Is global socialism impossible due to finite resources?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

The title is pretty self explanatory, but to further on that, I've been thinking recently, and it's occured to me that humanity doesn't have enough resources for everyone to have electricity, water... we'd be destroying progress for equality.

It's bothering me quite a bit, and I'd like some opinions on this.

[Optiow]

I hope not?

[Catma]

Well there's definitely enough energy, just from solar. Fresh water will become an issue as population increases, and minerals I suspect will be a continual problem. Can everybody really have a cell phone? A computer? I have a feeling open and equal access to the internet is very important for democracy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Are you kidding me? There's a bike power plant that can power an entire village for a day, w/ internet, with only 4 hrs of riding. This is just the start. The problem is, there's no profit in giving villages in Africa basically free power and internet.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

There are plenty of resources available. The problem is artificial scarcity in the name of profit.

Along with environmental destruction in the name of profit, which contributes to this scarcity, although it may not be 'intentional' artificial scarcity. Sustainability can't be achieved in capitalism.

[smk]

this is where the idea of capitalism before socialism comes place in some orthodox marxist circles. the idea is that there is now an excess, and we have the ability to achieve socialism now.

however, even without going through capitalism, I think that socialism is still completely viable. i also dont really see where the idea of having limited resources is coming from. we will run out of resources much faster under capitalism, as it is prone to overproduction and environmental destruction.

and just as there is under capitalism, under socialism there will still be a continual advancement in technology to better use the resources we have left.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No it's not impossible due to finite resources because as many people said, the problems today with shortages and scarcity have more to do with the organization of society and profit-driven production rather than natural constraints.

The bigger problem is that capitalism could wreak the world in such a way that would make creating and maintaining surplus even under socialism difficult. So nuclear war, irreversible drastic climate change or some other large-scale problem caused by capitalism could make it too late for workers to try and run society in a better way.

[Mr. Natural]

Of course global socialism is possible, although workers must learn to produce ecologically.

By this, I mean that life generates a sustainable surplus of energy (profit) throught its processes of photosynthesis and natural selection. This energy-profit is employed to maintain and nurture life's communities. Life produces for community.

Capitalism, in contrast, hacks life's human and non-human communities into commodities. Capitalism manufactures its runaway profit at the expense of life. Capitalism produces for profit.

Capitalism destructively produces for profit; life produces for community; socialists must learn to generate a sustainable, ecological surplus as they design and produce community.

Life and socialism/communism are all about community. Human beings are social individuals.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The underlying question is the viability of a Free Access / Gift model, not to "socialism." This means, then, questioning the viability of one interpretation of the "higher phase of communism."

[daft punk]

Hi, this is my first post. Limited resources is a problem at the moment and will get worse, eg water is becoming scarcer, soil degraded and so on. In a capitalist world there is no overall planning and little incentive to go green. A car manufacturer doesn't have to pay the costs of global warming etc.

In a socialist economy we can take such things into account, we can go radially green very quickly. We can eliminate waste. So we will make thing that last, make them with renewable energy. We wont be making weapons and we wont try to sell you a new mobile phone every few months.

Also, the population growth shouldn't be as high, as high birth rates are associated with poverty.

What we need is a workers' government which will retool the weapons factories to make wind turbines and solar panels for example.

The only time a capitalist government has quickly taken control is in a major war eg WW2 when Britain shifted it's economy to weapons production on a massive scale. We can do this with green technology with a socialist government.

[A Marxist Historian]

Hi, this is my first post. Limited resources is a problem at the moment and will get worse, eg water is becoming scarcer, soil degraded and so on. In a capitalist world there is no overall planning and little incentive to go green. A car manufacturer doesn't have to pay the costs of global warming etc.

In a socialist economy we can take such things into account, we can go radially green very quickly. We can eliminate waste. So we will make thing that last, make them with renewable energy. We wont be making weapons and we wont try to sell you a new mobile phone every few months.

Also, the population growth shouldn't be as high, as high birth rates are associated with poverty.

What we need is a workers' government which will retool the weapons factories to make wind turbines and solar panels for example.

The only time a capitalist government has quickly taken control is in a major war eg WW2 when Britain shifted it's economy to weapons production on a massive scale. We can do this with green technology with a socialist government.

Sure it's possible. At first, we're gonna have to forget about some of the green stuff everyone is so enthusiastic about and rely on coal, oil and nuclear, just like now under capitalism. This will inevitably result in global warning, but a socialist society can deal vastly better with disastrous climate change than a capitalist.

Even poverty-stricken bureaucratic Cuba, which in many ways is quite far from a socialist society, dealt with Hurricane Katrina vastly better than New Orleans did.

Over the long term, population reduction is desirable, so that maybe we can actually move to wind and solar and whatnot. Which naturally comes about as society advances, women get liberated and birth rates drop like a rock, so draconian measures like the Chinese "one child only" policy will probably not be necessary.

The key however to all this is advancing science, technology and industry. The old Soviet spirit of enthusiasm for factories and tractors will need revival.

By the way, solar is no cure all. The dirty secret of solar power is that it requires huge quantities of water, an increasingly scarce resource. And wind power is just not reliable enough and limited by local wind velocities in arbitrary fashion. Hydro, the most productive form of clean power, has already been built to its limits and tends to foul the rivers, destroy water supplies, and wipe out endangered species and such. Too many more dams will just do too much permanent damage to the ecology.

In any case, where we are right now, if we don't get away from a capitalist system run by the invisible hand of Adam Smith, currently strangling the human race, to a global democratic planned economy, time to put a fork in the human race, it's done.

-M.H.-

[Ocean Seal]

When resources are allocated according to human need and not profit, you'll see just how much there is.

[daft punk]

By the way, solar is no cure all. The dirty secret of solar power is that it requires huge quantities of water, an increasingly scarce resource. And wind power is just not reliable enough and limited by local wind velocities in arbitrary fashion. Hydro, the most productive form of clean power, has already been built to its limits and tends to foul the rivers, destroy water supplies, and wipe out endangered species and such. Too many more dams will just do too much permanent damage to the ecology.
-M.H.-

It depends on the technology. Some solar plants generate steam, some dont. Some require washing occasionally, depends how much rain there is. If you wanna stick a solar plant in a dry area it might compete with farming for water locally, and the solar plant might be the best bet. They should not mine the aquifers though.

Wind is a great source of energy and it can be stored, you wouldnt wanna rely on just one source. There is also wave, tidal, geothermal etc. The best way to deal with energy and global warming is to stop wasting energy.

For example a big expansion and integration of public transport to encourage people to leave their cars at home in cities would make sense.

Or just building things to last, things that can be repaired, and getting away from the idea that you constantly need new stuff.

[runequester]

Look at numbers for, for example, the amount of food destroyed annually in the US, the fact that countries with chronic starvation like India is still exporting food for money etc, and it should reveal itself that there is ample resources. Capitalism creates artificial scarcity by limiting large swathes of humanity from accessing said resources.

Now, if everyone was provided for, would there be a vast excess for everyone? No.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Look at numbers for, for example, the amount of food destroyed annually in the US, the fact that countries with chronic starvation like India is still exporting food for money etc, and it should reveal itself that there is ample resources. Capitalism creates artificial scarcity by limiting large swathes of humanity from accessing said resources.

Now, if everyone was provided for, would there be a vast excess for everyone? No.In Oakland there are now more empty homes then there are homeless (and not because homelessness has decreased). What a country!

[kuros]

I'm pretty sure we do, we can always obtain electricity from solar power and wind power etc, and if we are really desperate for water we can always get it from the sea.

[kuros]

It depends on the technology. Some solar plants generate steam, some dont. Some require washing occasionally, depends how much rain there is. If you wanna stick a solar plant in a dry area it might compete with farming for water locally, and the solar plant might be the best bet. They should not mine the aquifers though.

Wind is a great source of energy and it can be stored, you wouldnt wanna rely on just one source. There is also wave, tidal, geothermal etc. The best way to deal with energy and global warming is to stop wasting energy.

For example a big expansion and integration of public transport to encourage people to leave their cars at home in cities would make sense.
Or just change to electric cars.

[ColonelCossack]

We'll probably have fussion by the time of the revolution. And there's a lot of water to that end. And also by that time we'll probably be able to get water from Europa. And as people said solar. And we'll probably be able to put solar panels in space and beam back microwaves to Earth from them, which would be waaaayyyy more efficient that earth-based solar. And wind. And tidal. And hydroelectric. And possibly biomass...? So yeah. But then again maybe not. It all depends on how much the bourgeoisie fucks up the world. We might have to spend a few decades picking up the pieces. So global socialism might not be possible 'till we've done that, a few decades after the revolution. (lol I'm just adversting Leninism now aren't I? :D)

[ckaihatsu]

---





Plasma arc gasification or Plasma Gasification Process abbreviated PGP is a waste treatment technology that uses electrical energy and the high temperatures created by an electric arc gasifier. This arc breaks down waste primarily into elemental gas and solid waste (slag), in a device called a plasma converter. The process has been intended to be a net generator of electricity, depending upon the composition of input wastes, and to reduce the volumes of waste being sent to landfill sites.

[...]

Principle of operation

Relatively high voltage, high current electricity is passed between two electrodes, spaced apart, creating an electrical arc. Inert gas under pressure is passed through the arc into a sealed container of waste material, reaching temperatures as high as 25,000 °F (13,900 °C)[1] in the arc column. The temperature a few feet from the torch can be as high as 5000–8000 °F (2760–4427 °C).[1] At these temperatures, most types of waste are broken into basic elemental components in a gaseous form, and complex molecules are separated into individual atoms.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_arc_waste_disposal

[Klaatu]

...At first, we're gonna have to forget about some of the green stuff everyone is so enthusiastic about and rely on coal, oil and nuclear, just like now under capitalism. This will inevitably result in global warning, but a socialist society can deal vastly better with disastrous climate change than a capitalist.


I strongly disagree. We need to go full speed ahead on green energy right now, and systematically abandon old coal plants, one by one.
The reason for this is not only global warming; the reason is that green energy in and of itself can be a powerful engine of economic growth: research and development, design and manufacturing of efficient wind turbines, solar panels, etc. This can employ lots of people.

[Zulu]

Short answer: No.

No, global socialism is not impossible due to finite resources, but there is going to be a strict birth control policy in place to prevent poverty.

[Polyphonic Foxes]

The title is pretty self explanatory, but to further on that, I've been thinking recently, and it's occured to me that humanity doesn't have enough resources for everyone to have electricity, water... we'd be destroying progress for equality.

It's bothering me quite a bit, and I'd like some opinions on this.

Actually humanity most certainly has enough resources to do all this amore, we also produce enough food every year to feed every human 3 times over everyday.

We basically live in an extremely abundant society that it artificially kept scarce by capitalism.

And why would a very finite society need an infinite amount of resource?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Socialism might be possible given finite resources, but it would require that Americans become less voracious consumers of petroleum and begin to break their addiction to automobiles. Sometimes I wonder, though, whether finite resources might prevent the achievement of full Communism.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Short answer: No.

No, global socialism is not impossible due to finite resources, but there is going to be a strict birth control policy in place to prevent poverty.
Yeah, because socialists are into coercive population control, and poverty wouldn't exist if only there were fewer people. :rolleyes:

I think your conception of socialism is a little off.

[GoddessCleoLover]

OTOH Mao Zedong did not implement strict birth control policies yet was extremely coercive in almost all other respects. Conversely, the post-Mao leadership had reduced the general level of coercion in the PRC while implementing a strict population limitation policy. Some of us who do not favor the coercive types of "socialism" implemented by Stalin, Mao and their followers nonetheless understand that overpopulation leads to increased poverty. Given that the thread's topic involves the achievement of socialism despite finite natural resources, the issue of population control is at the heart of the matter. I would hope that contemporary revolutionary leftists don't subscribe to the simplistic "thoughts of Chairman Mao" on the issue of overpopulation.

[Firebrand]

OTOH Mao Zedong did not implement strict birth control policies yet was extremely coercive in almost all other respects. Conversely, the post-Mao leadership had reduced the general level of coercion in the PRC while implementing a strict population limitation policy. Some of us who do not favor the coercive types of "socialism" implemented by Stalin, Mao and their followers nonetheless understand that overpopulation leads to increased poverty. Given that the thread's topic involves the achievement of socialism despite finite natural resources, the issue of population control is at the heart of the matter. I would hope that contemporary revolutionary leftists don't subscribe to the simplistic "thoughts of Chairman Mao" on the issue of overpopulation.

There is actually a lot of evidence that poverty causes overpopulation rather than being caused by it. And actually given access to education, and birth control, people tend to limit the number of kids they have voluntarily.
Birth rate is a function of matierial conditions. In a rural, peasant based society such as you see in many areas with high birth rates, there is an economic motive for people having lots of kids. Kids can be useful on a farm from an early age and are therefore an asset, so people want lots of them. As countries move towards an industrialised capitalist system and people start working for a wage, children become a liability (assuming child labour is banned). The parents have to stretch their income to cover the needs of the child and by the time the child is old enough to contribute to the family finances they are also old enough to leave and get married and therefore have their own family to support. This means there is far less of a motive for a family to have lots of kids in an uran working class environment.
There are other factors at work of course, such as lack of access to contraception, religion, and lack of womens rights. But fundamentally a switch from peasantry to proletariat causes a drop in birth rate.

[Rafiq]

Feeding and supporting one million people seemed far fetched, within the constraints of feudalism.

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO banning child labor is a critical step toward encouraging voluntary limitation of family size and I appreciate Firebrand's response. Coercion ought to only be a last resort. The best policy is to encourage voluntary limitation of family size through incentives and by making inexpensive birth control available to the people.

[Zulu]

Yeah, because socialists are into coercive population control, and poverty wouldn't exist if only there were fewer people. :rolleyes:

I think your conception of socialism is a little off.

I don't know much about all kinds of self-styled "socialists" out there, but we, the Marxists-Leninists, are into high level of organization and planning of economy, which is the basis of human society. Population quantity is obviously a major economic factor, so it's got to be planned.

[Zav]

No, but that's partly why Capitalism is doomed to fail.

[Strannik]

I don't think that socialism is that much about recources. I think its more about lifetime. In socialism people work and create commodities only if it improves their lives. In capitalism they work and create commodities to live.

Therefore capitalistic society has to do something with all these commodities and then we arrive at the idea from fifties that everyone is living well only when they have a personal refirgerator. And yes, Soviet Union tried to keep up with that idea in the 50's and 60's.

But I think that I don't actually need a refirgerator - I need secure access to food. And there are many ways to get that. So I belive that in lots of cases socialism does things differently and uses less resources than capitalism. The key question in socialistic economy should be - does it improve our lives? We should allocate resources in such a manner that it improves our lives, not allocate them to be able to live.

So that's my idea - capitalism is wasteful. But other than that, there are lots of resources out there that we do not use because initial investment is too great or projects are too long-term. Capitalism does not build orbital solar power stations for example, because the profits for such projects would start to come in after many decades and capitalists always need their profits RIGHT NOW. A society where resources are controlled by individuals is always oriented for short-term profit and short-term projects. A society of social ownership can utilize resources even if their utilization would demand several generations.

[ckaihatsu]

So that's my idea - capitalism is wasteful. But other than that, there are lots of resources out there that we do not use because initial investment is too great or projects are too long-term. Capitalism does not build orbital solar power stations for example, because the profits for such projects would start to come in after many decades and capitalists always need their profits RIGHT NOW. A society where resources are controlled by individuals is always oriented for short-term profit and short-term projects. A society of social ownership can utilize resources even if their utilization would demand several generations.


Agreed.





But I think that I don't actually need a refirgerator - I need secure access to food. And there are many ways to get that.


Okay, I'll bite -- what would be a better, (collective) method for securing everyone's access to food, if not by using refrigerators in every household? By the standards of *applied science* refrigeration isn't so bad....

[Metacomet]

Shouldn't the thread title be is "Capitalism impossible due to finite resources?"

[ckaihatsu]

Shouldn't the thread title be is "Capitalism impossible due to finite resources?"


To be precise, no.

This may serve as an explanation....





http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/euro-f07.shtml


The background to the euro crisis—Part 1


By Peter Schwarz
7 February 2012

The following article is based on a report given by Peter Schwarz, a member of the editorial board of the World Socialist Web Site and secretary of the International Committee of the Fourth International, at a meeting of the Socialist Equality Party (PSG) held in Berlin on January 7, 2012.

For the last three years the world economy has undergone its deepest crisis since the 1930s. Europe has been especially hard hit. The survival of the euro and the European Union is now in question. To understand the significance and consequences of this crisis it is not sufficient to study its immediate economic forms. It is necessary to examine the social relations that lie behind these forms.

In general, the crisis is presented as the result of over-indebtedness on the part of several European countries. It is asserted that their debts have reached a level where they can no longer be repaid and refinanced. This assertion, however, does not stand up to a closer examination. Thus, the total indebtedness of the European Union (around 80 percent of GDP) is significantly below that of the US (100 percent) or Japan (220 percent). US debt has increased dramatically during the past five years from less than 60 percent to more than 100 percent. Nevertheless, the US is still able to finance its debt without major problems.

Apart from Greece (158 percent), even the European countries affected most by the crisis are not excessively indebted: In Spain, the national debt level is 68 percent, in Portugal 102 percent, in Ireland 112 percent, and in Italy 120 percent, about the same level as when it joined the euro zone. German (82 percent), French (85 percent) and British (80 percent) government debt are around the average level of the OECD countries.

There must be other causes to account for the fact that Europe has become the target of the international financial markets. To probe deeper it is necessary to consider the social changes that have taken place over the last three decades.

[...]