Log in

View Full Version : Environment and capitalism



nvm
31st May 2008, 01:16
Despite appearances, the Kyoto conference is but a feeble facade of our leaders where they can carefully avoid any discussion or debate about the real nature of the ecological crisis: the global system of capitalism. Clearly then, Kyoto is not attacking the root of the environmental problem. Its objectives and platform are inadequate and propose no change that will be durable in the long run.
The capitalist system is based on the dogma of continuous growth and profit maximization. Within this framework the best way for capitalists to achieve these objectives is to pitilessly exploit our natural resources. The owners of the means of production have never hesitated and will never hesitate to pillage the environment, and to use the earth's resources as cannon fodder for their destructive profit. They have no interest in preserving these resources, as this would challenge their sacrosanct necessity of maximizing profit and furthering capitalist growth.
We have tried with utmost effort to put environmental constraints on capitalism, but these will always have the natural tendency to undo themselves. We have seen it clearly; despite the efforts of a lot of people to control the environmental situation, it has only gotten exponentially worse. The multiple summits and protocols such as Kyoto are only a drop of water in the ocean of capitalist pollution.


Currently, the capitalist tendency towards the globalization of markets drastically amplifies this destruction. The pollution caused by long distance transport of merchandise is growing considerably, due to the decentralization of the industries. Multinational corporations can freely establish themselves in the “Third World” where environmental regulations are almost non-existent, where they can kill two birds with one stone, by not having to respect “costly” environmental constraints while having access to unlimited pools of cheap labor . These are but a few examples of this phenomenon.
In light of this, it appears essential that we wage our environmental fight within a broader perspective and include within it, political and economic analysis of the questions we seek to address, especially since environmental groups have traditionally failed to do this adequately, if at all. From our perspective, it is impossible to solve environmental problems without attacking the tyrannical power of capitalism that is the principal cause and agent of these problems.
The doublespeak that is transmitted by the dominant ideology linking ecology with capitalism cannot improve things. Accords like Kyoto cannot save us from the miserable fate that capitalism has in store for our planet.
In a society driven by profit, the environment and its protection inevitably becomes just another obstacle for the big multinationals and the owners of the means of production in general . So we cannot expect from them and their accomplices, the Conservatives and the Liberals to put an end in this destruction. It is the task of the workers to create a society, with a democratically planned economy whose principal task is the satisfaction of human needs, with all respects to our environment. Only socialism can bring the salvation of the environment from the destructive force of capitalism.









by Dimitri Sideris

sonicbluetm
1st June 2008, 01:14
If anything forces the system to change it will be the physical world. Capitalism, as it functions today, is not sustainable and everyone knows it. And yet no one is doing anything, because anyone who CAN do anything is simply too comfortable.

Svante
1st June 2008, 01:50
it will b e good if USA sign Kyoto accord.

nvm
3rd June 2008, 01:49
it will b e good if USA sign Kyoto accord.

The Kyoto agreement won't solve shit as long as we live under capitalism.

Dean
3rd June 2008, 03:14
The Kyoto agreement won't solve shit as long as we live under capitalism.

You can't hold out against any measure of positive change while waiting for "the big one." Some things are reformist and genuinely help the people.

Vanguard1917
3rd June 2008, 04:55
The Kyoto Protocol was always about international capitalist rivalry. In particular, it was a weapon of the economically stagnant nations of the West - specifically those of Western Europe - to attack their economic rivals.

Western imperialism dominates the agenda set by Kyoto. Developing countries like China and India are being pressured to cut back on their industrial development, which was part of the agenda of the 2007 UN climate change talks at Bali. Like James Heartfield puts it in his book Green Capitalism, the deal struck there was about letting 'first world countries offset their industrial growth by persuading less developed countries to forego growth, and enlarge their forest reserves instead.'

Developing countries should stay as far away from these imperialist arrangements as possible.

nvm
3rd June 2008, 19:41
You can't hold out against any measure of positive change while waiting for "the big one." Some things are reformist and genuinely help the people.

Yes but the protocol doesn't have an enforcing character.
So it is pretty much useless.
This type of reform is pretty useless as no capitalist government can control the corporations. Although I agree with having transitional demands , this demand in particular is as I said useless. We'd rather as socialists critisize capitalism for the environmental problems, than promoting capitalist lies of capitalism trying to protect the environment by the Kyoto protocol .
I agree with Vanguard 1917 also.

dirtycommiebastard
3rd June 2008, 19:50
You can't hold out against any measure of positive change while waiting for "the big one." Some things are reformist and genuinely help the people.

Yes, but for these Green activists, it is important to point out that single causes such as protecting the environment actually lead to understanding that the underlying issue is the economic system.

I am not opposed to reform to protect the environment, as I support all minimum program demands, but to believe that the environment can be saved as long as the entire system is profit driven is scandalous.

Joe Hill's Ghost
6th June 2008, 01:43
The problem is that we have surrendered a lot of environmental demands to granola crunching liberals and anti human, deep ecology nutballs. We need to make the environment a class demand. We need to work more on incorporating environmental struggles as an issue for community organizing and a demand for working folk. If we want to stop logging we gotta organize the loggers. But we're not, and that's a big problem.

MarxSchmarx
6th June 2008, 21:26
Yes, but for these Green activists, it is important to point out that single causes such as protecting the environment actually lead to understanding that the underlying issue is the economic system.

Well, they might or might not. Lifestylism, "green investments", ethical consumerism etc... does a good job keeping class consciousness at bay. As long as these "capitalist" alternatives are seen as viable,and there is a massive propaganda campaign underway right now to make them seem valuable, there is little hope that the granola-crunchers will become tomorrow's agitators. We are burying our head in the sand if we assume environmentalists will "come around".

Pifreak
11th June 2008, 06:13
With North American politics the way they are, all you need to do is set up a platform saying you will meet Kyoto standards, and you'd probably win. The average public knows that the environment is a big issue, but they don't know any facts, and they just blindly follow whoever's made the biggest commitment to "saving" the environment.

Long-term environmental goals are usually BS, because you're hoping that your party will be around until 2020 or some other year a long way off. Plus, you can say "we're starting to do it", and avoid the topic, right up until your government falls.

Lost In Translation
12th June 2008, 03:25
With North American politics the way they are, all you need to do is set up a platform saying you will meet Kyoto standards, and you'd probably win. The average public knows that the environment is a big issue, but they don't know any facts, and they just blindly follow whoever's made the biggest commitment to "saving" the environment.

Long-term environmental goals are usually BS, because you're hoping that your party will be around until 2020 or some other year a long way off. Plus, you can say "we're starting to do it", and avoid the topic, right up until your government falls.

Yeah, I have to agree that long-term environmental goals are kinda messed up. The Conservatives of Canada have extended their plan to 2050 or some far-off year like that, which is ridiculous. First of all, you didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol, which makes all further "green" bills useless.

However, there are two ways to succeed in politics in North America. Go green, and lie. That's what Al Gore did, and look where it got him: more popularity than when he was a politician, and a Nobel Peace Prize. All he had to do was exaggerate the truth (and i mean REALLY exaggerate), and he has everybody in panic mode. Clever.

Pifreak
12th June 2008, 06:10
Yeah, I have to agree that long-term environmental goals are kinda messed up. The Conservatives of Canada have extended their plan to 2050 or some far-off year like that, which is ridiculous. First of all, you didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol, which makes all further "green" bills useless.

However, there are two ways to succeed in politics in North America. Go green, and lie. That's what Al Gore did, and look where it got him: more popularity than when he was a politician, and a Nobel Peace Prize. All he had to do was exaggerate the truth (and i mean REALLY exaggerate), and he has everybody in panic mode. Clever.

And if you manage to get an Oscar, you've suddenly got all the Oscar diehard fans.

Lost In Translation
12th June 2008, 16:52
Yeah, that's true. But the fact of the matter is, Al Gore may promote more "green" laws, but in truth, he's not very "green" himself. He has to go to all these places in his private jet. I realize that you have to travel across the world, Mr.Gore, but PRIVATE JET??!! Ridiculous. If you're going to make us be more aware of our surroundings, at least make it more convincing...

However, Capitalist countries are still pretty divided on the Kyoto Protocol. Most of the major European countries have signed it, but North America seems to be weary of it, but not doing much to improve the environment either.

Pifreak
13th June 2008, 05:02
2009 US budget:
Environmental Protection Agency (which never does anything): $8 billion.
Department of Education (which has the No Child Left Behind Act, which is total BS): $59 billion.
And the Department of Defense, which is clearly making progress in Iraq: $651 billion.

Priorities, much?

Lost In Translation
13th June 2008, 05:16
2009 US budget:
Environmental Protection Agency (which never does anything): $8 billion.
Department of Education (which has the No Child Left Behind Act, which is total BS): $59 billion.
And the Department of Defense, which is clearly making progress in Iraq: $651 billion.

Priorities, much?

Senate and Congress: We need to start thinking about the future.
White House: Nuh-uh, we should start thinking about conquests in the Middle East
S and C: But we need to prevent ourselves from being wiped off the Earth
WH: BS
S and C: Fine
WH: OK, you know what? We will make a change in the environment. *writes a cheque*. Here you go, $9 billion dollars for funding towards saving the environment
S and C: Wow, thanks. How much are you giving the Department of Defense?
WH: Don't worry, it's not much different from $9 billion dollars.

Next day's headlines for New York Times: WHITE HOUSE POURS $651 BILLION TO DEPT. OF DEFENCE AND THE MISSION TO IRAQ.


Yup, America got their priorities right. Not listening to Al Gore was a great step forward for them. Not signing the Kyoto Protocol was even better.