will China's economic leadership herald progressive change?

[Dr Mindbender]

When China overtakes the US as the no.1 economy as predicted in 30-40 years what effect will this have on the rest of the world?

Could the socialised aspects of it's political system have a trickledown effect that inspires a new global wave of communism or is China beyond the point of no return in it's rightwards gallop towards neo-liberalism?

Something about china's contempt for american style unilateralism tells me it cant do much worse.

Opinions?

[Dystisis]

I like the idea of China competing and taking over as the number one economic power. China more or less has the US by the balls economically, the States is in so much debt.

However, whether it will spell a bright (near) future for communism is hard to say because China is really capitalist (which is why it is competitive in the first place). It might be negative because it could not leave a "room" for a communist alternative.

[Dr Mindbender]

I like the idea of China competing and taking over as the number one economic power. China more or less has the US by the balls economically, the States is in so much debt.

However, whether it will spell a bright (near) future for communism is hard to say because China is really capitalist (which is why it is competitive in the first place). It might be negative because it could not leave a "room" for a communist alternative.
once china is in charge could it turn the tables and allow it to re-embrace it's old communistic principles?

This is my (albeit naive perhaps) hope.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

China isn't leading anything comrade. They won't have any water to drink or any air to breath by 2050.

[Lamanov]

And China is what? A collective brain of some kind that can "change its mind" on political line? Or is it a class society, where "general interests" are defined by the interests of the ruling class?

Historical materialism, comrade. Use it.

[Vanguard1917]

China isn't leading anything comrade. They won't have any water to drink or any air to breath by 2050.

OK, Mr Ehrlich. :thumbup1:

In reality, of course, as a result of China's colossal economic achievements (colossal in relation to the growth rates of the stagnant West), literally millions of people are being rescued from absolute poverty. Contrary to what many Western eco-imperialists may lead you into believing, as a result of industrial progress people in China are on average living longer and healthier lives than ever before. And as China industrialises, and as millions of people are saved from rural drudgery, we are seeing a massive growth of the size of the working class, the future gravediggers of capitalism.

Of course, China's 'economic miracle' is taking place not because of the Communist bureaucracy, but despite it. The Chinese state is a reactionary force and we should give our full backing to any movement of the Chinese people for social and political liberty.

The 'economic miracle' is also not taking place without contradictions. We should look forward to and support the Chinese working class in any present or future battles against its rulers. And if China does provide leadership in a future international socialist movement, it will come from the Chinese working class - not from the reactionary Chinese state.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Not really. Chinese living standards are a bit of a wash. Capitalist development has provided greater material goods. But, Maoism provided cradle to the grave benefits, something lacking in capitalist china. However, Mao was batshit insane to a certain degree, and periodically fucked everything up with his various initiatives.

Nowadays the Chinese are faced with a daunting set of problems, that would have never happened in Maoist china. For example, they are the fastest aging population on the planet, and there is no infrastructure to care for the 400 million elderly set in China's future.

Though environmental quality is the main issue. It's not a matter of "eco imperialism" its a matter of basic science. Many of China's cities are sinking into the ground, I repeat, they are sinking into the ground. Why? becuase China has depleted its water table so bad that the ground is compacting. China is entering a period of dangerous water shortage. The Yangtze and Yellow rivers are drying up, and the moist south has highly contaminated water. Most Chinese cities have moderate to severe air pollution, and 30% of China receives acid rain.

Coupled with the possibility of an AIDS pandemic, China is in no position for stable growth. It's heading for a very rough patch.

[BobKKKindle$]

Though environmental quality is the main issue. It's not a matter of "eco imperialism" its a matter of basic science...[etc]

China is already taking steps to improve the quality of the natural environment and avoid the threat of environmental degradation - the Three Gorges Dam is scheduled to become fully operational in 2011 (although some of the generators are already producing energy, which has allowed China to maintain a high rate of economic growth, and avoid the construction of additional coal plants which would be required to meet the increasing demand for electricity if the dam did not exist) and when completed will meet around ten percent of total electricity demand. The dam is the most powerful dam in the entire world and so clearly the Chinese government has recognized the importance of the environment, despite the lack of economic development, and the existence of other more pressing concerns such as the provision of healthcare. The imperialist states are more developed and have sufficient resources to conduct an extensive program of environmental energy construction, and yet have not been willing to do so (as shown by the US government's refusal to challenge the power of oil corporations and ratify the Kyoto protocol) and have instead attempted to force the developing world to bear the costs of averting environmental degradation, at the expense of economic development, which strengthens the relationship of dependency between the imperialist bloc and the third world.

China has accomplished an outstanding achievement in human rights - reducing the number of people living in absolute poverty by 400 million over a period of twenty years.

[SharStar]

I think China have a economic boom just becouse off their communism. The next big thing in the world history will be China's overtaking No.1. Then, we, communists and anarchists have a great playground in front of us.

Just be free!

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

China is already taking steps to improve the quality of the natural environment and avoid the threat of environmental degradation - the Three Gorges Dam is scheduled to become fully operational in 2011 (although some of the generators are already producing energy, which has allowed China to maintain a high rate of economic growth, and avoid the construction of additional coal plants which would be required to meet the increasing demand for electricity if the dam did not exist) and when completed will meet around ten percent of total electricity demand. The dam is the most powerful dam in the entire world and so clearly the Chinese government has recognized the importance of the environment, despite the lack of economic development, and the existence of other more pressing concerns such as the provision of healthcare. The imperialist states are more developed and have sufficient resources to conduct an extensive program of environmental energy construction, and yet have not been willing to do so (as shown by the US government's refusal to challenge the power of oil corporations and ratify the Kyoto protocol) and have instead attempted to force the developing world to bear the costs of averting environmental degradation, at the expense of economic development, which strengthens the relationship of dependency between the imperialist bloc and the third world.

China has accomplished an outstanding achievement in human rights - reducing the number of people living in absolute poverty by 400 million over a period of twenty years.

Cheerleading Chinese capitalists eh? How pleasant

The three gorges dam is not an indication of environmental prowess. Like any dam it offers some benefits and offers some big drawbacks. The three gorges dam is already harming water quality above the dam with algal blooms and greater erosion. The dam is trapping enormous amounts of silt, which will eventually cause the erosion and sinking of the lower Yangtze. Plus, without that silt, agricultural production will go down as soil quality will collapse. Though, I think the most pressing problem is that this will only speed up the drying out of the Yangtze. Is that environmentally sound, to help eliminate one of china’s lifelines? Nor will the dam make much of an impact on China’s ever growing climate footprint. The demand for energy is so high that the progress brought on by the dam won’t make much of any difference. Compared to China’s coal consumption, the dam is a bloody drop in the bucket.

While the Chinese government has a few programs to curb some of the more deleterious symptoms of its environmental collapse, it isn’t making much of a dent. Nor do these programs tend to work, as enforcement is plagued with corruption. Just as Shenzhen could enforce a building freeze, and you’d still see buildings shooting up everywhere, those same corrupt officials will look the other way on pollution audits.

I also resent this “eco imperialist" nonsense. The developing world was never forced to sign onto Kyoto. Capitalists have always encouraged the third world to piss away pollution and labor regulations. They don’t want china to be clean, they want it cheap and dirty. That way they don’t have to pay to clean it up, and china is stuck with the enormous costs. That is, if they can clean it up, I sort of doubt the ability of party bureaucrats to do much of anything right outside of executions and arbitrary rule making.

[Lamanov]

I think China have a economic boom just becouse off their communism. The next big thing in the world history will be China's overtaking No.1. Then, we, communists and anarchists have a great playground in front of us.

Just be free!

China isn't communist. It never was. China is/was capitalist.

China is experiencing a "boom" because it's a first industrial partner to many other nations, including USA. Its industrial capacities come from combined planning and utter poverty of its industrial workforce (very cheap labor power).

[Vanguard1917]

I also resent this “eco imperialist" nonsense. The developing world was never forced to sign onto Kyoto.


Do you think it should be? Because that is what the West is increasingly after. Western leaders are pretty anxious about growth in countries like China and India. They're trying to find ways to hold back development through enforcing their environmentalist prejudices on the industrialising nations of the East. This was part of the agenda of the 2007 talks in Bali, for example. Like Bobkindles pointed out above, the developing world is being pressured to cut back on its development under the guise of 'saving the planet'.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Do you think it should be? Because that is what the West is increasingly after. Western leaders are pretty anxious about growth in countries like China and India. They're trying to find ways to hold back development through enforcing their environmentalist prejudices on the industrialising nations of the East. This was part of the agenda of the 2007 talks in Bali, for example. Like Bobkindles pointed out above, the developing world is being pressured to cut back on its development under the guise of 'saving the planet'.

The developed world likes using China and India as sweatshops. The capital invested in those countries remains western capital, without it China and India would die, so its not like the west wants to constrain economic "development." What they want to do is lessen the massive carbon footprint that China and India are puking out, an imprint that will kill us all if it does not shrink. It has nothing to do with you or Bob's paranoia over environmentalism. Its a matter of staving off the worst effects of Global Warming, which will disproportionately harm the likes of China, India and the rest of the third world.

[Vanguard1917]

It's got nothing to do with 'paranoia'. It's a very real situation where Western elites are increasingly using environmentalist arguments to justify their demands that developing world countries ought to hold back much-needed economic development.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

It's got nothing to do with 'paranoia'. It's a very real situation where Western elites are increasingly using environmentalist arguments to justify their demands that developing world countries ought to hold back much-needed economic development.

The ever shortening of your responses suggests otherwise comrade. Environmentalism can be anti working class at times. But the Chinese economy is a ticking time bomb, by any standard. And when it goes off, the workring class will take the brunt of the blast. All that material "progress" is for naught if global warming comes to bare.

[Vanguard1917]

The ever shortening of your responses suggests otherwise comrade.


See, you are doing it, too: using environmentalist arguments to justify your view that the developing world should not be allowed to industrialise.



All that material "progress" is for naught if global warming comes to bare.


Actually, the more developed a society is economically, the less vulnerable it is to nature's caprice, and the better positioned it is to deal with any potential natural threats. That is why, today, in the developed world at least, our natural environment is better suited to human inhabitation than it has ever been before - precisely as a result of the development of our economic capabilities.

Whether we like it or not, telling developing countries to cut back on their CO2 emmisions would be the same as telling them to cut back on the economic development which they are so desperately in need of. After all, the countries with the lowest carbon dioxide emissions also tend to be the countries with the lowest standards of living - and vice versa (see this wikipedia list of countries by CO2 emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions_by_country). Demanding that developing countries should not develop is, in my opinion, criminal. It's a demand which we have to strongly oppose as leftists and progressives, rather than obey.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

See, you are doing it, too: using environmentalist arguments to justify your view that the developing world should not be allowed to industrialise.

I just think they should industrialize in a sustainable and smart way. One that doesn't involve sweatshops and satanic mills. Cuz you know, those workers inside them don't necessarily enjoy development in that respect either. But hey, better to side with Chinese capitalists, they know what's best for their workers!




Actually, the more developed a society is economically, the less vulnerable it is to nature's caprice, and the better positioned it is to deal with any potential natural threats. That is why, today, in the developed world at least, our natural environment is better suited to human inhabitation than it has ever been before - precisely as a result of the development of our economic capabilities.

Whether we like it or not, telling developing countries to cut back on their CO2 emmisions would be the same as telling them to cut back on the economic development which they are so desperately in need of. After all, the countries with the lowest carbon dioxide emissions also tend to be the countries with the lowest standards of living - and vice versa (see this wikipedia list of countries by CO2 emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions_by_country). Demanding that developing countries should not develop is, in my opinion, criminal. It's a demand which we have to strongly oppose as leftists and progressives, rather than obey.

So the other option is to develop via dirty methods, despoiling the planet and their own nations?

First of all. The industrialized world isn't necessarily well fit to meet the challenges of global warming. Hurricane Katrina showed how a global warming enhanced disaster can utterly annihilate the first world. So even if China and India succeeded in full development by 2070, they would face major disasters. Why? Because unmitigated carbon production would speed up catastrophic warming, something that won't hit us soon, or eventually, but whose effects have already arrived and are becoming progressively worse with every year. Most likely, climate related problems, will destroy any progress China had hoped to achieve with dirty development. Massive crop failures, disease epidemics, droughts, and super storms tend to do that.

Second you seem to hold the rest of the third world in contempt. China and India may be industrializing, but other countries are not. Catastrophic global warming will imiserate many others outside of the indsutrializing nations. Or is the elimination of countless pacific island nations a "small price to pay" for progress?

Third, you have once again ignored the material impact of current pollution. The Yangtze, and Yellow rivers are disappearing. Acid rain hits 30 percent of China. Smog levels are through the roof. If this continues without a major change, there won't be many Chinese left to enjoy the benefits of industrialization. That is if China ever moves on from its labor intensive manufacturer status. I'm not sure it will.

[Vanguard1917]

I just think they should industrialize in a sustainable and smart way. One that doesn't involve sweatshops and satanic mills. Cuz you know, those workers inside them don't necessarily enjoy development in that respect either. But hey, better to side with Chinese capitalists, they know what's best for their workers!

No, Chinese industrialists cannot be expected to act in the interests of Chinese workers. But, then again, nor can Western eco-imperialists. In contrast to Western environmentalists, most people in China welcome China becoming a richer, more developed country.



First of all. The industrialized world isn't necessarily well fit to meet the challenges of global warming.


And it would be better fit to do so if it was less industrialised?


Hurricane Katrina showed how a global warming enhanced disaster can utterly annihilate the first world.

No, it didn't. First, you have no grounds to suggest that global warming 'enhanced' the hurricane. Second, what the hurricane showed was that governments in rich countries have the resources to act and protect people, but whether they do or not is another matter.

But, nonetheless, it is an empirical fact that natural disasters are having less and less of an impact on human society than ever before. The economic development which the environmentalists so despise is responsible for this.


So even if China and India succeeded in full development by 2070, they would face major disasters. Why? Because unmitigated carbon production would speed up catastrophic warming, something that won't hit us soon, or eventually, but whose effects have already arrived and are becoming progressively worse with every year. Most likely, climate related problems, will destroy any progress China had hoped to achieve with dirty development. Massive crop failures, disease epidemics, droughts, and super storms tend to do that.


These are neo-Malthusian predictions which have no basis in fact. Such predictions of ecological collapse and food shortages have been around for a long time. The academic Paul R Ehrlich, for example, has famously been making a bunch of them for decades (see below). Fortunately, they have always proved to be utterly wrong.


Second you seem to hold the rest of the third world in contempt. China and India may be industrializing, but other countries are not. Catastrophic global warming will imiserate many others outside of the indsutrializing nations. Or is the elimination of countless pacific island nations a "small price to pay" for progress?


:confused: Industrial development is needed worldwide - not just in a few select areas, as is the case under capitalism. The more developed societies are economically, the less vulnerable they are to the destructive aspects of nature, as i have already pointed out.


-------

Ehrlich's predictions:

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, ... The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." Paul Ehrlich in an interview with Peter Collier in the April 1970 of the magazine Mademoiselle.

"By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." Paul Ehrlich in special Earth Day (1970) issue of the magazine Ramparts.

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (Population Bomb 1968)

"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)

"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." (1969)

"By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million." (1969)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

No, Chinese industrialists cannot be expected to act in the interests of Chinese workers. But, then again, nor can Western eco-imperialists. In contrast to Western environmentalists, most people in China welcome China becoming a richer, more developed country. “eco imperialism” doesn’t really exist. The developed world wants to continue using the third world as an industrial waste heap. They only want to reduce its carbon emissions, so that its industrial production doesn’t screw them over. Though I’m sure Chinese workers really enjoy the sweatshops and coal mines.


No, it didn't. First, you have no grounds to suggest that global warming 'enhanced' the hurricane. Second, what the hurricane showed was that governments in rich countries have the resources to act and protect people, but whether they do or not is another matter.

It is an empirical fact that natural disasters are having less and less of an impact on human society than ever before. The economic development which the environmentalists so despise is responsible for this. There are ample grounds to show that Hurricane Katrina and Rita were enhanced due to global warming. Global warming has been increasing the intensity and the number of hurricanes in the US for some time. Katrina was part of that increase.

The response to Katrina was in many ways less effective than the Chinese response to recent earthquakes. It’s clear proof that even the most developed nation in the world can royally fuck up with a disaster disaster.

Also, natural disasters will not have “less and less” of an effect. We’re in the middle of one of the greatest mass extinctions in human history, deserts are exploding in size, storm seasons are lengthening, and we’re in the middle of a massive drought, a drought that is driving up food prices, causing starvation worldwide. We’re betting that our technology can save us, and often it does, but sometimes technology doesn’t catch up. Often there’s a lot of misery and pain in the gap.


Industrial development is needed worldwide - not just in a few select areas, as is the case under capitalism. The more developed societies are economically, the less vulnerable they are to the destructive aspects of nature, as i have already pointed out. Well you’ve made my argument for me. Industrial development under capitalism is unlikely to happen worldwide. Capitalism needs a global lack of development, in order to make profits. China and India have taken on a labor intensive manufacturing role. But this will end if their workers demand higher wages or if their workforce shrinks. Can it transition to a developed first world style economy? I’m doubtful, developed economies need to exploit undeveloped economies and the addition of China and India screws up the scales. Besides most indo/sino industrial capital is foreign and thus mobile.


These are neo-Malthusian predictions which have no basis in fact. Such predictions of ecological collapse and food shortages have been around for a long time. The academic Paul R Ehrlich, for example, has famously been making a bunch of them for decades (see below). Fortunately, they have always proved to be utterly wrong. Neo Malthusian my ass. If carbon emissions continue to go up without serious reduction, there will massive catastrophes. Katrina was a preview of what’s to come. China already has a myriad of problems; do you honestly think that it can handle the effects of catastrophic global warming on to top of it?

The main reason why Ehrlich continues to be wrong is that people did something about the problems he mentioned. The ozone layer threatened to toast us alive? Well we got rid of CFCs and the problem is now largely fixed. Global warming threatening the deaths of hundreds of millions? Well, then we stop pumping out carbon! Very simple. Nothing Malthusian about solving problems with available technology. Malthus’s theories are not intrinsically wrong, they’re wrong because humans recognize the problem and find a solution. Plugging your eyes and ears and screaming “LALALALALALA DEVELOPMENT FIRST LALALALALA” is absurd. That’s not solving the problem. We can’t just ignore the environment. China has the chance to develop a green industrial economy, they should take it.

[Vanguard1917]

There are ample grounds to show that Hurricane Katrina and Rita were enhanced due to global warming.


No, there really aren't.



The response to Katrina was in many ways less effective than the Chinese response to recent earthquakes. It’s clear proof that even the most developed nation in the world can royally fuck up with a disaster disaster.



Due to political and social reasons. There was no absolute inability in the US to deal with the disaster and alleviate the suffering of the people involved. The US government was largely to blame for its lack of action.



Well you’ve made my argument for me. Industrial development under capitalism is unlikely to happen worldwide.


Yes, but you're against development anyway, where it does actually take place.



Neo Malthusian my ass. If carbon emissions continue to go up without serious reduction, there will massive catastrophes.


So you claim.

Of course, we should seek to reduce CO2 emissions in the long term. We need, for example, far more investment in nuclear power, so that we can have an abundant supply of relatively clean energy to fuel the massive industrial developments that the world requires. But, right now, it is not CO2 emissions which are killing and bringing suffering to lives of hundreds of millions of people - it is poverty due to lack of development. Development is our priority.



The main reason why Ehrlich continues to be wrong is that people did something about the problems he mentioned.


No, the reason why Ehrlich's predictions invariably proved to wrong was because they were sensationalist fear-mongering which had no basis in fact whatsoever. Sound familiar?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

No, there really aren't. Do you not study the science? Everyone agrees that while we cannot attribute causation, because well meteorology is an inexact science, we can clearly deduce that Global warming enhanced Katrina and is causing the increasing intensity of storms and the lengthening of the storm season

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/050915_stormfrm.htm

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11661


So, although we cannot be certain global warming intensified Katrina per se, it clearly has created circumstances under which powerful storms are more likely to occur at this point in history (and in the future) than they were in the past. Moreover, it would be scientifically unsound to conclude that Katrina was not intensified by global warming. A reasonable assessment of the science suggests that we will face similar events again and that powerful storms are likely to happen more often than we have been accustomed to in the past.

http://www.pewclimate.org/specialreports/katrina.cfm

This is basic stuff.



Due to political and social reasons. There was no absolute inability in the US to deal with the disaster and alleviate the suffering of the people involved. The US government was largely to blame for its lack of action. Your point? Cuba isn’t too developed and they have one of the most effective disaster response polices on the planet. This isn’t rocket science. You don’t need faster than light travel to deal with disasters. Anyone can fall to a natural disaster; it’s a matter of preparedness more than anything else.


Yes, but you're against development anyway, where it does actually take place. Glad to see you putting words in my mouth. I’m not against development, I’ve made that clear. I’m against dirty development, especially usually does not confer first world stauts.. China may be developing now, but capitalism may well lay it on its feet. Foreign capital is itching to leave. Take a gander at this article (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fsb/0808/gallery.china_cost.fsb/index.html?cnn=yes). Small business is sort of like a Canary in the mine, once they start falling, the rest are next.

Why do you have such a fetish for dirty industrialization? Are you in favor of sweatshops, and coal mines? Do you like respiratory illnesses, cancer etc?


No, the reason why Ehrlich's predictions invariably proved to wrong was because they were sensationalist fear-mongering which had no basis in fact whatsoever. Sound familiar? Before we took action, we were facing those apocalyptic predictions. The Cleveland River went on fire, for Christ sakes! The ozone layer was disappearing! Without swift action we would have been fucked.


So you claim.

Of course, we should seek to reduce CO2 emissions in the long term. We need, for example, far more investment in nuclear power, so that we can have an abundant supply of relatively clean energy to fuel the massive industrial developments that the world requires. But, right now, it is not CO2 emissions which are killing and bringing suffering to lives of hundreds of millions of people - it is poverty due to lack of development. Development is our priority Poverty is product of capitalism. You cannot “develop” the world under capitalism to eliminate poverty. That’s some sort of economic determinist fantasy. All you do is shift the pie around a bit. First world workers have taken a big hit in the past 30 years. Much of that extra exploitation has been reinvested in East Asia, as has a lot of foreign capital that once was invested in Africa. Development might not be coming. China is facing the improbable task of moving into the first world, and foreign capital isn’t having it.

Meanwhile CO2 emissions are already killing people. That worldwide drought we’re in is the product of climate change. These heightened storms, and heightened desertification are the product of global warming, and it’s only going to get worse. Tropical diseases are going to spread, low lying nations will sink, water tables will contaminate with salt, storms will become worse. Even the Chinese Government admits (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/article1694636.ece) that this is a significant danger. But they do little to nothing because the effects will be born by the working class, not the party bureaucrats. This is a working class issue and we need to take action now.

[Vanguard1917]

Do you not study the science? Everyone agrees that while we cannot attribute causation, because well meteorology is an inexact science, we can clearly deduce that Global warming enhanced Katrina and is causing the increasing intensity of storms and the lengthening of the storm season

You said that 'Hurricane Katrina showed how a global warming enhanced disaster can utterly annihilate the first world'. I'm saying that it doesn't show this at all.



Your point?


That social and political reasons were behind America's lack of action, not an absolute inability to deal with the natural disaster.



Glad to see you putting words in my mouth. I’m not against development, I’ve made that clear.


Have you not argued that the developing world should reduce (!) its CO2 emissions? This is, for all intents and purposes, the same as saying that the developing world should not develop.


Why do you have such a fetish for dirty industrialization? Are you in favor of sweatshops, and coal mines? Do you like respiratory illnesses, cancer etc?

Do you have a 'fetish' for rural drudgery, low life expectancies and high child mortality rates?

You don't have to be an apologist for capitalism to see that industrial development is better than industrial underdevelopment. Indeed, the primary reason why we Marxists oppose capitalism in the first place is that it cannot bring about enough industrial development.



Poverty is product of capitalism. You cannot “develop” the world under capitalism to eliminate poverty.


But you are against development where it is, however limited, actually taking place. Development in China and India in the past few decades have saved literally millions of people from absolute poverty. Life expectancy has radically increased and child mortality rates are lower than ever before. People are in general living longer and healthier lives than ever before.

Yet you are sitting there and arguing that this development has been nothing but bad news. You are even going as far as to argue that these countries should not have been allowed to develop in the first place.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

You said that 'Hurricane Katrina showed how a global warming enhanced disaster can utterly annihilate the first world'. I'm saying that it doesn't show this at all. You are saying it but, you suffer from a terminal lack of evidence. Your assertions seem to be in ample supply, but you’ve not got much else.

Now lets break this down bit by bit. The two main points of my statement are that Katrina was enhanced by global warming, and that this demonstrated that even the first world is unfit to respond to certain disasters.

The first part of my statement is pretty straightforward. Was Katrina Global warming enhanced? Well, while meteorology can never say with 100% certainty, it is generally accepted that Katrina was turbocharged because of global warming. As the Pew Center report states


Moreover, it would be scientifically unsound to conclude that Katrina was not intensified by global warming. A reasonable assessment of the science suggests that we will face similar events again and that powerful storms are likely to happen more often than we have been accustomed to in the past.

http://www.pewclimate.org/specialreports/katrina.cfm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.pewclimate.org/specialreports/katrina.cfm)

Katrina had a greater punch due to global warming. It makes perfect sense, tropical storms are fueled by warm water, and global warming warms ocean temperatures.

Now let’s look at the second claim. Did the response to Katrina show that a first world nation could be brought low by a natural disaster like any other? The evidence points to yes. A lot of, if not the majority of, New Orleans was destroyed by Katrina. It was an utter disaster. Meanwhile, nations like Cuba are generally pretty good at dealing with similar disasters, despite the fact that Cuba does not have the same level of development.

On both counts my argument holds water. Katrina was global warming enhanced, and the damage done demonstrated the vulnerability of first world nations. QED


Have you not argued that the developing world should reduce (!) its CO2 emissions? This is, for all intents and purposes, the same as saying that the developing world should not develop. Well this would be the case if humans were foolish and uninventive creatures. Thankfully this is not. We already have the technology to build green industry. China could bring to bear the economies of scale necessary to make it affordable. And while it may cost marginally more in the present, the long term benefits are immense. China will no longer suffer from acid rain, mass respiratory sicknesses, drying rivers etc. Nor will the Chinese need to procure enormous amounts of expensive fossil fuels. It’s a win win for everyone!


Do you have a 'fetish' for rural drudgery, low life expectancies and high child mortality rates?

You don't have to be an apologist for capitalism to see that industrial development is better than industrial underdevelopment. Indeed, the primary reason why we Marxists oppose capitalism in the first place is that it cannot bring about enough industrial development. Of course not, but I do not enjoy sweatshops either. This is the same sort of argument that capitalists use. “Oh well sweatshops are better than life on the farm!” Really? It depends, especially when most of those workers don’t have a choice in the matter. Market forces made them abandon the land and enter the industrial workforce. Tell me, how do the hundreds of millions of migrant workers feel about capitalism? Do you think they would prefer cradle to the grave programs or their current destitution?

This is the problem with fetishizing industrial “development.” Primitive accumulation is not very pretty, and that is why we anarchists reject such economic determinism.


[/quote] But you are against development where it is, however limited, actually taking place. Development in China and India in the past few decades have saved literally millions of people from absolute poverty. Life expectancy has radically increased and child mortality rates are lower than ever before. People are in general living longer and healthier lives than ever before.

Yet you are sitting there and arguing that this development has been nothing but bad news. You are even going as far as to argue that these countries should not have been allowed to develop in the first place.[/quote]

I am not against “development.” I’m against capitalism. I don’t mind if China industrializes, that’s good for post revolutionary production. My point is that I don’t think it matters in the long run. Capitalist “development” isn’t liable to work very well. Capital concentrates in one place for a while, and then it goes somewhere else. Just like the American rustbelt, China too could see the wonders of undevelopment within a generation, and suddenly its social indicators could all fall backward. And all they’ll have to look forward to is a future of environmental misery. Capital won’t care, it’ll move on to the newest low cost supplier, until they too start getting uppity.

Also I’d like to some evidence for your assertions. I provide sources so should you.

[Vanguard1917]

Now lets break this down bit by bit. The two main points of my statement are that Katrina was enhanced by global warming, and that this demonstrated that even the first world is unfit to respond to certain disasters.



America was not unfit to respond to the disaster. It had all the resources to act rapidly and alleviate human suffering. The fact that it didn't was a result of social and political factors, not its objective inability to act, which makes its incompetence all the more objectionable.

But would America have been more fit to act if it was less developed? Of course not. The fact that it had to resources to act in the first place is itself a product of its material wealth.



You are saying it but, you suffer from a terminal lack of evidence.


You're using sensationalist rhetoric which does not correspond to reality. America was not at risk of 'annihilation' from the Hurricane. Although it is of course tragic that so many lives were lost, less than 2,000 dead from a population of over 300 million is not anywhere close to being 'annihilated'. Your use of such rhetoric indicates that you're more interested in provoking emotional reactions than having rational debate.


Well this would be the case if humans were foolish and uninventive creatures. Thankfully this is not. We already have the technology to build green industry. China could bring to bear the economies of scale necessary to make it affordable. And while it may cost marginally more in the present, the long term benefits are immense. China will no longer suffer from acid rain, mass respiratory sicknesses, drying rivers etc. Nor will the Chinese need to procure enormous amounts of expensive fossil fuels. It’s a win win for everyone!


How do you suggest that developing coutries bring about the massive industrial developments that they require by at the same time reducing their CO2 levels?


Of course not, but I do not enjoy sweatshops either. This is the same sort of argument that capitalists use. “Oh well sweatshops are better than life on the farm!” Really? It depends, especially when most of those workers don’t have a choice in the matter. Market forces made them abandon the land and enter the industrial workforce.

And you don't think this is a progressive step? Do you seriously believe that the workers in Bejing have any desire to return to the farms and peasant life in general?

As socialists, we don't defend capitalist exploitation. We see the industrial working class as the only revolutionary class, so we support them fully in their struggles against capital. Indeed, a growing industrial workforce is cause for optimism for socialists. The more gravediggers of capitalism the better.

While we expose exploitation in the factories, we don't celebrate peasant life. Industrialisation represents historical progress, something which socialists seek to build upon.



Also I’d like to some evidence for your assertions. I provide sources so should you.


You really need me to find sources about life expectancy having increased and child mortality rates having decreased in China and India? You really dispute this?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

You're using sensationalist rhetoric which does not correspond to reality. America was not at risk of 'annihilation' from the Hurricane. Although it is of course tragic that so many lives were lost, less than 2,000 dead from a population of over 300 million is not anywhere close to being 'annihilated'. Your use of such rhetoric indicates that you're more interested in provoking emotional reactions than having rational debate.
Have you been to New Orleans since the storm? The city was practically leveled! I first went last summer, nearly two years after the fact, and most of the city was still in ruins. The lower 9th ward didn’t exist; it was like the city had been nuked. Do you know anyone who died there? The official numbers were kept deliberately low; they don’t include the thousands that died in much of the aftermath. People talked about pitched battles between gangs and National Guardsmen. Common Ground has a pretty good documentry, shot by a Danish volunteer. He videotaped white vigilantes boasting about hunting people of color like they were turkeys. 1800 just don’t cover it.

Keep in mind this is only one big hurricane, and it caused enough damage to level most of a major city. What do think is gonna happen when tropical disease vectors spread north, while drought hits heartland? There’s only so many problems that we can deal with at one time.


How do you suggest that developing coutries bring about the massive industrial developments that they require by at the same time reducing their CO2 levels? Oh I don’t know. Solar power, wind power, tidal power, biodiesel, switchgrass ethanol, even nuclear power at this point. China has the energy resources to power a carbon neutral, industrial economy. We don’t need to play chicken with the climate in the name of progress. China can develop without contributing to greatest man made disaster in history.


You really need me to find sources about life expectancy having increased and child mortality rates having decreased in China and India? You really dispute this?
Well yes, specifically for China. According to Wikipedia, life expectancy at the end of Mao’s rule hovered around 70. The most optimistic and up to date, accounts on life expectancy come from the Chinese government, and they claim it around 73. So 3 years gain after 30 years of capitalist development? Rather weak eh? I have a feeling infant mortality may be similar.



And you don't think this is a progressive step? Do you seriously believe that the workers in Bejing have any desire to return to the farms and peasant life in general?

As socialists, we don't defend capitalist exploitation. We see the industrial working class as the only revolutionary class, so we support them fully in their struggles against capital. Indeed, a growing industrial workforce is cause for optimism for socialists. The more gravediggers of capitalism the better.

While we expose exploitation in the factories, we don't celebrate peasant life. Industrialisation represents historical progress, something which socialists seek to build upon.
Do you honestly think the hundred million Chinese migrant workers prefer living as illegal aliens in their own country? Do you honestly think that people who live in makeshift camps, moving from job to job, doing dangerous backbreaking work, wouldn’t hop at the chance to have a home and a farm? Peasant life sucks for sure. But let’s not glorify industrial worker either. Especially not for the super exploited labor that allows China to develop. No matter how many times you can slap a “progressive” label on the process. Sacrificing the lives and dignity of 100 million people in order to industrialize is no progress in my book.

[trivas7]

When China overtakes the US as the no.1 economy as predicted in 30-40 years what effect will this have on the rest of the world?

30-40 is an awful long timeline to say anything meaningful re. Who can say what consequences follow from environmental crises sure to come to China (http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Collapse-China-Gordon-Chang/dp/0812977564/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218521242&sr=8-1) within the next 10-20 years?

[Vanguard1917]

Have you been to New Orleans since the storm? The city was practically leveled! I first went last summer, nearly two years after the fact, and most of the city was still in ruins. The lower 9th ward didn’t exist; it was like the city had been nuked. Do you know anyone who died there? The official numbers were kept deliberately low; they don’t include the thousands that died in much of the aftermath. People talked about pitched battles between gangs and National Guardsmen. Common Ground has a pretty good documentry, shot by a Danish volunteer. He videotaped white vigilantes boasting about hunting people of color like they were turkeys. 1800 just don’t cover it.



What are you arguing exactly?



Keep in mind this is only one big hurricane, and it caused enough damage to level most of a major city.


The extent of the damage caused was a consequence of various factors, which can be addressed. For example, the flooding showed that the city's flood defence systems were inadequate. Building better flood defence systems is a very rational solution. There is no need for eco-sensationalism about 'annihilation' and apocalypse.



Oh I don’t know. Solar power, wind power, tidal power, biodiesel, switchgrass ethanol, even nuclear power at this point.


Well, you should learn if you don't know. Things like wind turbines and solar panels aren't going to fuel industrial development anywhere. At best, they can supplement main energy production. Also, they have a tendency to be highly expensive, unreliable and inefficient.

Nuclear power is the only real alternative to coal and oil. But nuclear power stations aren't built overnight. For now, whether we like it or not, coal and oil are going to be key to economic development in the developing world. Telling developing countries to not use the energy that they require is the same as telling them not to develop.


Well yes, specifically for China. According to Wikipedia, life expectancy at the end of Mao’s rule hovered around 70. The most optimistic and up to date, accounts on life expectancy come from the Chinese government, and they claim it around 73.

No, your facts are wrong. Life expectancy at the end of Mao's rule (1976) was less than 65. In 1960, it was around 45. In 1955, it was around 41 (source (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=18&Country=CN)). Today, it's around 73 according to most accounts (source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html)).

The infant mortality rate was 49 per 1000 in 1980, 85 per 1000 in 1970, and 150 per 1000 in 1960 (source) (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?Country=CN&IndicatorID=25). Today, it's around 21 per 1000 (source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html)).

Industrial development in India has brought about similar achievements. Life expectancy today is around 70 (source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html)). In 2000 it was 62, in 1970 it was 48, and in 1960 it was around 43 (source (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?Country=IN&IndicatorID=18)).

The infant mortality rate today in India is around 32 deaths per 1000 (source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html)). In 1990 it was 84 deaths and in 1960 it was 146 deaths (source (http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?Country=IN&IndicatorID=25)).

In other words economic development has given way to staggering decreases in infant mortality rates and high increases in life expectancy rates.



But let’s not glorify industrial worker either. Especially not for the super exploited labor that allows China to develop. No matter how many times you can slap a “progressive” label on the process.


It's not about 'glorifying' industrial work. It's about pointing out that however downtrodden and exploitative it is under capitalism, it's still progressive in comparison to life in rural backwardness. Ask the millions of workers who are migrating to the cities if life is preferable in the countrysides. The answer will be, no, it certainly ain't.