft of economic, social, political and geopolitical and environmental difficulties? Again, the answer is a resounding “yes.” But the mass of the people will have to surrender the fruits of their labour to those in power, to surrender many of their rights and their hard-won asset values (in everything from housing to pension rights), and to suffer environmental degradations galore to say nothing of serial reductions in their living standards which means starvation for many of those already struggling to survive at rock bottom. Class inequalities will increase (as we already see happening). All of that may require more than a little political repression, police violence and militarized state control to stifle unrest.

Capitalism's solution to the environment is to repress anyone who dares to protest against its destruction of the environment. If you support capitalism and you want to save the environment, your best bet is to support a totalitarian dictatorship that is versatile in addressing the dangers of global warming. The more totalitarian, the better.

Profit first, act later. That's what the capitalists will do.

andyx1205 wrote:

Matt_B wrote:It's best that we keep the capitalists in check then, isn't it? Hence the call for a framework of regulatory oversight and taxation that ensures they pay a fair price for the environmental damage they do.

Unfortunately that is a utopian dream. If "Left" governments that have come to power around the world, such as Iceland, France, Denmark, to name a few, have been forced to carry out the dictates of the capitalists - austerity - then it is a utopian dream to suggest that we can keep the capitalists in check when it comes to destruction of the environment. Considering "Left" governments have been unable to prevent destruction of the Welfare State, the same is and will be the case for the environment.

We cannot trust the capitalists with the environment. To do so, considering the risks of not doing enough to fight global warming, is utterly insane. I agree with the article I posted that "For environmental issues to be addressed, the development of society must be planned."

Although CO2 emissions have slowed, they have not stopped increasing, even in the most regulated capitalist economies:

http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/whic ... educed_car

The Breakthrough Institute wrote:Driving down global emissions of climate destabilizing carbon dioxide by at least 50 percent by 2050 may be necessary to avoid the most dangerous impacts of global climate change (IEA 2010). To achieve these deep emissions declines while supporting continued economic growth and expanded energy access, particularly in the world's emerging economies, the world's economies must rapidly decarbonize, reducing the amount of CO2 produced for each unit of economic activity at greater than 4 percent per year (IEA 2010).

That may not sound like much, but such rates are more than three times greater than the 1.3 percent per year global average rate sustained since the 1860s (Nakicenovic 1997).

Even at a national scale, achieving a 4 percent per year or greater rate of decarbonization is unprecedented in recent history, according to new analysis from the Breakthrough Institute, which examines historic decarbonization rates among developed nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the OECD).

CONTINUED

and

We find that average decarbonization rates sustained from 1971-2006 range across the 26 OECD nations from a 3.6 percent per year decline in CO2 emissions per unit of GDP in Sweden to an 0.7 percent per year increase in carbon intensity of the economy in Portugal. The unweighted average rate for all 26 nations was 1.5 percent per year, only 16.5 percent faster than long-term global decarbonization rates (1.3 percent per year).

Only five nations achieve sustained decarbonization rates more than double the long-term global historic average: Sweden (at 3.6 percent per year), Ireland (at 3.2 percent), the UK and France (each at 2.8 percent), and Belgium (at 2.6 percent).

Six other nations achieved rates between 50 and 100% greater than the global average rate: Germany (2.5 percent per year), the United States, Denmark, and Poland (each at 2.3 percent), Hungary and the Netherlands (at 2.0 percent).

Sweden and France have achieved their scores not by cutting demand, but by switching to mass nuclear plants, which have their own issues. Japan would like a word...

The UK and Ireland achieved their scores through mass deindustrialization.

And that's just the OECD. How the hell do you bring China, Russia, or even India to heel?

Besides socialist revolution? Good luck with that, looks like China, Russia and India will take their bets with the totalitarian police state strategy along with the rest of the world for versatility in dealing with effects of global warming. China has been ramping up spending on internal security, India is going to see a fascist Prime Minister come to power this election, and Putin is preparing for increased state repression as well. Think of a dystopian movie or show where the super rich have their bio-domes or some similar shit while everyone else is practically fucked while living under repression.

The point would be that you'd have to tax and regulate companies based on where they make their profits rather than upon where they operate. Under the sort of regime I'd have in mind, Exxon would pay the same tax for polluting the Gambia as they would if it was in my own country. Get every country in the developed world to sign up to such a proposal and it wouldn't matter one jot whether the developing world was offering them tax breaks, as the offenders would be brought to heel pretty quickly.

In Marxism there's a term called Bonapartism where the state rises above society to maneuver between the different classes. Remember in House of Cards when the protagonist said that while the corporations might have the money, the state has the guns? The capitalists can be brought under heel, while at the same time, maintaining their privileges by exploiting the labour of the working class. This Bonapartist solution, which I believe we are heading towards, means a militarized police state.

In that sense, yes, the capitalists can be brought under heel under capitalism through a Bonapartist solution.

Even with a Bonapartist solution, global warming will be worse than with a socialist solution utilizing a planned economy, precisely because of the "tipping points" problem. That's a risk. We'll survive, but like I said, it won't be a pretty world. In that case, if socialism is not an answer and a solution is to be found under capitalism, we should transition to this totalitarian police state ASAP.

Sorry, but sometimes a sense of humour is necessary when coming across those who think finding a solution under capitalism is possible without costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonapartis ... st_epithet

It's not going to be without costs under any system, and surely I don't need to remind you that planned economies don't exactly have a great record with the environment.

NineOneFour wrote:

[snip]

Sweden and France have achieved their scores not by cutting demand, but by switching to mass nuclear plants, which have their own issues. Japan would like a word...

The UK and Ireland achieved their scores through mass deindustrialization.

And that's just the OECD. How the hell do you bring China, Russia, or even India to heel?

andyx1205 wrote:Besides socialist revolution? Good luck with that, looks like China, Russia and India will take their bets with the totalitarian police state strategy along with the rest of the world for versatility in dealing with effects of global warming. China has been ramping up spending on internal security, India is going to see a fascist Prime Minister come to power this election, and Putin is preparing for increased state repression as well. Think of a dystopian movie or show where the super rich have their bio-domes or some similar shit while everyone else is practically fucked while living under repression.

Deindustrialization which was outsourced to China and India where we buy from and we have clean hands .. ingenious!

The so-called globalization will bring those developing, and polluting in the process, to heel. Once similar .. costs of production, infrastructure, education and healthcare standards, legislative framework, etc .. conditions will be everywhere around the world, then it will be possible to look for global solutions everyone could agree on. Hopefully by that time we will also recognize that supranational organisation based on democratic principles is not only necessary if we want to move the world in certain direction but more importantly beneficial. There is so many people in the world that there is no place for lone cowboys. Well, for one or two somewhere deep in Amazonian rain forest maybe.

Matt_B wrote:It's not going to be without costs under any system, and surely I don't need to remind you that planned economies don't exactly have a great record with the environment.

That has nothing to do with the planned economy, which is the most efficient way of dealing with global warming, but has more to do with policies. I should also remind you that under the USSR the planned economy was not under the democratic control of the working class but under the control of the bureaucracy which didn't care about the environment. Of course, even with a democratically controlled planned economy, education on the environment is important. Policies will be influenced not by corporate CEOs but the advice of scientists and experts.

I'm certainly not unsympathetic to the idea that democracy and long term human survival are not compatible but that's not really a capitalism or socialism thing its a human beings don't care about the big picture/long term

mrjonno wrote:I'm certainly not unsympathetic to the idea that democracy and long term human survival are not compatible but that's not really a capitalism or socialism thing its a human beings don't care about the big picture/long term

Ideological justification for totalitarian dictatorship and police state is always welcome. We can expect to see long articles written on this topic by intellectuals in the NY Times, justifying the militarized police state for the "greater good."

mrjonno wrote:I'm certainly not unsympathetic to the idea that democracy and long term human survival are not compatible but that's not really a capitalism or socialism thing its a human beings don't care about the big picture/long term

Human beings are ignorant. Some drive their kids to school to prevent them from being involved in car accident, but if they understood how ignorant such notion is, I bet they would not do it. We do not have to stay that ignorant forever.

andyx1205 wrote:

mrjonno wrote:I'm certainly not unsympathetic to the idea that democracy and long term human survival are not compatible but that's not really a capitalism or socialism thing its a human beings don't care about the big picture/long term

Ideological justification for totalitarian dictatorship and police state is always welcome. We can expect to see long articles written on this topic by intellectuals in the NY Times, justifying the militarized police state for the "greater good."

Is this one of those "Marxist Predictions" you were talking about earlier?

Cthulhu's Trilby wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:

mrjonno wrote:I'm certainly not unsympathetic to the idea that democracy and long term human survival are not compatible but that's not really a capitalism or socialism thing its a human beings don't care about the big picture/long term

Ideological justification for totalitarian dictatorship and police state is always welcome. We can expect to see long articles written on this topic by intellectuals in the NY Times, justifying the militarized police state for the "greater good."

Is this one of those "Marxist Predictions" you were talking about earlier?

If they follow his advice of slashing democracy they'd have to convince the public first through propaganda.

Funny that mrjonno and tuco here are hinting towards support for abolishing democracy. And then Cthulhu is trying to throw a dart at me, the one supporting democracy!

Point fingers at the Marxists enough, the ones standing up for your democratic rights, and they'll implement the dictatorship with no hassle.

NineOneFour, I think it's pretty clear that beyond advocacy for totalitarian police state, no one is able to offer an alternative solution to fight global warming under capitalism.

andyx1205 wrote:

Matt_B wrote:It's not going to be without costs under any system, and surely I don't need to remind you that planned economies don't exactly have a great record with the environment.

That has nothing to do with the planned economy, which is the most efficient way of dealing with global warming, but has more to do with policies. I should also remind you that under the USSR the planned economy was not under the democratic control of the working class but under the control of the bureaucracy which didn't care about the environment. Of course, even with a democratically controlled planned economy, education on the environment is important. Policies will be influenced not by corporate CEOs but the advice of scientists and experts.

I'll agree that preserving the environment hasn't been a major goal of any planned economy so far, but it also has to be said that they've proved rather poor at achieving their other aims. I suppose it's always going to be a function of who is doing the planning, and the potential of a planned economy to outperform a mixed one is always there, but even something that starts out under the democratic control of workers is far from guaranteed to stay that way in the long term. At least with a mixed economy it's generally outside the control of a single small group of people to fuck things up.

Anyway, as a scientist myself, would you be prepared to listen to my ideas on how best to preserve the environment? You might not like what you're about to hear...

Matt_B wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:

Matt_B wrote:It's not going to be without costs under any system, and surely I don't need to remind you that planned economies don't exactly have a great record with the environment.

That has nothing to do with the planned economy, which is the most efficient way of dealing with global warming, but has more to do with policies. I should also remind you that under the USSR the planned economy was not under the democratic control of the working class but under the control of the bureaucracy which didn't care about the environment. Of course, even with a democratically controlled planned economy, education on the environment is important. Policies will be influenced not by corporate CEOs but the advice of scientists and experts.

I'll agree that preserving the environment hasn't been a major goal of any planned economy so far, but it also has to be said that they've proved rather poor at achieving their other aims. I suppose it's always going to be a function of who is doing the planning, and the potential of a planned economy to outperform a mixed one is always there, but even something that starts out under the democratic control of workers is far from guaranteed to stay that way in the long term. At least with a mixed economy it's generally outside the control of a single small group of people to fuck things up.

Anyway, as a scientist myself, would you be prepared to listen to my ideas on how best to preserve the environment? You might not like what you're about to hear...

"...but it also has to be said that they've proved rather poor at achieving their other aims."

You mean like transforming a country more backwards than India today, a backwards agricultural economy, into a modern industrialized economy, into the second most powerful country in the world, with higher life expectancy than America, free health-care and education, and sending the first man to space, all in the span of a few decades? You mean a country that despite one World War, and a Civil War, played the single most important role in decimating the majority of Nazi Germany army?

The planned economy has accomplished historical achievements unprecedented in human history, this is a fact. Under democratic control, without weight of corruption and mismanagement of bureaucracy, with socialism not isolated to one country but regional and eventually global, the potential is enormous. This is the best way to combat global warming, through a globally planned economy.

"...but even something that starts out under the democratic control of workers is far from guaranteed to stay that way in the long term"

If power of the whole economy is in hands of the people, if society is run bottom-up, if we have a socialist federation of continents and ultimately the world, how the hell does this get reversed? Nonsense, my friend.

"Anyway, as a scientist myself, would you be prepared to listen to my ideas on how best to preserve the environment? You might not like what you're about to hear..."

Go for it.

andyx1205 wrote:Funny that mrjonno and tuco here are hinting towards support for abolishing democracy. And then Cthulhu is trying to throw a dart at me, the one supporting democracy!

Point fingers at the Marxists enough, the ones standing up for your democratic rights, and they'll implement the dictatorship with no hassle.

That is misunderstanding. I believe in democracy in literal sense. However it is obvious that ignorant people make ignorant decisions. The problem is how do we become less ignorant? I believe that only by practicing democracy in literal sense because every ignorant decision we make will be our responsibility. Let us touch the stove and burn. In other words, we need to learn how to become responsible. Soviet socialism done nothing in this sense and global capitalism is not doing enough as it seems.

tuco wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:Funny that mrjonno and tuco here are hinting towards support for abolishing democracy. And then Cthulhu is trying to throw a dart at me, the one supporting democracy!

Point fingers at the Marxists enough, the ones standing up for your democratic rights, and they'll implement the dictatorship with no hassle.

That is misunderstanding. I believe in democracy in literal sense. However it is obvious that ignorant people make ignorant decisions. The problem is how do we become less ignorant? I believe that only by practicing democracy in literal sense because every ignorant decision we make will be our responsibility. Let us touch the stove and burn. In other words, we need to learn how to become responsible. Soviet socialism done nothing in this sense and global capitalism is not doing enough as it seems.

Socialism = democracy. The sham we call democracy where it doesn't matter who you vote into power because the capitalists own the economy is not democracy. Again, like I said before, the only way to maintain capitalism and bring the capitalists under heel is a totalitarian police state.

Just because you don't have faith in people doesn't mean the people can't run society better than the bastards who run it today. Policies will be influenced by the advice of experts and scientists instead of corporate CEOs.

andyx1205 wrote:Point fingers at the Marxists enough, the ones standing up for your democratic rights, and they'll implement the dictatorship with no hassle.

Please don't stand up for me.

Cthulhu's Trilby wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:Point fingers at the Marxists enough, the ones standing up for your democratic rights, and they'll implement the dictatorship with no hassle.

Please don't stand up for me.

Considering we're the ones who got you your rights in the first place, we're gonna have to stand up for those very same rights that we won for you. Can you please stop trolling me wherever I go just because of that scary looking avatar of mine? I don't think NineOneFour wants you to bring your bullshit into his thread as well.