Against global warming

[victim77]

I have heard alot of talk that global warming is highly exaderated. I was wondering what your views on global warming are? Also what is a good book agaisnt global warming? I want to form a non-bias opinion on this topic.

[Sentinel]

For starters, see the stickied threads in this forum:

Anthropogenic Global Warming (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anthropogenic-global-warming-t71076/index.html) -- poll and discussion on whether or not man is responsible for global warming, what it's results will be on the environment, and whether or not those results will be reversible.

Popular Topics Of Discussion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/popular-topics-discussion-t53863/index.html) -- An index over frequent topics, with a subcategory of it's own for threads about global warming.

***

Personally I think it's evident that industrialisation has caused global warming, and that it can have serious consequences. I'm however optimistic over mankind's chances to eventually overcome this problem.

The solution is to 1) get rid of capitalism, which by it's chaotic nature leads to an ignorant and uncareful environmental policy, and 2) to boost technological progress, so that environmentally harmful methods of energy production (organic fuels mainly) can be replaced by more sustainable and effective ones.

[jake williams]

If you don't believe in global warming (admittedly, with a fairly large amount of room for debate by informed and competent professionals, about causes (to a degree) and extent and effects and so on) then you're either retarded or you're being bought off by BP and Exxon. So fuck off. I really hate this.

[Sentinel]

If you don't believe in global warming (admittedly, with a fairly large amount of room for debate by informed and competent professionals, about causes (to a degree) and extent and effects and so on) then you're either retarded or you're being bought off by BP and Exxon. So fuck off. I really hate this.
Who are you talking to..? No-one in this thread has expressed disbelief in the existence of global warming.. :confused:

[victim77]

If you don't believe in global warming (admittedly, with a fairly large amount of room for debate by informed and competent professionals, about causes (to a degree) and extent and effects and so on) then you're either retarded or you're being bought off by BP and Exxon. So fuck off. I really hate this.
No one said they do...I'm just lookign for something to read on the opposition to global warming.

[jake williams]

Who are you talking to..? No-one in this thread has expressed disbelief in the existence of global warming.. :confused:
No one specific, it's mostly just formless ranting. It's just that the whole issue is getting frustrating. I was reading the National Post (I can't think why, but there you go) and the author was arguing that because there was a snow storm then it must all be fake. I almost shot someone. It'd be one thing if no one believed this, but this is big deal, you know? and "denial" is a powerful and probably eventually lethal force.

[spartan]

I used to deny that man made global warming was effecting our current spell of climate change, but i soon came to my senses.

Also you will find that most of people arguing that there is no such thing as man made global warming, and that we are just going through a warm fase, are funded by petrol and oil corporations (Who coicidentally are major contributors to man made global warming and would lose lots of money if enviromental protection laws were implemented).

[RHIZOMES]

You know, even if global warming didn't exist, anyone with a brain would realize all those toxic fumes being released in the air is BAD.

[Apollodorus]

I would say it is attracting attention away from other environmental concerns. It is still important, just not the frigging end of the world. I mean, I wish they would stop all this scaremongering. Getting irrational and anxious about it is not going to do any good.

[MarxSchmarx]

Victim77.

No "impartial" observer denies global warming. If you want a truly "unbiased" review of the facts, read the original sources in reputable, peer-reviewed science journals. Here is a place to start:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Do not waste your time reading anything that purports to be "skeptical" about global warming written for a non-academic audience. Go to the original sources. These books are written by PR hacks or lazy intellectuals who have no idea what they are talking about.

RedGhost and Jammoe are right when they point out that the "denial" argument is problematic if only because it asks us to take an enormous risk, not to mention that even if people didn't cause global warming switching to greener technologies only sucks if you are a capitalist polluter and is pretty benign otherwise.

As far as books that honestly try to engage the arguments of the "humans don't cause global warming" crowd, there are a boatload of good books in English on this subject:

Heat: How to Stop the Planet from burning
http://www.southendpress.org/2007/items/87798

The discovery of Global Warming
http://books.google.com/books?id=zcr3WJ4wP10C&printsec=frontcover&dq=global+warming&sig=sbQTkoRR9vAna1d1b2gJmGHUTV4

The Weather Makers
http://books.google.com/books?id=cp87KdB72qMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=global+warming&lr=&sig=o7vfR9lxvC46IclVnzU7x7K-OLw

[Vanguard1917]

Also you will find that most of people arguing that there is no such thing as man made global warming, and that we are just going through a warm fase, are funded by petrol and oil corporations


I'm sure some probably are, but many are not.

A lot of money is pumped into climate science - and, contrary to popular belief, most of that cash goes to those who follow the climate change orthodoxies (that anthroprogenic climate change is taking place with potentially disasterous consequences).

Eco-worriers like to moan about 'oil corporayshuns' funding 'climate change deniers' (which is largely a myth nowadays, with most oil companies eager to establish their green credentials) when bourgeois states worldwide support and bankroll environmentalism.

[careyprice31]

If you don't believe in global warming (admittedly, with a fairly large amount of room for debate by informed and competent professionals, about causes (to a degree) and extent and effects and so on) then you're either retarded or you're being bought off by BP and Exxon. So fuck off. I really hate this.

I would have used nicer words to say it,
But this post expresses my own thoughts exactly.

[Vanguard1917]

No "impartial" observer denies global warming.


Why? Why is it impossible to impartially go against the global warming consensus, while it is, i presume, possible to be impartial and support the consensus?

I find that a pretty strange thing to say, especially when the whole establishment now supports the claims of the environmentalists.

[Vanguard1917]

If you don't believe in global warming (admittedly, with a fairly large amount of room for debate by informed and competent professionals, about causes (to a degree) and extent and effects and so on) then you're either retarded or you're being bought off by BP and Exxon. So fuck off. I really hate this.


Then you're an idiot. It is a simple fact that if you're a climate scientist and you want funding, the last thing you should do is go against the climate change consensus. Most of the money in this field is given to scientists whose research seeks to support the global warming consensus.

[Zurdito]

Dear God Vanguard1917. If EVEN the establishment now admits climate change despite it discrediting their social and economci system, then maybe you should just accept it. Bourgeois states also promote the ideology of the "welfare state" - that doesn't mean communists should fight to get rid of welfare.

[Vanguard1917]

then maybe you should just accept it.

I do accept that temperature are rising somewhat and that human beings are contributing to this rise somewhat. That does not mean, of course, that i have to accept the political conclusions which the environmentalists draw.

I'm just highlighting the absurdity of the idea that environmentalists are somehow being supressed when, in reality, their ideology now plays a central role in the mainstream political outlook in the West.



Dear God Vanguard1917. If EVEN the establishment now admits climate change despite it discrediting their social and economci system


As i've explained in greater detail elsewhere, environmentalism actually endorses the capitalist system. Anti-capitalists used to attack capitalism by firstly highlighting its inability to provide needed development around the world. Environmentalists, by arguing that capitalism is already giving way to too much development and progress (!), effectively excuse capitalism's number one crime. They are thus apologists of the capitalist system, rather than its opponents.

[Zurdito]

[QUOTE]I do accept that temperature are rising somewhat and that human beings are contributing to this rise somewhat. That does not mean, of course, that i have to accept the political conclusions which the environmentalists draw.

Not all "environmentalists" draw the same conclusions though do they?


I'm just highlighting the absurdity of the idea that environmentalists are somehow being supressed when, in reality, their ideology now plays a central role in the mainstream political outlook in the West.

Not really, our governments just make some token, ineffective measures in order to convince people they are dealing with the problem. Only those who endorse these measures, i.e. bourgeois reformists, ever get a voice in the mainstream, muchlike bourgeois reformist "leftists". They provide greenc over for governments and corporations who actually continue and step up measures which destroy the natural basis for life on this planet, thereby hurting the poor.




As i've explained in greater detail elsewhere,

ahem, well I've read many of your posts on this matter, and I don't thinky ou've shown that, you have rather simply asserted your own point of view again and again without dealing with real examples which people have shown you.


environmentalism actually endorses the capitalist system. Anti-capitalists used to attack capitalism by firstly highlighting its inability to provide needed development around the world. Environmentalists, by arguing that capitalism is already giving way to too much development and progress (!), effectively excuse capitalism's number one crime.

Not everyone who wants sustainable development says that.Marx said that capitalism exists by draining both the labour force and the material basis, the planet itself, at an unsustainable rate. He argued against the fetishisation of the human species to the extent that we are somehow "Gods" who are above the universe itself. Rather, we're just creatures things made out of the existing materials of the universe itself. Of course we are the most advanced species within our planet, but we're still part of it, and made out of it, and dependent on it, so the dichotomy between humans and "nature" which you present is entirely false. Development is only development when it serves to improve our standards of living. If we destroy our environment - by that I mean everything which surrounds us, whether or not its "nature" - just to "produce" then that is an example of humans serving dead matter, and not the other way around - i.e. exactly what Marx REJECTED. It seems to me like you're just a vassal for crude productivism, heavily influenced by the bourgeois dogma that all that matters is accumulation. However, Marxism is about giving human beings back power over their own lives, and giving our species back its dignity. these things are more important than everyone having a 4x4 or whatever.
They are thus apologists of the capitalist system, rather than its opponents.

Well obviously, anyone who doesn't call for socialist revolution against capitalism is an apologist for capitalism. This doesn't mean we reject everything they say. Tony Benn is an apologist for capitalism. Should I support the war in Iraq because he opposes it? Your "logic" is quite confusing, I've never known revolutionaries apply this methodology anywhere else, yet with regards to "environmentalism", it seems some usually sensible comrades rationality just evaporates.:confused:

[Vanguard1917]

Not all "environmentalists" draw the same conclusions though do they?



Pretty much. The central thesis of mainstream environmentalists is that mankind needs to start making cut-backs. One leading environmentalist writer, George Monbiot, puts it like this:

'Unlike almost all the public protests which have preceded it, [environmentalism] is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but also against ourselves.'



Marx said that capitalism exists by draining both the labour force and the material basis, the planet itself, at an unsustainable rate. He argued against the fetishisation of the human species to the extent that we are somehow "Gods" who are above the universe itself. Rather, we're just creatures things made out of the existing materials of the universe itself. Of course we are the most advanced species within our planet


Marx argued that human beings are the sovereigns of nature and that the goal of mankind is to master nature, to rule it, and to subordinate it to the will of humanity. Marx and Engels saw this as key for genuine human liberation, as did all Marxists after them. Trotsky, for example, argued that socialist revolution is justified because it leads to 'increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man’.

So, no: environmentalism - the idea that human beings are 'just creatures' (as you put it) and that we should act in 'harmony with nature' - is not acceptable to Marxists. In fact, environmentalism is antithetical to Marxism.



Well obviously, anyone who doesn't call for socialist revolution against capitalism is an apologist for capitalism. This doesn't mean we reject everything they say. Tony Benn is an apologist for capitalism. Should I support the war in Iraq because he opposes it? Your "logic" is quite confusing, I've never known revolutionaries apply this methodology anywhere else, yet with regards to "environmentalism", it seems some usually sensible comrades rationality just evaporates


No, you don't understand. Environmentalism actively excuses capitalism's most serious defect: the fact that it can't provide enough development - the fact that it restrains the development of humanity's productive capabilities. That is why it is so valuable ideologically for today's stagnant capitalist society.

[jake williams]

Then you're an idiot. It is a simple fact that if you're a climate scientist and you want funding, the last thing you should do is go against the climate change consensus. Most of the money in this field is given to scientists whose research seeks to support the global warming consensus.
This isn't an immediately invalid thesis, and I can't say this has had no effects on the direction of recent research. Though as I heard pointed out recently, a lot of the studies you're seeing now would've had to have been started 5 years ago because of the time it takes to publish - way before the recent fad. Moreover, the fad itself was started on the basis of earlier studies. So that knocks this out as an argument against the science of climate change - which we know is true to any meaningful degree of scientific certainty, it's not perfect but it's our best possible understanding.

Also, if you can come up with a study believable enough for a congressman/MP, you stop getting paid by your university but start getting paid in petrodollars.

[Zurdito]

Pretty much. The central thesis of mainstream environmentalists is that mankind needs to start making cut-backs. One leading environmentalist writer, George Monbiot, puts it like this:

'Unlike almost all the public protests which have preceded it, [environmentalism] is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but also against ourselves.'


I couldn't give a fuck what George Monbiot said to be honest, it's like quoting George Galloway and claiming he speaks for the whole anti-war movement. I'm more interested in revolutionaries finding the correct position based on what will benefit the working class than with over-reacting to quotes by liberal academics.

Anyway on your point, some people could make cutbacks on some things - ie plamsa screen tv's, new trainers, 4x4's, coal, etc. Obviously I wouldn't advocate holding back measures to bring the world's poor up to a comfortable standard of living. Ragarding the commodity fetishism of the western masses - there's nothing wrong with identifying and concentrating on ways to produce things that genuinely improve our living stadards - ie high speed railways, healthcare production of plentiful quality food - whilst cutting back ont he entirely wasteful status symbols and worthless trash which we consume in order to compensate for our alienation from society.




Marx argued that human beings are the sovereigns of nature and that the goal of mankind is to master nature, to rule it, and to subordinate it to the will of humanity. Marx and Engels saw this as key for genuine human liberation, as did all Marxists after them. Trotsky, for example, argued that socialist revolution is justified because it leads to 'increasing the power of man over nature and to the abolition of the power of man over man’.


Power of man over nature is of course good: the whole point of marxism is for human beings to collectively and consciously take control of our environment (ie our conditions of living) and to work to improve them for everyone.. At the moment, 99% of us are not the masters of our environment; instead, the bourgeoisie destroys our environment for their profit, and then we suffer the consequences, as being workers we must live in it and pay the price, whilst not controlling it. When we choose to manage our development sustainably, then we will have mastered nature, i.e. consciously taken control of our environment and based our economy on improving it, rather than simply serving the one sole goal of acucmulation.

Destruction of nature is not Marxist. If you master something it means you manage it to your benefit - what I want - rather than simply being unable to understand how it works or how to interact with it, so that you end up destroying it and therefore the basis of your existence.


So, no: environmentalism - the idea that human beings are 'just creatures' (as you put it) and that we should act in 'harmony with nature' - is not acceptable to Marxists. In fact, environmentalism is antithetical to Marxism.

Human beings are just naturally occuring creatures made out of the matter of the universe, i.e. products of nature. Living in "harmony" with nature is a language choice by you to express your disgust at irrational primitivist hippies or something, but really it's just sensible for humans to not supersede the basis of our existence.


No, you don't understand. Environmentalism actively excuses capitalism's most serious defect: the fact that it can't provide enough development -

Also that it provides the wrong kind of development. The advances in our productive capacity under capitalism have actually been quite amazing and in many cases still are, but the point is that they don't serve to benefit humanity. {art of serving humanity would be not polluting the environment we live in and depend on for our existence. The fact that capitalism retards our ability to produce clean, sustainable energy is indeed an example of the very thing you are complaining about. So why shouldn't we as revolutionaries point that out, and therefore present ourselves as the answer to the environmental damage caused by capitalism?

[Vanguard1917]

I couldn't give a fuck what George Monbiot said to be honest


Well, he is expressing what is widely held by the mainstream environmental movement. So you should care. That is what the environmentalist movement is, whether you like it or not.


Ragarding the commodity fetishism of the western masses - there's nothing wrong with identifying and concentrating on ways to produce things that genuinely improve our living stadards - ie high speed railways, healthcare production of plentiful quality food - whilst cutting back ont he entirely wasteful status symbols and worthless trash which we consume in order to compensate for our alienation from society

I think that this expresses a typical middle class disdain for the Western masses, that they're greedy and addicted to consumption (to 'new trainers' and televisions). This is not a Marxist critique of property fetishism. It's merely middle class snobbery.

And you suggest the need to replace coal. Who are at the most vocal opponents of the best alternative to coal that we at this moment have - i.e. nuclear power? Environmentalists.

You talk about producing an abundance of food. Who are the most vocal opponents of the technology and production methods - e.g. biotechnology and intensive farming - which can make such a thing possible? Environmentalists.



, the bourgeoisie destroys our environment for their profit, and then we suffer the consequences, as being workers we must live in it and pay the price


I would argue that the industrial developments that have taken place under the capitalist epoch have ultimately improved our environment, at least from a human perspective. Our natural environment has never been more suited to human inhabitation than it is today. As a result of our development, we are living longer, healthier and safer lives on earth than ever before.

The point is to take this progress even further - further than what capitalism permits. This is why we need another, more advanced system.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The point is, that capitalism is now threatening the future existence of life on the planet.

It might be interesting to see what this spokesman for Exxon thinks are the reasons for getting rid of capitalism if it is so wonderful.

[mykittyhasaboner]

You know, even if global warming didn't exist, anyone with a brain would realize all those toxic fumes being released in the air is BAD.
thank you! haha, i hate it when people argue about global warming, either way its bad to burn all this shit into the air.
and to help with the original post, i came across this a few days ago, its a pretty good read if facts is what your looking for.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

[jake williams]

Capitalism isn't the cause of global warming. It was the dominant economic model that happened to cause it, and it played its own part, and nowadays it resists the sorts of changes necessary to fight it. But it would have been perfectly possible (less likely, perhaps, but possible) to have global warming without capitalism.

[spartan]

But it would have been perfectly possible (less likely, perhaps, but possible) to have global warming without capitalism.

It would have taken far longer to develop though as things werent done on a truely industrial national level before Capitalism and machinery were developed.

[Zurdito]

Well, he is expressing what is widely held by the mainstream environmental movement. So you should care. That is what the environmentalist movement is, whether you like it or not.

Well we're arguing about climate change and finding a revolutionary solution to it, not about the environmentalist movement, some of whom are useless. If you'll ditch finding a solution to climate change just to spite the environmental movement then I don't really know what to say.




I think that this expresses a typical middle class disdain for the Western masses, that they're greedy and addicted to consumption (to 'new trainers' and televisions). This is not a Marxist critique of property fetishism. It's merely middle class snobbery.


Many of the western masses are middle class and these ones tend to be the ones who consume the most. Anyway I don't think the accusation of snobbery is a particularly scientific argument. In the west, the masses spend huge amounts of money on consumer goods which do not really improve uality of life in any meaningful way, but which are for many people the only real available means to find pleasure in a life of drudgery under a capitalist system. My parents are a classroom assistant and a customs officer respectively. Neither of those are highly paid of particulalrly "snobbish middle class professions". Yet, both of these people do spend their money on meaningless consumer goods in order to find happiness, because in a society which fetishises commodities, this is the only real means of salvation offered to the masses, much like Church for those living under feudalism. It's the religion of our age. Obviously I have sympathy and even fondness for those same masses, but I also have enough respect for them to be able to stand up and say that yes, we do have a consumption problem, and instead of buying jeans and trainers and wide-screen tv's and Ryan Air flights to Valencia, we could devote resources to improving the things we really need (healthcare, infrastructure, clean energy and travel ie high speed trains - which if we reduced owrking hours would be a uch more viable source of transport -, education, sanitation, developing the semi-colonies, etc.)


And you suggest the need to replace coal. Who are at the most vocal opponents of the best alternative to coal that we at this moment have - i.e. nuclear power? Environmentalists.

Do you trust a capitalist system to safely mange nuclear power plants, despite past tragedies? Are you insane? Also, how do you dispose of it?

Under a workers state I would be open to answering these questions but under capitalism? Fuck that.




You talk about producing an abundance of food. Who are the most vocal opponents of the technology and production methods - e.g. biotechnology and intensive farming - which can make such a thing possible? Environmentalists.


Well actually a lot of the time they are right to oppose the ways corporations use biotechnlogy. For example companies like Montsano often end up starving entire communities and ruining millions of peasants through their "Terminator" seeds, which don't reproduce (so that locals can't "steal" the technology). What happens is that bees end up carrying these seeds and pollinating the crops of farmers who never even bought them, meaning that next year their plants won't even grow, and they'll need to buy from Montsano or starve. So you need to look at the social context of technological advance, because in the wrong hands (bourgeois hands) it can be outright a tool for evil. So maybe you should look into the specifics of people opposing GM food. My view is that it's unhealthy food on the cheap produced by massive coprorations and forcing local communities and entire semi-colonial nations into complete dependeance on sections of the imperialist bourgeoisie, who produce tasteless unhealthy food to sell to the poor, and if they get cancer or whatever, and if we poison their fields and future generations ofr years to come, then fuck 'em because we made a profit. While I don't "on principle" oppose "tampering with nature" or whatever, I'd rather fight for the masses to a nutritious diet, and not cheerlead for "development" which often leads them hungrier and unhealthier than they were before the penetration of the global market and mass production. Do I oppose technological advances under peasants control to genuinely improve their diet? OF COURSE NOT. Do greens - maybe, maybe not, I don't know, it's not about them it;s about socialists finding our own solution and not just putting a tick wherever the greens put a cross.

[QUOTE]
I would argue that the industrial developments that have taken place under the capitalist epoch have ultimately improved our environment, at least from a human perspective. Our natural environment has never been more suited to human inhabitation than it is today. As a result of our development, we are living longer, healthier and safer lives on earth than ever before.

The point is to take this progress even further - further than what capitalism permits. This is why we need another, more advanced system.

If all you mean to say is that we're better off because of industrialisation, then I doubt nayone on the forum disagres with you and probably many of them are a million miles away from you on this issue. Anyway, making vague pronouncements on the need for "humans to control nature" or "opposing eco-conservatism and supporting the development of our productive capacities" is really quite easy. I'd rather hear your own opinions on how we answer the question of major environmental crisis facing the world over the next century. You give enough criticisms of greens ont he issue (falsely thinking that refutes socialists like myself who want to solve climate change from a class-based perspective and who have no linsk with the green movement whatsoever) but I don't really know what your answers are to the question except to ignore it or wish it away.

[Vanguard1917]

Well we're arguing about climate change and finding a revolutionary solution to it, not about the environmentalist movement, some of whom are useless. If you'll ditch finding a solution to climate change just to spite the environmental movement then I don't really know what to say.

One of the main solutions to climate change (assuming that it is indeed being caused by CO2 emissions) is a massive investment in nuclear power. Like i said, environmentalists are among the most vocal opponents of this.



Do you trust a capitalist system to safely mange nuclear power plants, despite past tragedies? Are you insane? Also, how do you dispose of it?



Which 'past tragedies'? How many can you name? Because statistical evidence actually shows that nuclear energy production is relatively very safe.



Many of the western masses are middle class and these ones tend to be the ones who consume the most.


Yes, and the point is to raise the living standards of the poor to that of the not so poor.



Obviously I have sympathy and even fondness for those same masses, but I also have enough respect for them to be able to stand up and say that yes, we do have a consumption problem, and instead of buying jeans and trainers and wide-screen tv's and Ryan Air flights to Valencia, we could devote resources to improving the things we really need


Well this is blatant middle class snobbery. What is wrong with buying new shoes and clothes? What is wrong with wide-screen TVs, which are clearly better than their alternatives? And what is wrong with working class people being able to travel and see the world?

Socialism is about demanding a system which can provide the goods for all - not about moralising with people about their lifestyles.



Well actually a lot of the time they are right to oppose the ways corporations use biotechnlogy. For example companies like Montsano often end up starving entire communities and ruining millions of peasants through their "Terminator" seeds, which don't reproduce (so that locals can't "steal" the technology). What happens is that bees end up carrying these seeds and pollinating the crops of farmers who never even bought them, meaning that next year their plants won't even grow, and they'll need to buy from Montsano or starve. So you need to look at the social context of technological advance, because in the wrong hands (bourgeois hands) it can be outright a tool for evil. So maybe you should look into the specifics of people opposing GM food.


No, they oppose the technology itself.



If all you mean to say is that we're better off because of industrialisation, then I doubt nayone on the forum disagres with you and probably many of them are a million miles away from you on this issue.


No, i believe that industrialisation has overall improved our natural environment and has made it more suitable than ever for human inhabitation.



I'd rather hear your own opinions on how we answer the question of major environmental crisis facing the world over the next century.


There is no scientific evidence that a 'major environmental crisis is facing the world over the next century'. That is mere speculation. We simply cannot make such predictions with any level of certainty.

One thing which we do know for a fact, however, is that the more developed a society is economically the less vulnerable it is to natural threats. I hope that the 21st century will see a massive development of humanity's economic capabilities all over the world (the kind of economic development that greens probably see in their worst nightmares) so that we can have a world that is truly fit for human beings.

Capitalism cannot provide this. Socialism can.

[Zurdito]

Which 'past tragedies'? How many can you name? Because statistical evidence actually shows that nuclear energy production is relatively very safe.

I can name the ones you've already heard of. They are proof enough for me to be very cautious. Also, we don't even know how to dispose of it. We shouldn't really be producing something we can't dispose of if we want sustainable development should we?



Yes, and the point is to raise the living standards of the poor to that of the not so poor.

I agree.


Well this is blatant middle class snobbery. What is wrong with buying new shoes and clothes? What is wrong with wide-screen TVs, which are clearly better than their alternatives? And what is wrong with working class people being able to travel and see the world?

I don't agree that it's blatant middle class snobbery at all. Most consumer goods are wasteful, do not improve your living standards, and are bought out of fetishism which a workers state would cure.

Obviously working class people should be able to travel and see the world. You conveniently ignored my point about high speed trains. For most of Europe that would do the trick. Why is it a problem now? Because people have such short holidays that they need to get everywhere as quickly as possible, regardless of sustainability. We could change that, by providing high speed, efficient travel, which takes slightly longer but which is much cleaner.


Socialism is about demanding a system which can provide the goods for all - not about moralising with people about their lifestyles.

Socialism is not just about producing consumer goods, it is about human quality of life, about the economy serving humans real needs. Yours a vulgarisation of Marxism, it's called productivism.


No, they oppose the technology itself.

No, not all do.



There is no scientific evidence that a 'major environmental crisis is facing the world over the next century'. That is mere speculation. We simply cannot make such predictions with any level of certainty.

All the scientific evidence points to that. Keep burying your head int he sand if you like, you'll only be irrelevant.


One thing which we do know for a fact, however, is that the more developed a society is economically the less vulnerable it is to natural threats.

Well that's true but it's a null point if the development itself proportionally (or even disproportionally) raises the level of natural threat.


I hope that the 21st century will see a massive development of humanity's economic capabilities all over the world (the kind of economic development that greens probably see in their worst nightmares) so that we can have a world that is truly fit for human beings.

Well actually humanity's economci capabilities are pretty huge at the moment anyway, the only problem is the social context. At the current rate of food production we could feed the whole world anyway, and at the current rate of use of energy we could provide electricity for the whole world.

Anyway despite that,l I agree with what you said. But I don't think development of the economy=more consumer goods. I think development of the economy=sustainable planned development to produce the things people really need without destroying the natural basis for production. Marxism isn't jsut "toppling" global capitalism to change the ownership. It is the project to create a new kind of society and a new kind of human being.

[Vanguard1917]

can name the ones you've already heard of. They are proof enough for me to be very cautious. Also, we don't even know how to dispose of it. We shouldn't really be producing something we can't dispose of if we want sustainable development should we?

Yes, you can name Chernobyl - the only serious fatal nuclear accident that has taken place. Chernobyl is the exception, not the rule. Nuclear power today has moved on, and the possibility of another Chernobyl happening is low. Today, nuclear power is (relatively, of course) very safe and very clean.

And i don't know what you mean by 'sustainable development'. I do, however, know what the environmentalists (who coined the term) mean by it: small-scaled and localised development, which they try to preach to developing world governments. In reality, the developing world needs rapid and large-scale development in order to raise living standards to at least those which are enjoyed by some in the West today.

Environmentalists are, of course, openly against this.


I don't agree that it's blatant middle class snobbery at all. Most consumer goods are wasteful, do not improve your living standards, and are bought out of fetishism which a workers state would cure.

It is middle class snobbery because it is based on the idea that the masses lead wasteful lifestyles and are mindlessly consuming shit that they don't need. You named trainers, jeans, TVs and holidays as some of the goods that you feel are 'wasteful'.

This is not a Marxist critique of commodity fethisism. Marx criticised the feature of capitalism where people are encouraged to see meaning to life through the medium of commodities - through the things that they buy on the market. But Marx also argued that the emerging consumerism and the creation of new needs in capitalist society is one of capitalism's most progressive features. Like he argues in the Grundrisse:


'he searches for means to spur them on to consumption, to give his wares new charms, to inspire them with new needs by constant chatter etc. It is precisely this side of the relation of capital and labour which is an essential civilising moment, and on which the historic justification, but also the contemporary power of capital rests.'


This is very different to the petty, middle class 'anti-consumerism' - which moralises with working class people about their shopping habits - that currently prevails in the West.



You conveniently ignored my point about high speed trains. For most of Europe that would do the trick. Why is it a problem now? Because people have such short holidays that they need to get everywhere as quickly as possible, regardless of sustainability. We could change that, by providing high speed, efficient travel, which takes slightly longer but which is much cleaner.


Where is the evidence that travelling around Europe in trains is more efficient and resourceful than travelling by air?



No, not all do.


Maybe a few don't, but the majority does.



All the scientific evidence points to that.


Then present it to me, because this is all very new to me. Even the best climate science at the moment is based on models and hypothetical speculation.




Well that's true but it's a null point if the development itself proportionally (or even disproportionally) raises the level of natural threat.




But it simply doesn't. Less and less people today are dying from natural threats (e.g. earthquakes, floods, heatwaves, droughts, disease, etc.) than ever before, especially in the developed world. We are less vulnerable to such threats - because we are more developed.



at the current rate of use of energy we could provide electricity for the whole world.


Evidence? A third of humanity (2 billion people) does not even have access to a light bulb. If we want the developing world to industrialise to at least the level of the West, we're going to need a lot of energy.


What is socialism anyway?


'Socialism is Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country.'
- Lenin

[Zurdito]

And i don't know what you mean by 'sustainable development'. I do, however, know what the environmentalists (who coined the term) mean by it: small-scaled and localised development, which they try to preach to developing world governments. In reality, the developing world needs rapid and large-scale development in order to raise living standards to at least those which are enjoyed by some in the West today

I don't know what you mean when you say you don't know what I mean. We're dependent on fossil fuels for our current economic model. fossil fuels pollute the environment and are going to run out. That's not sustainable.

I mean a planned global economy based on redistributing wealth from rich to poor and on raising the standard of living for all working class people. That would mean also not contributing to rising sea levels, deforestation, and destruction of the land where our food comes from, causing flooding, landslides and starvation. A socialist economy should not be localised or small scale.


It is middle class snobbery because it is based on the idea that the masses lead wasteful lifestyles and are mindlessly consuming shit that they don't need. You named trainers, jeans, TVs and holidays as some of the goods that you feel are 'wasteful'.

I don't "feel" they are wasteful, they clearly are goods which do not contribute in a meaningful way to standard of living, but yet which we spend huge amounts of resources producing.

To call this "Middle class snobbery" is not a marxist analysis either. It's objectively true that most of these consumer goods are a waste of resources and are only bought by people because, well, obviously people will buy what society produces as a way to find pleasure in a society which alienates them.

Your reductivism is also anti-marxist: if the mass of the working class does something, then we shouldn't criticise it, because then by definition it become part of proletarian ideology.

This is rubbish. As Marx said the dominant ideology of any society will be the ideology of the ruling class. Clearly, the masses will be poisoned to a great extent by the ideology of the bourgeoisie. Consumerism is a bourgeois religion. To challenge it is no more anti-working class than to challenge Catholicism.

The difference between marxists and petit-bourgeois intellectuals is that we offer real material advances in place of consumer goods, such as improved infrastructure, healthcare, education, safety, diet, space exploration, etc.

Workerism is not marxism.



This is not a Marxist critique of commodity fethisism. Marx criticised the feature of capitalism where people are encouraged to see meaning to life through the medium of commodities - through the things that they buy on the market. But Marx also argued that the emerging consumerism and the creation of new needs in capitalist society is one of capitalism's most progressive features. Like he argues in the Grundrisse:


'he searches for means to spur them on to consumption, to give his wares new charms, to inspire them with new needs by constant chatter etc. It is precisely this side of the relation of capital and labour which is an essential civilising moment, and on which the historic justification, but also the contemporary power of capital rests.'


I agree with that and I don't see the contradiction. The point of marxism is to preserve the material advances of capitalism. If you think I'm arguing against that then you really are too far gone with "greens under the bed" paranoia.



This is very different to the petty, middle class 'anti-consumerism' - which moralises with working class people about their shopping habits - that currently prevails in the West.

You have a funny idea of what "prevails".

Firstly, mainstream bourgeois ideology prevails in the west (surprise surprise), not middle-class anti-consumerism. this mainstream bourgeois ideology heavily encourages consumerism.

Secondly, most middle class people consume heavily and are not at all anti-consumerism.

That said though you are right to oppose those small numbers of petty-bourgeois intellectuals who do moralise to workers about their shopping habits. Obviously "consumer power" is a bourgeois concept,a s only those with money can exercise consumer power.

However what you see as "prevailing" is really just a small movement and not the huge threat you make out.





Where is the evidence that travelling around Europe in trains is more efficient and resourceful than travelling by air?

Because planes pump a lot of carbon high into the atmosphere wher eit does a lot of damage. Yes, they are a small percentage of global carbon emissions, however, being that high up makes the emmissions more dangerous.


Then present it to me, because this is all very new to me. Even the best climate science at the moment is based on models and hypothetical speculation.

I know there's a general consensus that human activity is altering th climate and that this will have negative effects on our standard of living unless we change it.



But it simply doesn't. Less and less people today are dying from natural threats (e.g. earthquakes, floods, heatwaves, droughts, disease, etc.) than ever before, especially in the developed world. We are less vulnerable to such threats - because we are more developed.


I haven't seen the stats, but it seems to me that now even hundreds of thousands of people are dying in the USA due to a flood, something which didn't happen 50 years ago. I know that places like Bangladesh are suffering great increases in landslides due to deforestation and floods due to rising sea levels, and all the accompanying death, disease and famine this causes. Whether or not there is a net global reduction I don't know for a fact. My point is to technologically advance whilst ironing out the contradictions between technological progress and the natural world, which clearly we should do if those ocntradictions are retarding the rate of progress in our living standards caused by productive developments. That seems so obvious no-one would disagree.





Evidence? A third of humanity (2 billion people) does not even have access to a light bulb. If we want the developing world to industrialise to at least the level of the West, we're going to need a lot of energy.


They don't have access to lightbulbs because it's not profitable to produce electricity for them. However the productive capabilities exist quite easily to do so. Capitalism hasn't held back those productive capabilities it has just misused them.

[w0lf]

Your against the theory or against the actual warming..?

[Vanguard1917]

I don't know what you mean when you say you don't know what I mean. We're dependent on fossil fuels for our current economic model. fossil fuels pollute the environment and are going to run out. That's not sustainable.

Nuclear power uses uranium, and uranium is not about to run out anytime soon. There is already enough known uranium reserves to last a predicted 85 years at current consumption levels. This is despite the fact that there has not been any major uranium exploration for around the past 20 years. Also, modern nuclear reactors can use thorium, of which there is 3 times more in the ground than there is known uranium.

Simply put, there is probably enough uranium and thorium in the ground to provide us with electricity for the next several hundred years.


I don't "feel" they are wasteful, they clearly are goods which do not contribute in a meaningful way to standard of living, but yet which we spend huge amounts of resources producing.

But they do contribute in quite a meaningful way to people's standard of living. Clothing of a high quality, entertainment for the home, the opportunity to travel the world on a regular basis - these are all very good things.

Socialist society will seek to expand them. You wish to restrict them.


This is rubbish. As Marx said the dominant ideology of any society will be the ideology of the ruling class. Clearly, the masses will be poisoned to a great extent by the ideology of the bourgeoisie. Consumerism is a bourgeois religion. To challenge it is no more anti-working class than to challenge Catholicism.


But as i pointed out, your criticism of 'consumerism' is not a Marxist one. Marx never condemned capitalism for providing people with a greater range of consumer goods than all previous epoch put together. In reality, Marx welcomed such a development, seeing it as a progressive feature of capitalism.


I haven't seen the stats, but it seems to me that now even hundreds of thousands of people are dying in the USA due to a flood

What? :confused:


Whether or not there is a net global reduction I don't know for a fact.

Well it is a fact that rates of death as a result of natural disasters are lower today than in the past. This is not to deny that hundreds of millions of people around the world, especially in the developing world, still remain highly vulnerable to the destructive aspects of nature. They certainly do - as a result of underdevelopment.



However the productive capabilities exist quite easily to do so. Capitalism hasn't held back those productive capabilities it has just misused them.


That's only half of the story. Capitalism has also retarded development throughout the world, especially in developing countries. These countries need massive, large-scale development to raise living standards. Capitalism has not been able to provide this.

[Zurdito]

Nuclear power uses uranium, and uranium is not about to run out anytime soon. There is already enough known uranium reserves to last a predicted 85 years at current consumption levels. This is despite the fact that there has not been any major uranium exploration for around the past 20 years. Also, modern nuclear reactors can use thorium, of which there is 3 times more in the ground than there is known uranium.

Simply put, there is probably enough uranium and thorium in the ground to provide us with electricity for the next several hundred years.


I'm sure there is, but you're mixing two points, I was referring to our current oil based economy and also to a lesser extent to our dependence on coal. I never objected to nuclear power on the basis of scarcity.


But they do contribute in quite a meaningful way to people's standard of living. Clothing of a high quality, entertainment for the home, the opportunity to travel the world on a regular basis - these are all very good things.

You're confusing genuine use-value with market demand. In fact, a high degree of consumption of clothes is done for fashion trends. A lot of clothes shopping is not based on utility but on fashion. A socialist society would put more effort into quality clothing and durable clothing. However as a non-heirarchical society there really wouldn't be a need for people to buy 10 pairs of shoes our countless jeans. there really is no need. It is an issue of fashion - commodity fetishism - and not at all of use - comfort, durability, etc. In fact, a lot of fashionable clothes which people buy huge amounts of are much less practical than cheaper alternatives.

Regarding television, I disagree on the entertainment value, at least under capitalism tv is trash, opium, and not remotely useful. In a communal society we'd need less televisions, because they would be in communal spaces. I'd have nothing against them being big though.



Socialist society will seek to expand them. You wish to restrict them.


I don't wish to simply take what the capitalist market produces and then expand it. That's completely unmarxist, as we acknowledge that capitalism not only misallocates, but also produces decadent goods whilst negelecting socially useful produce.

Of course I have stated many times that I wish to expand infrastructure, healthcare, food production, public transport, scientific research like space exploration, energy production, etc. But you keep ignoring that and trying to paint me as a green. This only speaks about the weakness of your own argument, ie that you need to have a charicature to rant at.




But as i pointed out, your criticism of 'consumerism' is not a Marxist one. Marx never condemned capitalism for providing people with a greater range of consumer goods than all previous epoch put together. In reality, Marx welcomed such a development, seeing it as a progressive feature of capitalism.


I welcome it too. Did I say I want to reduce the level of consumer goods to a pre-capitalist level? :rolleyes:



What? :confused:


Katrina.


Well it is a fact that rates of death as a result of natural disasters are lower today than in the past. This is not to deny that hundreds of millions of people around the world, especially in the developing world, still remain highly vulnerable to the destructive aspects of nature. They certainly do - as a result of underdevelopment.

Yes, and also as a result of rising sea levels, deforestation and poisoning of land by chemicals.

I want to find an answer to both underdevelopment and environmental damage, whereas you assume a false contradiction between the two, when in reality the battle to improve workers environment is not divisible into "technology versus nature". If you'd asked many 19th century workers in Britain what was the worst source of their suffering many would have said appalling health conditions at work and pollution, even ahead of low wages and material scarcity. So improving standard of living is not simply about mass production to the exclusion of all else. That is productivism and it is unablanced.




That's only half of the story. Capitalism has also retarded development throughout the world, especially in developing countries. These countries need massive, large-scale development to raise living standards. Capitalism has not been able to provide this

Youa re right. I already argued ont his thread as well as in many other places for a globally planned economy to massively develop the semicolonial world.

What is also true is that development does take place in many parts of the semicolonial world under capitalism but that it is not done in a way which benefits the masses, and often it creates furhter concentration of wealth, inflation and unemployment, as well as polluting the environment they live in.

So the problem is not just lack of development but heavily specialised, concentrated, uncontrolled development which is not used to benefit the masses.

This belies your slightly formulaic view that development in itself can only ever be good. It's contradictory. There is no need to label it as decisively progressive or reactionary. It is progressive in that the technology itself could be used to improve people's lives. But under capitalism that doesn't necessarilly happen even in absolute terms. In Guatemala today, the average indigenous person (majority of the population) takes in less calories per day than they did under the Maya. This is despite a great deal of technological development within Guatemala since that time.

[Vanguard1917]

You're confusing genuine use-value with market demand.

No, i'm highlighting your incorrect, non-Marxist opposition to consumption in capitalist society, which you haven't addressed.



I don't wish to simply take what the capitalist market produces and then expand it. That's completely unmarxist, as we acknowledge that capitalism not only misallocates, but also produces decadent goods whilst negelecting socially useful produce.


'Decadent goods' likes jeans, sport shoes, TVs and holidays abroad?


Of course I have stated many times that I wish to expand infrastructure, healthcare, food production, public transport, scientific research like space exploration, energy production, etc. But you keep ignoring that and trying to paint me as a green. This only speaks about the weakness of your own argument, ie that you need to have a charicature to rant at.

Your arguments are typically environmentalist ones. Especially your idea that the Western masses are greedy and are consuming too much.


Katrina.

Yes but 'hundreds of thousands of people' did not die in Hurricane Katrina, like you claimed. I believe that the figure was actually less than 2,000.

And there is nothing to suggest that the hurricane, however tragic, had anything to do with global warming.



If you'd asked many 19th century workers in Britain what was the worst source of their suffering many would have said appalling health conditions at work and pollution, even ahead of low wages and material scarcity.


No doubt. And what fixed the problem of deadly pollution in Britain? Further economic and technological development, not cut-backs like the environmentalists propose.



What is also true is that development does take place in many parts of the semicolonial world under capitalism but that it is not done in a way which benefits the masses


In many ways that is true. No one is denying that development under capitalism does not take place without contraditions. These should be exposed.

But that is not to say that the development should be opposed, and certainly not in the reactionary way that the environmentalists oppose it.

[Zurdito]

No, i'm highlighting your incorrect, non-Marxist opposition to consumption in capitalist society, which you haven't addressed.

In what way haven't I adressed it? I don't remember saying I oppose consumption in a capitalist society. Again your vulgarisation of everyone else's opinion is pretty breathtaking.


'Decadent goods' likes jeans, sport shoes, TVs and holidays abroad?

I've already answered all these points in my last 3 or 4 posts, clear as daylight. I can't see the point of you asking me to give you the same answer which you will then vulagarise again and ask me to then defend the vulgarised version of.


Your arguments are typically environmentalist ones. Especially your idea that the Western masses are greedy and are consuming too much.

I didn't say the western masses were greedy I said we have a consumption problem. The consumption problem is inherent in the capitalist system as commodities dominate humans, therefore, what else is there to do but buy commodities in a futile attempt to overcome alienation. This is a problem based on socio-economci structure imposed by the bourgeoisie. To put it down to the greed of the western masses would be idealistic, clearly. In reality, only an overthrow of our social and eocnomic structure - a socialist revolution - could ever solve this problem. however, this doesn't mean that out of some romantic idealisation of the western masses, socialists should refuse to tell the objective truth - that for the entire planet to exist as Britain does now, we would need 3 planets. You will probably say that I am arguing for attacking standards of living. Yet, I've already said that with investment in better energy sources, in public transport incl. high speed railways across all continents, and mass investment in science rather than consumer goods (such as plasma screen tvs and luxury clothes which serve no useful purpose) then we could make the transition to sustainable development - (ie 1 planet, not 3) whilst raising standard of living for everyone.


And there is nothing to suggest that the hurricane, however tragic, had anything to do with global warming.

There is nothing to suggest that any individual disaster is due to global warming, just liek there is nothing to suggest that any individual case of lung cancer is caused by smoking.


No doubt. And what fixed the problem of deadly pollution in Britain? Further economic and technological development, not cut-backs like the environmentalists propose.

And regulations to enforce that existing technology be used to limit environmental damage. your argument that capitalist development provided its own answer is basically libertarian.



But that is not to say that the development should be opposed, and certainly not in the reactionary way that the environmentalists oppose it.

I agree.