Recession = good for the environment?

[Vanguard1917]

...at least temporarily.

With the financial crisis (caused largely by the greedy public borrowing crazy sums of money to feed its addictions to consumerism) affecting the so-called 'real economy' and a recession forthcoming, i think the potential benefits to the eco-system are obvious. A recession would mean falling levels of productive output, factories shutting down, drops in living standards, people losing their jobs and possibly their homes. Since nature can't sustain the obscene levels of development and living standards we have had in recent years, a recession would ultimately be good news. For a start, with less money to go around, we have the perfect solution to the public's gross obsession with consumerism and crap that they don't need, e.g. DVD players, cars and meat.

There are, of course, those who will argue that recession cannot be justified because it would have a negative impact on human life. Nonsense. It should be clear to all that we are all fucked if nature can't sustain economic development. Like British newspaper columnist and the liberal-left's favourite eco-activist George Monbiot put it last year, 'I recognise that recession causes hardship. Like everyone I am aware that it would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes' - but 'I hope that the recession now being forecast by some economists materialises' because it would 'prevent economic growth from blowing us through Canaan and into the desert on the other side.'

It's too bad, though, that capitalism has a pretty good track record of recovering from its economic downturns, which is why i said that the benefits to Gaia will probably only be temporary. Shame we can't have permanent recessions, eh?

[Dean]

This trolling bullshit should be trashed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This trolling bullshit should be trashed.

How about you point out why he is wrong, rather than just crying "troll!".

VG1917 is fundamentally right - a high-tech society that provides all with the essentials (communism) or a minority in obscene luxury (capitalism) is going to consume more energy and by extension damage the environment more than a society that consumes less energy; which is what a large amount of environmentalists are encouraging.

A high-energy society is more capable not only of benefitting it's members but also of fixing any damage it causes. A society that is barely getting by using renewables only is not going to have the spare energy to fix things and clean up messes. And are pretty shitty to live in when it's still and/or cloudy.

[Dean]

How about you point out why he is wrong, rather than just crying "troll!".

VG1917 is fundamentally right - a high-tech society that provides all with the essentials (communism) or a minority in obscene luxury (capitalism) is going to consume more energy and by extension damage the environment more than a society that consumes less energy; which is what a large amount of environmentalists are encouraging.

A high-energy society is more capable not only of benefitting it's members but also of fixing any damage it causes. A society that is barely getting by using renewables only is not going to have the spare energy to fix things and clean up messes. And are pretty shitty to live in when it's still and/or cloudy.

Seems like you just explained why he is wrong. :laugh:

[Lynx]

McCarthyism (ie. green baiting) doesn't belong in Sciences and Environment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Seems like you just explained why he is wrong. :laugh:

Are you brain damaged? VG1917 was making the point that a recession forces people to tighten their belts, something which greens have been trying to convince people to do for some years now.

My point was a high-tech society that produces enough resources to satisfy all (regardless of whether that actually happens) by necessity damages the environment. It's something that simply cannot be avoided. But a high-energy society can devote some of it's energy to cleaning up it's messes, while a so-called "sustainable" society cannot.


McCarthyism (ie. green baiting) doesn't belong in Sciences and Environment.

Oh please. Greens are not being oppressed, silenced or persecuted on this forum, so spare us the melodramatics.

[Lynx]

Are you brain damaged? VG1917 was making the point that a recession forces people to tighten their belts, something which greens have been trying to convince people to do for some years now.

My point was a high-tech society that produces enough resources to satisfy all (regardless of whether that actually happens) by necessity damages the environment. It's something that simply cannot be avoided. But a high-energy society can devote some of it's energy to cleaning up it's messes, while a so-called "sustainable" society cannot.
A sustainable society is the criteria through which we take a long term view of current practices and predict whether we are on the right path.


Oh please. Greens are not being oppressed, silenced or persecuted on this forum, so spare us the melodramatics.
The greens Vanguard rails against rarely frequent this forum. His crusade would be more productive if it were taken elsewhere.

[Vanguard1917]

Oh please. Greens are not being oppressed, silenced or persecuted on this forum, so spare us the melodramatics.


The idea that there is a McCarthyite suppression of environmentalist ideology in society is immensely absurd given that basically every single government in the Western world accepts environmentalist dogma and that it is in fact environmentalists themselves who are the ones trying to suppress those who question their worldview by comparing them to them to holocaust deniers and child abusers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A sustainable society is the criteria through which we take a long term view of current practices and predict whether we are on the right path.

Yes, and opinions differ. What is your point?


The greens Vanguard rails against rarely frequent this forum.

VG1917 doesn't seem to think so. He's not breaking any rules so far as I can see, and if you guys aren't the type of greens he dislikes, why are you so bothered?


The idea that there is a McCarthyite suppression of environmentalist ideology in society is immensely absurd given that basically every single government in the Western world accepts environmentalist dogma and that it is in fact environmentalists themselves who are the ones trying to suppress those who question their worldview by comparing them to them to holocaust deniers and child abusers.

Do you have any examples of environmentalists doing this?

[Lynx]

Yes, and opinions differ. What is your point?
That sustainability is a criteria. It doesn't mean a society must be low energy or low tech.


VG1917 doesn't seem to think so. He's not breaking any rules so far as I can see, and if you guys aren't the type of greens he dislikes, why are you so bothered?
I suppose I'm bothered in much the same way I'm bothered by the energizer bunny...


Do you have any examples of environmentalists doing this?
He can find examples of environmental advocacy within the capitalist framework, some of which are promoted by the bourgoisie and the rest by non-socialists. Such things are normal.

[Vanguard1917]

Do you have any examples of environmentalists doing this?


It's very common for environmentalists to compare to holocaust-deniers scientists and commentators who question either the existence or severity of man-made climate change. Like one Aussie columnist puts it, 'Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.' See this article (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/) for more on that and other ways in which greens are trying to silence opposition.

The comparison of those who go against green codes of living with child abusers was famously made by George Monbiot, who argued that, due to global warming, 'flying across the Atlantic is now as unacceptable as child abuse'. (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1999/07/29/meltdown/)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That sustainability is a criteria. It doesn't mean a society must be low energy or low tech.

Sustainability is indeed a legitimate criterion, but I disagree with the Greens that are anti-nuclear. Bringing back reprocessing (which vastly extends the fuel cycle and hence the energy extracted), using breeder reactors, prospecting for more uranium supplies and utilising other fissionables such as Thorium* will give us more than enough energy for the forseeable future.

It's just too damn good an opportunity for us to pass up.

*There is more energy in Thorium than in fossil fuels and uranium combined. Source (http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photothorium.html).

[butterfly]

I'm sorry but what we're seeing is on par with genocide, the recession makes me giggle.
NoXion the article say's Thorium has a half-life of 14b years, I think you mentioned storage in tectonic plates, are there any risk's associated with that...for example if the plates shift, couldn't the thorium be released into the water supply?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm sorry but what we're seeing is on par with genocide, the recession makes me giggle.
NoXion the article say's Thorium has a half-life of 14b years, I think you mentioned storage in tectonic plates, are there any risk's associated with that...for example if the plates shift, couldn't the thorium be released into the water supply?

No. Bury it deep enough under the ground and any leakage of nuclear waste will have to not only fight gravity all the way, but somehow travel through hundreds of feet of strata to contaminate the topsoil and the water table. Remember that Thorium and Uranium have been lying in the ground without any kind of protection whatsoever for billions of years, yet most creatures don't end up getting born with two heads.

Also, the fact that Thorium's half-life is so long means that it gives off much less energy in the form of radiation per hour than an equivalent mass of radioisotope with a shorter half-life. Basically, the really dangerous stuff you can simply store for a while in a lead box, and when that's all gone you can bury it along with the low-level waste.

Also, reprocessing and breeder reactors can significantly reduce final waste mass.

Disposal isn't as big a deal as the anti-nukies make it out to be.

[JimmyJazz]

Can this really be a Vanguard1917 thread? I'm so confused.

[Dean]

Are you brain damaged? VG1917 was making the point that a recession forces people to tighten their belts, something which greens have been trying to convince people to do for some years now.

My point was a high-tech society that produces enough resources to satisfy all (regardless of whether that actually happens) by necessity damages the environment. It's something that simply cannot be avoided. But a high-energy society can devote some of it's energy to cleaning up it's messes, while a so-called "sustainable" society cannot.

He said a recession helps the environment. I said it was bullshit. Then you said that a "high tech" society is going to ultimately benefit our economic standing as well as the environment. This means, conceivably, that a more developed society will be good for the environment - something a recession will deter. In other words, you contradict him.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Vanguard[of international capital?]1917
It's too bad, though, that capitalism has a pretty good track record of recovering from its economic downturns, which is why i said that the benefits to Gaia will probably only be temporary. Shame we can't have permanent recessions, eh?

Yes, nice sarcasm. But it doesn't absolve you from the charge that you sound like a champion of capital rather than a communist. The political consequences of your comment above is that we should support all efforts at re-establishing a healthy capitalism. Because it benefits us more than a failing one, right? :rolleyes:

You should join the Labour Party where they value such class-compromised doublethink.

[Vanguard1917]

But it doesn't absolve you from the charge that you sound like a champion of capital rather than a communist.


In what sense?


The political consequences of your comment above is that we should support all efforts at re-establishing a healthy capitalism.

How did you work that out?

The purpose of this thread was to show that, from the POV of the logic of environmentalist ideology, economic recession should be seen as welcome because it reduces economic output and living standards - which is why eco-loonies like George Monbiot support and welcome a recession.


Because it benefits us more than a failing one, right? http://www.revleft.com/vb/recession-good-environment-t92134/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


Capitalism in recession is, of course, generally a lot worse for working people than a capitalism not in recession. Jobs losses and the rising cost of living cause living standards to decline and poverty to increase.

The point is to take political advantage of the crisis in capital by calling for a more advanced way of organising society which will in the long-term increase productivity and continually raise living standards, rather than do what the environmentalists are doing, i.e. calling for greater restraint in productivity and caps on living standards.

Are you having difficulty understanding why the latter is reactionary in that it creates very powerful apologism for the current system of production?

[Hit The North]

Are you having difficulty understanding why the latter is reactionary in that it creates very powerful apologism for the current system of production?

Not at all. Are you having difficulty understanding that if you repeatedly post snide threads like this as a way of attacking environmentalist but fail, once again, to mention SOCIALISM that you might get mistaken as a cheerleader for capital?

[Vanguard1917]

Not at all. Are you having difficulty understanding that if you repeatedly post snide threads like this as a way of attacking environmentalist but fail, once again, to mention SOCIALISM that you might get mistaken as a cheerleader for capital?

Only if you accept the false premise that there is something anti-capitalist about environmentalism could you possibly mistake a Marxist attack on environmentalism with support for capitalism.

Those of us who recognise that environmentalism is infact a bourgeois ideology know full well that criticising environmentalism is central to a critique of contemporary capitalism.

And i 'mention socialism' frequently. For me, a socialist critique of capitalism (which criticises capitalism for holding back material progress) is the direct opposite of environmentalist apologism for capitalism.

[Hit The North]

Except that a key part of a socialist critique of capitalist production and one of the key reasons in which it holds back material progress, is its destructive and wasteful relation to nature. Hence, the socialist critique of capitalism implicitly contains environmental concerns - and is not, therefore, the direct opposite. However, you dismiss all critiques which pay mind to environmental sustainability as ruling class rhetoric and give the impression that untrammelled capitalist economic production should be supported as the only alternative.

This thread is an excellent example.

[Vanguard1917]

Except that a key part of a socialist critique of capitalist production and one of the key reasons in which it holds back material progress, is its destructive and wasteful relation to nature. Hence, the socialist critique of capitalism implicitly contains environmental concerns - and is not, therefore, the direct opposite.


It is the direct opposite because environmentalism calls for lowering industrial output and mass consumption, while socialists argue that capitalism is flawed precisely because it stands in the way of increased industrial output and mass consumption/living standards.

So, whereas Marxists criticise capitalism for restraining material progress, environmentalists argue that it gives way to too much material progress. This is a directly reactionary outlook. Consider, for example, George Monbiot's argument in respect to economic growth: that it is 'time to recognise that we have reached the promised land, and should seek to stay there' ('Bring on the recession' (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/09/bring-on-the-recession)). In other words, we have developed as much as we need to and so its time to protect the present from the future by restraining further development.

Isn't this conservatism in its purest form? Isn't it straight up apologism for capitalism?



However, you dismiss all critiques which pay mind to environmental sustainability as ruling class rhetoric and give the impression that untrammelled capitalist economic production should be supported as the only alternative.



It is one thing to recognise the damage which industrial capitalism can inflict on our natural surrounding. It is something altogether different to accept the utterly reactionary conclusions of environmentalism, which, as i have pointed out, actually provide ideological defence for the status quo.

[Sendo]

the recession might cause MORE environmental destruction. To cut costs and end the "contractive phase" companies will sink lower and lower.

Enjoy heavy metals in your air and water!!

VG, your strawmen are really tiresome. Not all environmentalists are primitivists. Repeating that environmentalism always advocated holding back human services is nonsense and we all know it, as do you.

[Vanguard1917]

the recession might cause MORE environmental destruction.


What if it reduces human impact on the environment (as a result of factories closing down, mass consumption levels decreasing, less people being able to fly abroad on holiday, less people able to drive their cars as a result of petrol price increases, less people able to afford to eat meat, etc.)?

[Vargha Poralli]

What if it reduces human impact on the environment (as a result of factories closing down, mass consumption levels decreasing, less people being able to fly abroad on holiday, less people able to drive their cars as a result of petrol price increases, less people able to afford to eat meat, etc.)?


And all those you cry about are minor damages when compared to the damage done to the environment by unregulated industrial pollution. Just tell me why you really cry for ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Here's an example of our ruling class using environmentalism as an excuse to attack the less well-off:

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7365373.stm)



"When it comes to cutting down on our food waste this type of sales initiative is deeply unhelpful. "Let's help the poorer customer, but why not offer the products at half price."

She added it was a "scandal" that £10bn of food was wasted every year.

How would that make any difference? And how does she know whether it's consumers or supermarkets that throw away the most food?

Any extra food that I buy as a result of such offers will not be wasted. Since most food is not on offer, I don't see how it could be contributing all that much to wasted food in the first place. On the other hand, supermarkets throw out considerably more food.

[Hit The North]

How is this attacking the poor? It's the middle class who benefit from two-for-one offers because they usually have more long-term storage capacity. The poor would benefit more if unit food prices were halved. This would also have the advantage of not encouraging over-consumption by the consumer and over-stocking of food in the supermarkets.

[Vanguard1917]

Here's an example of our ruling class using environmentalism as an excuse to attack the less well-off:

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7365373.stm)




How would that make any difference? And how does she know whether it's consumers or supermarkets that throw away the most food?

Any extra food that I buy as a result of such offers will not be wasted. Since most food is not on offer, I don't see how it could be contributing all that much to wasted food in the first place. On the other hand, supermarkets throw out considerably more food.

The philistine eco-MP should be made aware that increased 'consumer waste' is a product of increased 'consumer wealth' - which, contrary to what the eco-miserabilists may argue, is a good thing.

The more that living standards decline, the more that people are forced into austerity and penny-pinching frugality - which is, of course, a key goal of environmentalism.



How is this attacking the poor? It's the middle class who benefit from two-for-one offers because they usually have more long-term storage capacity. The poor would benefit more if unit food prices were halved. This would also have the advantage of not encouraging over-consumption by the consumer and over-stocking of food in the supermarkets.


The underlying reasoning behind the MP's complaints is that increased consumption is a bad thing. Rising levels of mass consumption are seen as unfortunate according to middle class sensibilities.

If supermarkets did what she wants and halved prices instead of offering 2-for-1 deals, and if this did not lead to a reduction in consumption (which is her aim), would she be happy? Obviously not. It's mass consumption itself which makes the political elite uncomfortable.

[Hit The North]

The underlying reasoning behind the MP's complaints is that increased consumption is a bad thing. The increase in the consumption of the middle class is a bad thing. Or do you somehow how hold to some trickle-down theory where the overconsumption of the wealthy eventually benefits the working class?

But your simple-minded equation of wasteful production and over-consumption with an amorphous notion of "progress" is summed up better than any of your opponents could when you write:
The philistine eco-MP should be made aware that increased 'consumer waste' is a product of increased 'consumer wealth'

So waste is a good thing is it?

[Vanguard1917]

The increase in the consumption of the middle class is a bad thing.


No, the problem for environmentalists is not middle class consumption, but mass consumption - i.e. the masses consuming more.

And it's not an increase in middle class living standards which concerns me. I think everyone's living standards should be at least as high as the middle classes. The point has always been to raise the living standards of the poor to that of the not so poor.



So waste is a good thing is it?


The cause of increased levels of household waste - i.e. increased levels of household wealth - is a positive phenomenon. Counting the pennies, rationing and codes of frugality tend to be symptoms of poverty. The prospect of mass prosperity is despised by contemporary ruling class ideology, and many environmentalists openly call for the enforcement of a system of rationing in order to reduce levels of mass consumption.

And you still haven't, btw, addressed the arguments in my earlier post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1263469&postcount=22).

[butterfly]

Well it's actually been pointed out in other thread's but this is an excellent situation in which to spur class consciousness...which is what we all want.
I think there's a tinge of nationalistic sentiment in your argument's VG...prove me wrong.

[Lynx]

A specific situation was described, involving the waste of food while some people are living in poverty. Please address the proposal at hand and refrain from tying it in to a grander conspiracy.

[Hit The North]

And you still haven't, btw, addressed the arguments in my earlier post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1263469&postcount=22).

I don't need to as I'm not defending environmentalism. I'm opposing your often remarkably uncritical celebration of capitalist production and exchange.

[Vanguard1917]

A specific situation was described, involving the waste of food while some people are living in poverty.

If you think 2-for-1 deals at Tesco are the cause of poverty then you are engaging in some pretty serious philistinism.



Please address the proposal at hand and refrain from tying it in to a grander conspiracy.


I have addressed the proposal; it stinks of middle class hostility to mass consumption. As i pointed out, it's lowering mass consumption which is the real motivation: 'If supermarkets did what she wants and halved prices instead of offering 2-for-1 deals, and if this did not lead to a reduction in consumption (which is her aim), would she be happy? Obviously not. It's mass consumption itself which makes the political elite uncomfortable.'

It has nothing to do with a conspiracy. In fact, environmentalism is very open about its desire to lower mass consumption levels.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't need to as I'm not defending environmentalism.

That's good to hear; let's hope it's true.



I'm opposing your often remarkably uncritical celebration of capitalist production and exchange.


Please provide evidence for this completely false claim.

[Hit The North]

It has nothing to do with a conspiracy. It has everything to do with conspiracy because you're imputing an agenda to Joan Ruddock's remarks which are derived from your conspiracy theory involving the evil middle class environmentalists who's only goal (according to you) is to express its native derision of the working class.

Actually you have no idea what Ruddock's agenda is.

[Hit The North]

Please provide evidence for this completely false claim.

This thread is plentiful evidence, but we've already been through this.

[Vanguard1917]

It has everything to do with conspiracy because you're imputing an agenda to Joan Ruddock's remarks which are derived from your conspiracy theory involving the evil middle class environmentalists who's only goal (according to you) is to express its native derision of the working class.

Actually you have no idea what Ruddock's agenda is.

The aim of the policy is to reduce consumption, which is seen as 'wasteful'.

2-for-1 deals are seen to overly encourage the masses to buy shit that they apparently don't need, and it's hoped that getting rid of these deals will temper the masses' supposedly careless spending habits.

[Vanguard1917]

This thread is plentiful evidence, but we've already been through this.

Lol, no we haven't, not at all. You have backed out of every single debate on the issue.

This thread is plentiful evidence.

[Hit The North]

My assertion is here at the top of the page:


Except that a key part of a socialist critique of capitalist production and one of the key reasons in which it holds back material progress, is its destructive and wasteful relation to nature. Hence, the socialist critique of capitalism implicitly contains environmental concerns - and is not, therefore, the direct opposite. However, you dismiss all critiques which pay mind to environmental sustainability as ruling class rhetoric and give the impression that untrammelled capitalist economic production should be supported as the only alternative.

This thread is an excellent example.


I accuse you of ignoring the massive waste which capitalist production inevitably produces and then you provide the proof by later claiming that waste is a positive indicator of a flourishing consumerism.

[Vanguard1917]

My assertion is here at the top of the page:



Which i addressed in the post underneath it, which you didn't respond to.


I accuse you of ignoring the massive waste which capitalist production inevitably produces and then you provide the proof by later claiming that waste is a positive indicator of a flourishing consumerism.

No, that's dishonesty. I referred specifically to 'household waste' - that it's a positive change for working class people to be in a position to not count pennies and live in austerity to the extent that they would do if they lived in worse poverty.

[Hit The North]

But the issue wasn't household waste. Ruddock was talking about food waste - stuff that gets thrown away, often unopened, because people are compelled by the marketing strategies of large corporate supermarket chains to over-consume at the checkout.

[Vanguard1917]

But the issue wasn't household waste. Ruddock was talking about food waste - stuff that gets thrown away, often unopened, because people are compelled by the marketing strategies of large corporate supermarket chains to over-consume at the checkout.

Yes, that's household waste. If i buy two yoghurts for the price of one and i decide to only eat one and a half, throwing the rest of the second one in the dustbin because i don't want anymore, it becomes part of my household waste.

I bought two yoghurts for one not because i was 'compelled' to by a marketing strategy (i have a brain after all - i'm not a zombie under the spell of a blind shopping frenzy or addiction brought on by adverts i see, as the middle class snobs may have you believe) but because i made a rational decision that being able to afford two yoghurts is better than being able to afford just one.

[Hit The North]

I'll have to rejoin this argument later as I've got an appointment with a girlfriend and a bar tender. Enjoy your weekend.

[Lynx]

If you think 2-for-1 deals at Tesco are the cause of poverty then you are engaging in some pretty serious philistinism.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with poverty. It was suggested that lowering prices would make more food affordable to those in need, but if that doesn't work...


I have addressed the proposal; it stinks of middle class hostility to mass consumption. As i pointed out, it's lowering mass consumption which is the real motivation: 'If supermarkets did what she wants and halved prices instead of offering 2-for-1 deals, and if this did not lead to a reduction in consumption (which is her aim), would she be happy? Obviously not. It's mass consumption itself which makes the political elite uncomfortable.'
If it doesn't help or hurt the poor, then it's a non-issue for leftists. I'm not opposed to reducing waste or encouraging parsimony.

[Hit The North]

Yes, that's household waste. If i buy two yoghurts for the price of one and i decide to only eat one and a half, throwing the rest of the second one in the dustbin because i don't want anymore, it becomes part of my household waste.



Do you measure the economic progess you're making by the amount of out-of-date yoghurts you throw in the bin? Is this a measure of the quality of life under advanced capitalism?


I bought two yoghurts for one not because i was 'compelled' to by a marketing strategy (i have a brain after all - i'm not a zombie under the spell of a blind shopping frenzy or addiction brought on by adverts i see, as the middle class snobs may have you believe) but because i made a rational decision that being able to afford two yoghurts is better than being able to afford just one.

Pur-leaze! What a paragon of free will you are. And, by jove, what a wonderous strawman you have invented. As if I said consumers were zombies!

[Vanguard1917]

Do you measure the economic progess you're making by the amount of out-of-date yoghurts you throw in the bin?


You're not really following the point that's being made, are you? We're talking about the causes of increases in household waste. Once we understand its key cause, we understand that there is a very simple way to reduce it: reduce household income. The less income a household has, the more it is forced into austerity and parsimony. This 'lifestyle' is openly advocated for the public by environmentalists - the majority of whom lead economically privileged lives - as a way of reducing mass consumption. See Lynx's previous post, for example.

[Dean]

I bought two yoghurts for one not because i was 'compelled' to by a marketing strategy (i have a brain after all - i'm not a zombie under the spell of a blind shopping frenzy or addiction brought on by adverts i see, as the middle class snobs may have you believe) but because i made a rational decision that being able to afford two yoghurts is better than being able to afford just one.

Yes, the consumer is totally empowered in a capitalist system. You're a gem.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, the consumer is totally empowered in a capitalist system.

On the contrary, the working class 'consumer' is immiserated under the capitalist system, and the environmentalist apologist for capitalism wishes to further immiserate him.

[Hit The North]

You're not really following the point that's being made, are you?No because your "point" is uselessly narrow and is indistinguishable from any right-wing libertarian justification for the capitalist market.


We're talking about the causes of increases in household waste.We? No, you are the only one who seems to think this is an important issue.



Once we understand its key cause, we understand that there is a very simple way to reduce it: reduce household income. Joan Ruddock, the MP who's comments sparked your interest in the issue of "household waste", does not say this. Nowhere does she call for a reduction in the incomes of the working class. What she actually calls for us that supermarkets should consider halving unit prices instead of 'two-for-one' offers.

You're actually having to make things up in order to sustain your argument.

But never mind. What seems to be most important for you is that when anyone from the left-of-centre criticises the operations of corporate capital, you must run to the defence of the capitalists. Are you the press officer for Tesco's by any chance?

[Vanguard1917]

No because your "point" is uselessly narrow and is indistinguishable from any right-wing libertarian justification for the capitalist market.

You keep making such accusations while completely failing to back them up, something which you seemed to have picked up from the Rosa Lichtenstein school of debating.

Either provide a reason for why you think my point - that a rise in household waste is a product of a rise in household wealth - is 'right-wing libertarian justification for the capitalist market', or show some honesty in debating and admit that you're wrong to defend people who wish to reduce mass consumption.



Joan Ruddock, the MP who's comments sparked your interest in the issue of "household waste", does not say this. Nowhere does she call for a reduction in the incomes of the working class. What she actually calls for us that supermarkets should consider halving unit prices instead of 'two-for-one' offers.



Yes, but what is her aim? What does she attempt to achieve as a result of her complaints? The answer is: a reduction in consumption levels. The whole point of her criticism is that supermarkets should discourage their customers from consuming as much as they do.



But never mind. What seems to be most important for you is that when anyone from the left-of-centre criticises the operations of corporate capital, you must run to the defence of the capitalists.


We have already addressed this. The only possible way that you can mistake a Marxist assault on ruling class eco-orthodoxies with 'defence of the capitalists' is if you accept that these ruling class eco-orthodoxies are somehow anti-capitalist or subversive.

They, of course, aren't. They are central to contemporary ruling class ideology, which is why, er, ruling class politicians like Joan Ruddock espouse them.



Are you the press officer for Tesco's by any chance?


No. Are you a spokesperson for the ruling party of British government?

[Lynx]

So far the proposed incentive is neutral - its a no carrot, no stick approach.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, the consumer is totally empowered in a capitalist system. You're a gem.

He didn't actually say that, if you actually read his statement instead instantly leaping to conclusions.

[Hit The North]

Either provide a reason for why you think my point - that a rise in household waste is a product of a rise in household wealth - is 'right-wing libertarian justification for the capitalist market', or show some honesty in debating and admit that you're wrong to defend people who wish to reduce mass consumption.


Ok, so now you've boiled down your argument to this:
that a rise in household waste is a product of a rise in household wealth and you wonder why I describe it as narrow?

Furthermore, this does not necessarily follow, using your own example. Two-for-one yoghurt deals do not necessitate twice the expenditure as the purchase of a single yoghurt - obviously. Therefore, the fact that you throw one unopened yoghurt into the bin because the use-by has expired is no indication of an increase in wealth - only an increase in waste.

Finally, the increase in waste is itself no indication of an increase in consumption - it was thrown away unopened! - it was not consumed.

Following from this, a call for a reduction in household waste is not necessarily a call for either lower consumption or a decrease in household wealth.

In fact the real victims of abandoning 'two-for-one' in favour of halving unit price, will be the supermarkets who persist in 'two-for-one' because it suits the rapid turnover crucial to their economies of scale (and this is not the first time that waste has been built in, as a necessary element, into either the production or circulation of commodities under capitalism).

So, once again, you find yourself defending the interests of corporate capital.



Are you a spokesperson for the ruling party of British government?
Yes. Behind my on-line avatar, I really am Joan Ruddock. And look! I'm more left wing than you :lol:

[Vanguard1917]

Furthermore, this does not necessarily follow, using your own example. Two-for-one yoghurt deals do not necessitate twice the expenditure as the purchase of a single yoghurt - obviously. Therefore, the fact that you throw one unopened yoghurt into the bin because the use-by has expired is no indication of an increase in wealth - only an increase in waste.

My yoghurt example was there to show that the issue is about household waste, where you were arguing that it isn't.


In fact the real victims of abandoning 'two-for-one' in favour of halving unit price, will be the supermarkets who persist in 'two-for-one' because it suits the rapid turnover crucial to their economies of scale (and this is not the first time that waste has been built in, as a necessary element, into either the production or circulation of commodities under capitalism).

There is no doubt that supermarket deals are there to maintain or raise profits. That's not being disputed. Nor am i championing '2-for-1' deals or anything of that sort. I think people's incomes should be higher and the cost of goods should be lower so that people are able to access to the things which they need and desire as abundantly as possible, and so that they spend less time having to count pennies and contemplate 'waste' and more time living.

What's being criticised is the motivation behind the eco-complaint: the whole eco-notion that a rise in household waste is necessarily indicative of a problem, when in reality a primary cause of rises in household waste are rises in household wealth. The poorer the household, the less waste it tends to produce. The government should therefore spend less time moaning about trivialities like our shopping habits and probably more time thinking about how to sort out the current economic mess - the latter being a very good potential solution to the 'problem' of household waste, come to think of it. Less household throwing away of yoghurts going on when there's more poverty... :thumbup:

[Hit The North]

My yoghurt example was there to show that the issue is about household waste, where you were arguing that it isn't.

I never disagreed with the issue; I was defining household waste more narrowly as something that has been used and discarded; you wanted to also include food items which have not been used yet discarded, like your yoghurt. I've been happy to comply.

Nevertheless the logic of my argument is sound and demonstrates that merely calling for a decrease in household waste is not ipso facto calling for either a corresponding decrease in either income or consumption, which is what you accuse Ruddock of (or, it seems, any critic of the supermarkets).

I therefore restate my previous claim that you are having to make things up to sustain your argument (the evil conspiracy behind the platitudinous words).



There is no doubt that supermarket deals are there to maintain or raise profits.
The question is, do you think that is a bad thing?



I think people's incomes should be higher and the cost of goods should be lower so that people are able to access to the things which they need and desire So you believe the same as Ruddock, except you go further and want an increase in income whereas she may not.

But the point is that you hold to the notion that waste is a positive outcome because it indicates the supposed increase in affluence of the working class. In that you line up with right wing anti-environmentalists and employ the arguments of free market apologists. And like them, you appear uncritical of the real reasons behind the proliferation of waste which is bound up with the motion of modern capitalism.

[Charles Xavier]

...at least temporarily.

With the financial crisis (caused largely by the greedy public borrowing crazy sums of money to feed its addictions to consumerism) affecting the so-called 'real economy' and a recession forthcoming, i think the potential benefits to the eco-system are obvious. A recession would mean falling levels of productive output, factories shutting down, drops in living standards, people losing their jobs and possibly their homes. Since nature can't sustain the obscene levels of development and living standards we have had in recent years, a recession would ultimately be good news. For a start, with less money to go around, we have the perfect solution to the public's gross obsession with consumerism and crap that they don't need, e.g. DVD players, cars and meat.

There are, of course, those who will argue that recession cannot be justified because it would have a negative impact on human life. Nonsense. It should be clear to all that we are all fucked if nature can't sustain economic development. Like British newspaper columnist and the liberal-left's favourite eco-activist George Monbiot put it last year, 'I recognise that recession causes hardship. Like everyone I am aware that it would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes' - but 'I hope that the recession now being forecast by some economists materialises' because it would 'prevent economic growth from blowing us through Canaan and into the desert on the other side.'

It's too bad, though, that capitalism has a pretty good track record of recovering from its economic downturns, which is why i said that the benefits to Gaia will probably only be temporary. Shame we can't have permanent recessions, eh?


I have some news for this person who pretends to show some intellectual in the situation, the news I have is the despite what we humans do to the world. The environment will survive no matter what we do to it, the earth have been around billions of years before we were ever here, its faced much greater destruction in its lifetime than what we have done. The environment will adapt, it is us who inhabit the environment who will face the gravest consequences for the gluttony, but an economic depression likewise is a grave threat to us as a species, its allowing millions to starve while others have for the past 10 years plundered the world of its riches, it will cast many productive people out on the streets begging and forcing those who inhabit the world, the vast majority to pay for the crimes of the gluttons at the top. The environment will be fine, it is humanity who we should look to save.

[Vanguard1917]

The environment will be fine, it is humanity who we should look to save.


Absolutely. I was being sarcastic in that post you quoted, as a way of showing how the reactionary logic of environmentalism welcomes economic recession by putting 'nature' before people.



Nevertheless the logic of my argument is sound and demonstrates that merely calling for a decrease in household waste is not ipso facto calling for either a corresponding decrease in either income or consumption


No, but lowering consumption levels is seen by environmentalists as part of the solution to increasing household waste.



So you believe the same as Ruddock


I don't, because the aim of the MP's complaints is to ultimately reduce the things which go into people's shopping bags, whereas i have no such desire.



But the point is that you hold to the notion that waste is a positive outcome because it indicates the supposed increase in affluence of the working class.


False. I believe that one of the key causes of increased household waste - i.e. increased household wealth - is a positive phenomenon.



In that you line up with right wing anti-environmentalists and employ the arguments of free market apologists.


Obviously things aren't as black and white. There are progressive attacks on capitalism and big business; but Marxists know full well that there can also be reactionary 'attacks', too.

Appearing to diss the 'evil corporayshuns' while being driven by completely reactionary motivations is much of the reality of backward political movements like environmentalism, whose ideas have now reached the heights of mainstream ruling class orthodoxy. Should such movements be tail-ended? Does criticism of them really amount to nothing other than 'free market apologism'?

If middle class criticism of big supermarket chains is progressive, should we have supported the Nazi Law for the Protection of Individual Trade (1933), which banned chain stores in Germany from expanding or opening new branches and which later prohibited chain stores from offering discounts of more than 3 percent? ('The nasty history of supermarket-bashing (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4516/)')

Obviously not, because not every so-called attack on big business is progressive. What's important for us are the motivations behind the 'attacks'. And if you're a Marxist you know full well that the motivations of the environmental movement are completely backward and reactionary.

[Sendo]

If waste correlates to quality of life, I must be dirt poor. I fill one big bag of garbage per month and everything else goes into compost or recycling. Now if you'll excuse me I have to breathe the fumes from a cement truck's tailpipe. I appreciate the vapors of industrial progress. Those hippies can keep their organic food and shove it up their butts. Disposable iPods, monster trucks, and shrink wrap for me!

[Sendo]

to Georgi: economic depression does not threaten us a species in any way shape or form. It threatens us as workers, or maybe society at large, or technology, but not the species. If we return to the forest, humans as a whole will survive much longer. The problem with recession is "Excess" population sadly dying. But don't think the capitalists would let the majority of people die. They need labor to extract all the resources they plunder and labor to build their plasma TVs.

Humanity is only under threat by desertification, toxification, war, and nuclear mishaps. But these are huge risks in and of themselves.

[Charles Xavier]

to Georgi: economic depression does not threaten us a species in any way shape or form. It threatens us as workers, or maybe society at large, or technology, but not the species. If we return to the forest, humans as a whole will survive much longer. The problem with recession is "Excess" population sadly dying. But don't think the capitalists would let the majority of people die. They need labor to extract all the resources they plunder and labor to build their plasma TVs.

Humanity is only under threat by desertification, toxification, war, and nuclear mishaps. But these are huge risks in and of themselves.

There is not excess population, the world's poor could be fed on current food production, the problem is profitable distribution. Its funny how the "Excess population" is primarily from the third world, mostly Africa and Asia, while the first world it wouldn't be considered excess. I wonder if your family was dying from starvation you would champion the fact that your family was excess. The capitalists class do not care how many consumers they have, they care about their profits, they will close down factories and move them to where there is lower labor costs regardless if there is lower productivity if it'll turn higher profits.