CHALLENGE! Convince someone that capitalism is the root cause of climate change

[mojo.rhythm]

I have a challenge for you, comrades.

CHALLENGE: Convince somebody that capitalism is to blame for climate change, and that we need to end capitalism to save the environment

RULES/CONDITIONS:


takes place during a large climate action rally
person you are speaking to is probably not into politics that much
you only have about 5 minutes to do it

Have a think about it, and post your suggestions.


GO! :)

[Sinister Intents]

For me it didn't take much convincing when you prevent arguments but they still love capitalism. .. Damn liberals

[Skyhilist]

Yeah it's unlikely that you're going to convince most people in 5 minutes. That's not how people work. Most people have to be exposed to an idea or movement numerous times and from numerous sources before they're willing to embrace it, unless they're exceptionally open minded. Not saying we shouldn't explain why capitalism isn't the root cause (we should), I'm just saying don't be disappointed if you don't convince everyone in 5 minutes.

[mojo.rhythm]

Skyhilist,

Don't worry comrade; I don't get disappointed at all. I just move on to the next person.

The crux of this post is to see what people think are the most rhetorically forceful points you can compress into a five-minute space on the question of capitalism and its role in the environmental catastrophe.

[Sea]

We are not your speechwriter.

[mojo.rhythm]

Then don't post a reply Sea! FFS! It's very simple: if it doesn't interest you, then move on to the next thread. Be civil.

[Quail]

Why is someone who isn't really into politics at a giant climate change rally? Climate change is inherently a political issue.

[mojo.rhythm]

Quail,

You'd think so. But not really. If you took a public opinion poll at these rallies, they'd probably say that the solution to the climate crisis is mainly to make big-time changes to your personal consumption and donate more money to your local Big Green NGO. My impression is that most of them don't really consider the climate crisis as the symptom of something larger, just as a kinda moral issue that they need to be seen doing something about so that they can "discharge" their responsibility and tell their grand-kids they were out there fighting the good fight.

[Quail]

Have you actually spoken to these people or are you just putting strawmen in their mouths? I think if people are engaging with an issue in a political way, such as going to a climate change rally (which presumably is making demands of the government?), then they must at least have some kind of awareness that the issue is about more than just them and what they personally can do. I think you should give people more credit and actually go out and talk to them. The best way to get people to consider your ideas isn't to stand there preaching at them, but to engage in a discussion and an exchange of ideas. Figure out why they think what they think and explain why you agree or disagree with them.

[mojo.rhythm]

Quall,

I totally agree. It's imperative that, as socialists, we try to understand where other people are coming from and what motivates them.

Here's what is sad: at the rally, whenever I spoke to people, and tried to gently move the conversation in the direction of anti-capitalist politics, the response was not great. It tended to be stony silences, with the occasional "uh-huh" thrown in. Very little engagement.

Contrast this with, say, the anti-Tony Abbott rally in March ("March in March"). The crowd there was a lot younger, more diverse, and with generally much higher political nous and willingness to discuss issues of broader context. There were many decent political discussions to be had there, with articulate and engaged people. It was great.

I hate to be such a cynic about the climate rally. I really do, especially since environmental Armageddon poses one of the gravest threats to the human species since our emergence on the world stage, and its genesis is solely an effect of the capitalist mode of production. Sometimes, the feeling of constantly "pushing shit uphill" can distort the morale of even the most hardened and spirited activists around, leading them to shut down when they really need to be soldiering on.

[Palmares]

I guess it's not surprising you are going to have different levels/types of "political" conversation in different types of protests. And certainly Tony Abbott is a particularly bad PM, so I'd imagine because of that, and thus the many different areas where he totally fucking sucks, there's gonna be alot of discontent in so many areas.

In Australia (but not limited to), there is a strong history of environmentalism being entrenched in NGOs and the Greens Party (the first in the world).

And to be quite blunt, I think the anti-Tony Abbott demo will have a more obvious connection with the kind of workerist anti-capitalist discussion you're seeking. Whereas, many would find the link with environmental issues as a stretch. In my experience, some socialists have the infamous reputation of trying to "hijack" or "co-opt" given social struggles.

This isn't a diss, just my experience of things.

I guess this really point to the fact that any conversation about the totality isn't going to be short. And a frame of mind in which you are trying to "convert" via means of "preaching", can cause the opposite intended result.

On a more positive note (sorry!), I think it's helpful to think about what it was, specifically, that was the catalyst for your radicalisation. Ask your friends, comrades, etc. It's not a recipe for how to influence people towards radicalism, but it certainly illuminates how it happens for some people.

[mojo.rhythm]

Palmares,

Just to answer the last question you posed. My political awakening occurred literally overnight after I watched Capitalism: A Love Story. Then I saw a double-interview with Chomsky and Zinn. Then I read, read and read. Finally, after a few weeks of researching (much of it abstract political philosophy and economics) and soul-searching, I realized I had started to instinctively think about and ethically judge the world from an anarcho-syndicalist perspective, and that everything just seemed to...fall into perfect place. It felt like awakening after a dormant slumber you have been subject to your whole life. So yea, it was very fast.

Unfortunately, my story is kind-of an odd one. Based on conversations I have had with many of the comrades from my organisation, the vast majority of them got radicalized over real-world issues (e.g. 9/11, the Israel-Palestine conflict, John Howard's WorkChoices anti-union crusade, etc.), whereas I changed on the basis of a more abstract, philosophical approach to capitalism and the exploited nature of creative human labour under bourgeois rule, etc.

So it doesn't make it much easier to relate to people I'm afraid :unsure:. I guess that was partially the reason that I put this thread up, to pick the brains of other activists and see what strategies have worked for them in terms of galvanizing opposition to capitalism from climate change politics.

[Lord Testicles]

I was under the impression that climate change has been happening long before capitalism, so it would feel a bit disingenuous to convince someone that capitalism is to blame for climate change. I'm not saying that capitalism hasn't contributed to it but to argue that capitalism is to blame for climate change would suggest that we only need to rid ourselves of capitalism and the problem will go away and I don't think that's necessarily the case.

[Palmares]

This depends what you mean by "climate change". Of course there have been natural, cyclical, patterns of weather over the history of the planet. The climate "changes". However, the kind of climate change that meteorologists refer to when they talk about our current conundrum, is something that is certainly accelerated, but also out of line with previous historical patterns. And more to the point, this science specifically formulates how human actions are the fundamental cause of this change of pattern.

So no, it's not disingenuous. I actually believe the reverse is true.

[Lord Testicles]

I'm not referring to natural, cyclical, patterns of weather over the history of the planet I'm talking about anthropogenic climate change.

[Ocean Seal]

I'm not referring to natural, cyclical, patterns of weather over the history of the planet I'm talking about anthropogenic climate change.
Nope significant anthropogenic climate change started under capitalism. Honestly it didn't even pick up a head of steam until the 20th century so it is unabashedly a product of capitalism and not something before it.

[Lord Testicles]

Nope significant anthropogenic climate change started under capitalism. Honestly it didn't even pick up a head of steam until the 20th century so it is unabashedly a product of capitalism and not something before it.

We were talking about the phenomenon of anthropogenic climate change, whether it's significant or not is something else entirely. I mean what's your definition of "significant"? Is the deforestation of much of Europe and North Africa not significant?

To say that no significant anthropogenic climate change happened before capitalism would be demonstrably false.


“Did Aboriginal vegetation burning practices impact on the function of the northwest Australian summer monsoon?” We showed that the climate responded significantly to reduced vegetation cover in the pre-monsoon season. We found decreases in rainfall, higher surface and ground temperatures and enhanced atmospheric stability. In other words, there was a decline in the strength of the early monsoon “phase”.
The results of the experiment (http://www.mendeley.com/research/aboriginal-vegetation-burning-impact-australian-summer-monsoon/#page-1) lead us to suggest that by burning forests in northwestern Australia, Aboriginals altered the local climate. They effectively extended the dry season and delayed the start of the monsoon season.


http://theconversation.com/how-aboriginal-burning-changed-australias-climate-4454

[mojo.rhythm]

I was under the impression that climate change has been happening long before capitalism, so it would feel a bit disingenuous to convince someone that capitalism is to blame for climate change. I'm not saying that capitalism hasn't contributed to it but to argue that capitalism is to blame for climate change would suggest that we only need to rid ourselves of capitalism and the problem will go away and I don't think that's necessarily the case.

It's an interesting question comrade, but it will have to wait for another thread, I'm afraid :unsure:. This thread is for people who already accept the core assumption that capitalism is responsible, and seeing how they, as an activist, communicate this link to the average "person-on-the-street," if you will.

Cheers,
Mojo

P.S. I recommend The Ecological Rift by John Bellamy Foster if you're interested in good books that discuss the links between capitalism and climate change :).

[Lord Testicles]

This thread is for people who already accept the core assumption that capitalism is responsible, and seeing how they, as an activist, communicate this link to the average "person-on-the-street," if you will.

Well, they're wrong and to convince others of this whilst knowing it to be wrong would be morally repugnant. If we accept that capitalism is the root cause of anthropogenic climate change how do we reconcile this belief with the fact that anthropogenic climate change can be shown to have happened before the emergence of capitalism?

[mojo.rhythm]

Well, they're wrong and to convince others of this whilst knowing it to be wrong would be morally repugnant. If we accept that capitalism is the root cause of anthropogenic climate change how do we reconcile this belief with the fact that anthropogenic climate change can be shown to have happened before the emergence of capitalism?

Comrade, you're totally welcome to start another thread about this topic. It is an interesting and important issue to discuss. But for now, can we just please keep the premise of this thread to what was originally postulated?

[Lord Testicles]

Comrade, you're totally welcome to start another thread about this topic. It is an interesting and important issue to discuss. But for now, can we just please keep the premise of this thread to what was originally postulated?

Considering that this thread is all but deserted and taking into account that I'm not stopping anyone from discussing the premise raised in the original post (even though no-body seems to be in any particular rush to discuss it), not to mention that my question is fundamentally tied to the original premise, I'd like to kindly ask you to either stop replying to me or answer the question. Regardless of what you choose to do, I'd like you to stop trying to shut me down.

tl;dr No.

[Remus Bleys]

Climate change is a "naturally" occurring event exacerbated by humans and speed up by capitalism (though it is undoubtedly possible for capitalism to go "green" just enough to prevent the earth from total destruction) so this is really a stupid challenge based on a really simplistic understanding of how ideology functions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Climate change is a "naturally" occurring event exacerbated by humans and speed up by capitalism (though it is undoubtedly possible for capitalism to go "green" just enough to prevent the earth from total destruction) so this is really a stupid challenge based on a really simplistic understanding of how ideology functions.

Actually, recent reports have stated that we have now passed the threshold of fossil fuel reserves required to produce an economy that is renewable and sustainable.

If these reports are to be believed, I'm afraid capitalism can't go green enough to prevent the Earth from total destruction...If by total destruction we include the inevitable human conflict that will erupt as a result of our economies imploding.

[Lord Testicles]

Can I read those reports somewhere?