Third worldism and energy

[Thug Lessons]

This is the continuation of a discussion from my visitor page. It was an extended debate, so I figured it might as well go in the main forum.


we dont really compete with the third world workers, we want the same things.
More control on our environnement, more power.

China or india dosnt really depend on outsourcing for his own developement, has a matter of fact, outsourcing created most of the problem those countries have right now.

I have been asking around for a while in my province and believe me, what 95% of the ''first'' world want is better wages in china and bringing back production at home in canada. Bring it back production dosnt necessarly mean more shit for the third world worker tho, it only mean that in order to live better they will have to go after those greedy motherfucker sucking the ressource and wealth out of them. Its basicly the same thing for the ''first'' world has well.

It's not so much what anyone wants, so much as what it takes to get there. Only a sociopath would want people in foreign countries to be poor, or for comparatively rich workers in the first world to become poorer just for the sake of it. However, there are hard decisions that have to be made to achieve equality and sustainability, and some of these, (perhaps a majority), hurt developed countries far more than undeveloped ones.

I'll take one particular example here, energy consumption. According to these guys (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=2&cid=AS,CA,CH,FR,GM,IN,JA,RS,UK,US,ww,&syid=2004&eyid=2008&unit=BKWH), the US consumes more than 20% of the world's energy supply while making up less than 5% of the world's population. That ratio is slightly worse in Canada (more than 3% of the world's energy consumption for less than 0.5% of the world's population), but slightly better in most European countries, (2% energy consumption for 0.87% population in the UK, 3% energy consumption for 1.15% population in Germany, and about 2.5% energy consumption for 0.88% of the population in France).

Now, this isn't really a question of exploitation. From what I can tell, the energy generation statistics match up roughly with the energy consumption statistics for all these nations. However, none the less, this situation where developed countries dominate energy consumption has to end. It would be massively unsustainable for third world countries to increase their energy production to match that of the first world, and it would be unfair for first world countries to horde all that energy for themselves. Barring the advent of some form of sustainable energy, this problem isn't going to go away. Either the first world will have to lose or the third world will have to continue at a disadvantage. The only other option is an environmental catastrophe.

There's a clear conflict there, and hardly one that's outside of the mainstream. The disagreements between developed countries that want to cut carbon emissions and the developing countries that want to use as much energy as possible to enable economic expansion make the news every time a climate change summit convenes. If there's any value in third worldism, it's that it acknowledges this, rather than trying to sweep the problem under the rug in the name of worker solidarity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If the relentless price rises are anything to go by (the price fluctuates whenever the suits are spooked by world events, but the general trend is ever upwards), then the oil-based economy is on its way out, to be replaced hopefully with a combination of nuclear fission and renewables.

The idea that someone apart from the capitalists has to lose out if we cut carbon emissions is a false one, promulgated by ruling class ideologues in an attempt to justify their immiseration of the greater mass of workers, both in the so-called "first" and "third" worlds. There is more than enough energy available for everyone in the world (and then some) to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, particularly if you take into account the sheer wastefulness of the capitalist price system, especially in the United States. Remember this is the country with a state that experienced rolling blackouts in the early 2000s as a result of ruling class economic meddling, rather than any actual shortage of energy.

That is why I reject "third-worldism" - it merely plays into the hands of the ruling class, who seek to divide the global proletariat against itself in attempt to distract workers from the real enemy - themselves.

[RGacky3]

However, there are hard decisions that have to be made to achieve equality and sustainability, and some of these, (perhaps a majority), hurt developed countries far more than undeveloped ones.


What choices? Who has the power to make them?


I'll take one particular example here, energy consumption. According to these guys (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=2&cid=AS,CA,CH,FR,GM,IN,JA,RS,UK,US,ww,&syid=2004&eyid=2008&unit=BKWH), the US consumes more than 20% of the world's energy supply while making up less than 5% of the world's population. That ratio is slightly worse in Canada (more than 3% of the world's energy consumption for less than 0.5% of the world's population), but slightly better in most European countries, (2% energy consumption for 0.87% population in the UK, 3% energy consumption for 1.15% population in Germany, and about 2.5% energy consumption for 0.88% of the population in France).


There are many reasons for that, 1. these countries are totally industrialized, large parts of the third world simply don't have that infastrcture to use energy, 2. A lot of mechanization and more energy dependant industries in the first world. And so on.


However, none the less, this situation where developed countries dominate energy consumption has to end. It would be massively unsustainable for third world countries to increase their energy production to match that of the first world, and it would be unfair for first world countries to horde all that energy for themselves. Barring the advent of some form of sustainable energy, this problem isn't going to go away. Either the first world will have to lose or the third world will have to continue at a disadvantage. The only other option is an environmental catastrophe.


Your right, but that can be done by restructuring the economy and more towards sustainable energy, its not gonna be a major loss for your average first world worker.


The disagreements between developed countries that want to cut carbon emissions and the developing countries that want to use as much energy as possible to enable economic expansion make the news every time a climate change summit convenes. If there's any value in third worldism, it's that it acknowledges this, rather than trying to sweep the problem under the rug in the name of worker solidarity.

YOu have to look at the entire dynamic, the peoples making those decisions are not representing the people, of those countries, they represent the industries that come from the first world to invest.

[masty]

The old method of ripping oil from the brains of whales was delicate, sane and harmonious compared to the new method. But the whales had run out, so what was an expanding national economy to do? Diversify!

Capitalism's response here will be the same. Making the error of assuming that the end of oil/the cutting of emissions will do what hard struggle couldn't (topple capitalists) is seriously un-Marxist and bad. After all, oil at least resides somewhere in the ground (for a short while longer, anyway) and there are people above it who have to be fed and cared for to the extent that they can produce the oil capitalism requires. What happens to Saudi Arabia as a nation, for example, when it's no longer of any use to capitalism? If you want to know what happens to surplus nations, ask someone in your local ghetto. At best they'll be used to exert reserve-army pressure on some other economy, as miserable refugees. At worst they'll be consigned to starve. And it will be all your fault for cutting back on your oil consumption!

Actually it isn't, of course. Carbon emissions signify energy which signifies development. Cutting back on them out of some false notion of 'what's good for the environment' (when Texas spews more carbon than Africa) is fundamentally wrong. It won't be 'good for the environment' or the humans in it when the oil disappears and workers in China and Indonesia are conscripted at breakneck speed (as is already happening, a little bit) to hurry and make enough solar panels to keep our living-room plasma from dying. Or when agricultural sectors in the third world are re-ordered to produce plastic substitutes. Whatever the technology, whatever the environment, capitalism will find a way. Stopping it is paramount, and it's stupid to pretend that the construction of viable economies in the third world has nothing to do with that.

[Thug Lessons]

If the relentless price rises are anything to go by (the price fluctuates whenever the suits are spooked by world events, but the general trend is ever upwards), then the oil-based economy is on its way out, to be replaced hopefully with a combination of nuclear fission and renewables.

The idea that someone apart from the capitalists has to lose out if we cut carbon emissions is a false one, promulgated by ruling class ideologues in an attempt to justify their immiseration of the greater mass of workers, both in the so-called "first" and "third" worlds. There is more than enough energy available for everyone in the world (and then some) to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, particularly if you take into account the sheer wastefulness of the capitalist price system, especially in the United States. Remember this is the country with a state that experienced rolling blackouts in the early 2000s as a result of ruling class economic meddling, rather than any actual shortage of energy.

That is why I reject "third-worldism" - it merely plays into the hands of the ruling class, who seek to divide the global proletariat against itself in attempt to distract workers from the real enemy - themselves.

I don't really know how to response to this. It seems like you believe environmental problems and issues regarding the distribution of scarce resources are peculiar to capitalism. I can assure you they aren't.

[RGacky3]

BTW, the biggest user of energy in the US? The Military.


I can assure you they aren't.

You can assure us? Well thank god we have your assurance.

[pranabjyoti]

Originally Posted by danyboy2525
we dont really compete with the third world workers, we want the same things.
More control on our environnement, more power.

China or india dosnt really depend on outsourcing for his own developement, has a matter of fact, outsourcing created most of the problem those countries have right now.

I have been asking around for a while in my province and believe me, what 95% of the ''first'' world want is better wages in china and bringing back production at home in canada. Bring it back production dosnt necessarly mean more shit for the third world worker tho, it only mean that in order to live better they will have to go after those greedy motherfucker sucking the ressource and wealth out of them. Its basicly the same thing for the ''first'' world has well.
Though I am from India, but I agree with danyboy2525 in this regard. I don't have muc idea about China, but those who are working in the call centers of India are now examples "labor aristocracy". The money they earned did nothing but added to inflation and thus creating problem for general people. I personally know some of them and they are just "outright reactionary", nothing more than that. Though by proper scientific definition, they belong to the working class but in reality they are black spots on working class and I personally want them to be eliminated.
The basic problem of India is the fact the 62% of people of India are related to agriculture or very low productive works. The most modern machinery used in agriculture is just tractors, century old and in my opinion obsolete machine. The basic problem is land are divided into small patches owned by individual farmers who are too poor to have modern agricultural method and machinery. That's why the productivity of labor in agriculture is very low and that keeps the level of income of people related to agriculture poor.
The state of Punjab, once glorified as an example of "green revolution", now is poisoned with excessive use of chemical fertilizer, dried by excessive pumping of underground water. The green fields of wheat are long gone and farmers are indebted to the head to continue agriculture. Now this can be seen as a example of poisonous outcome "modern" capitalist method of agriculture. Other parts of India are heading towards that future. The eastern part of India, well rain-drenched, is running out of underground water for excessive use of it in agriculture. This year, due to lack of rain, 400,000 hectares land remained unploughed in the state of West Bengal.
While those outsourcing farms are doing nothing but adding money to the market and just putting fuel to the already flaming inflation and making the life of low income people a hell.
The outsourcing had done nothing for maximum (90%) of the people of India but rather created a small sect of "labor aristocracy". At least I don't think it's good for India.

[Dimentio]

Cover one thousandth of the Saharan Desert with solar cells and all energy needs of the planet could be looked after.

There is not really an energy crisis. There is a crisis of distribution.

[pranabjyoti]

Dimentio is right. And there are other ways to producing energy. What is necessary is sufficient funding for research in those aspect. A good example of research in this regard in US Patent No. 6938422.
The link is http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6938422.PN.&OS=PN/6938422&RS=PN/6938422.