[Graeme]

Here's a post for Americandream!

Global Warming and the End of Capitalism

Even Vladimir Lenin was surprised when the Russian Revolution began in 1917.

Is this just an interesting historical tidbit or a profound example of how fast seemingly stable political, social and economic systems can collapse?

The subject of how long lasting our current system really is comes up frequently in discussions about global warming and what we can do about it.

Usually the conversation goes something like this:

“Scientists tell us we’re getting close to the point of no return. We don’t have much time left to drastically cut our carbon emissions.”

“Yes, but corporation keep investing billions in the tarsands, in coal, in building ever more private automobiles. The oil sector, that’s where the money and jobs are.”

“Even the people who understand global warming is a problem need jobs.”

“Governments pay lip service to combating global warming, but in reality they follow the money too. Big corporations buy them off. They run everything.”

“The problem is capitalism. Capitalists require ever-expanding profits and will do anything to keep them flowing. That’s just the way the system is.”

“So what can we do about it?”

“Get rid of capitalism.”

“How likely is that?”

“I guess it depends on how many people come to the same conclusion and are willing to do what it takes to change the system.”

“In other words, it’s hopeless.”

“Why do you say that?”

“Look around, people don’t care. They’re too busy shopping or worrying about their own private problems. People are too scared to join a union, let alone overthrow capitalism.”

“Things can change, very quickly.”

And that’s where the story about how the Russian Revolution surprised everyone comes up.

For those of us who understand the importance of acting quickly to reduce carbon emissions and that capitalism is incapable of dealing with this urgent problem, the question of how fast we could build a new, environmentally friendly economic system is critically important.

Is there time or are we cooked? Literally.

The answer depends, in large part, on one’s views about how “revolution” occurs.

If you believe that major change only happens after long years of organizing by dedicated, professional revolutionaries building a party that can lead the masses into a brave new future, then human beings today are probably like a lobster in a pot just before the chef turns on the burner: “I don’t know what all the fuss is about. This water seems quite comfortable to me.” It’s doubtful if we have the time to develop the cadre necessary for taking over a system as complex and all-encompassing as world capitalism.

On the other hand, if you believe in the power and ability of ordinary people to rise up when confronted by a crisis that affects us all, then it is possible to be optimistic. If the system you want to build begins with working people around the world taking over the reins of the economy and replacing capitalist minority rule with economic democracy, then that could happen relatively quickly. Yes, it still requires “leaders” working hard, talking and organizing, but history offers many examples of ideas spreading quickly and then people acting upon them.

The critical element — the “objective conditions” — already exists. Capitalism itself has created an economy overwhelmingly dominated by social labour. This gives the working class the potential power to take over almost every part of the economy in the vast majority of major economies around the world.

Most people in most countries are workers. If we chose to do so, we could easily expand one-person, one-vote decision-making into every area where people work collectively, which is most of our economy. We could limit private property to what is truly private and doesn’t give an individual power over others. We could move to a system of social ownership where multiple democratic owning communities based on the appropriate level of government — local, state/provincial, national, international — replaced corporations. If we did these three things the system of greed that propels capitalists to earn profits, regardless of the consequences to our environment, would no longer exist.

dissidentvoice

[dbruning]

Those currently in power would outlaw and ban any efforts to organize such an outcome. Eventually they would use extremely well armed forces to actively discourage it. I'm not sure any serious movement could truly begin without a civil war with the authorities .

Take any of the recent "We the People" movements....once it became apparent they had some momentum, they were immediately subverted by the existing powers that be and drawn into irrelevancy, to the point where the average citizen probably couldn't tell you what exactly they stood for.

When the stakes become so much higher, and we're talking about lives and ways of life, I expect swift, harsh actions to be taken. And I'm not sure our soft population (including myself) are prepared to give the sacrifice needed to make such a thing happen.

What do you think?

[kiwichick]

sharemarkets go up the stairs; and down the elevator

collapse is sudden

civilisations collapse shortly after reaching their peak

we reached our peak in 1972

[rollin]

The verbiage from this article appears to be a derivative of the communist manifesto. Doesn't anyone have some original ideas that might actually work?

Maybe we just have to align the constitution with the meanings put forth in the Declaration of Independence and proceed to follow the grand ideas. Why communism or socialism, when true democracy has yet to be tried on a large scale? I know it scares the elitists, but true participatory government is at least worth a try.

[Lore]

The verbiage from this article appears to be a derivative of the communist manifesto. Doesn't anyone have some original ideas that might actually work?

Maybe we just have to align the constitution with the meanings put forth in the Declaration of Independence and proceed to follow the grand ideas. Why communism or socialism, when true democracy has yet to be tried on a large scale? I know it scares the elitists, but true participatory government is at least worth a try.

At its heart there is really nothing wrong with communism or socialism. It's only the way those ideas have been corrupted by the power brokers.

[KaiserJeep]

The only problem with Communism is that no society more complex than that of honey bees has made it work.

When people try to live that way, it rapidly evolves into Capitalism, as it is in the USSR and China.

[Lore]

There you go, capitalism, modern humans answer to devolution. We talk a good talk about being more like Buda, Jesus and Mohammed.

[KaiserJeep]

My point would be, that is how things work. Capitalism recognizes the actual nature of humans and layers a system on top of that nature. It is the only economic system that is successful in large countries over significant periods, because it never asks anyone to go against their true nature.

I have all due respect for the Buddha, Christ, and other prophets/philosophers. But I have to note that none was especially successful at changing basic human nature. Capitalism does not attempt to change the nature of mankind, it simply recognizes what it is and works with it.

I believe that all attempts to change the nature of man are doomed to failure. The end result of the fossil fuel boom may be a species with a new set of sensibilities and beliefs, after the boom ends and more people die than have existed in the world before. The coming mass extinction of humanity is an example of the scale of event that will kick evolution into high gear. The Four Horsemen will reap humanity, the few survivors will either evolve into wiser creatures or devolve into brutes.

Either way, change is coming. But it will never be true that absent an acute survival crisis, people will implement the impractical and unworkable schemes of an obscure philosopher (pick any of them) in defiance of their animal nature.

Nature is cruel, as they say.

[Lore]

My point would be, that is how things work. Capitalism recognizes the actual nature of humans and layers a system on top of that nature. It is the only economic system that is successful in large countries over significant periods, because it never asks anyone to go against their true nature.

I have all due respect for the Buddha, Christ, and other prophets/philosophers. But I have to note that none was especially successful at changing basic human nature. Capitalism does not attempt to change the nature of mankind, it simply recognizes what it is and works with it.

I believe that all attempts to change the nature of man are doomed to failure. The end result of the fossil fuel boom may be a species with a new set of sensibilities and beliefs, after the boom ends and more people die than have existed in the world before. The coming mass extinction of humanity is an example of the scale of event that will kick evolution into high gear. The Four Horsemen will reap humanity, the few survivors will either evolve into wiser creatures or devolve into brutes.

Either way, change is coming. But it will never be true that absent an acute survival crisis, people will implement the impractical and unworkable schemes of an obscure philosopher (pick any of them) in defiance of their animal nature.

Nature is cruel, as they say.

I think you described the problem, capitalism is like smoking, or any other legalized addictive drug. Ultimately another detrimental human practice, if not the major one, and in this case as soon as the population stops growing and or resources deplete while the environment becomes corrupted it will expose itself for being the unworkable Ponzi scheme that it is. A self indulgent negative practice of a failing species which is lodged in our viral DNA.

Nature is cruel in that it eventually weeds out the unfit.

[yellowcanoe]

I am unaware of any society that has operated with completely unfettered capitalism. The limits and restrictions on capitalism vary widely in form and degree between different societies but they do exist in some form in every capitalist society. The problem we have, especially in the US, is that corporations have managed to capture the regulators, get regulations they don't like removed and get laws passed that make it difficult for future politicians to regulate them. We need to get our politicians back on track to ensure that corporations are properly regulated for the greater good of the public.

It's also the case that the corporations themselves don't want unfettered capitalism as that would freely open them to competition. So much of what they lobby politicians to do is to make it difficult for competitors to enter their market. It isn't really capitalism when the freedom to compete in the market place isn't there.

[Vogelzang]

Its impossible to end capitalism. Even in the USSR there was an enormous black market (capitalist) that the government knew about, but did nothing about since so many people depended on it. The only reason North Korea is still communist is because of trade with capitalist countries.

[Lore]

It isn't really capitalism when the freedom to compete in the market place isn't there.

It's modern capitalism. If markets were to compete openly, there would eventually just be one of everything at prices the sole providers would dictate.

[radon1]

Its impossible to end capitalism.

No, it is impossible. Just as it is impossible to end the rain - it won't stop, until it finishes.

[ralfy]

A global capitalist system, especially one that employs competition and the use of money, requires increasing production and consumption of goods to ensure continuous economic growth. It is not sustainable given a world with physical limitations.

[KaiserJeep]

I lose patience with those that would blame Capitalism for the evils of mankind.

Something deep in your genes tells you that to ensure your place in the tribe, you need to surround yourself with children, and ensure that they marry into other powerful families, and produce even more grandchildren. Because that is the way all ape tribes prosper.

Capitalism is a means to an end. It is not inherently good or evil, it is a formula for success with a 2 millenium record unequaled by any other system.

Communism is an example of a system that does not work at all. Even after 3 generations of total cradle-to-grave indoctrination, the USSR was a bust, fed by a system of barter from the private land plots cultivated in the rural areas, and with a huge black market economy in stolen goods.

Not even the Chinese could make Communism work. The oligarchs of Chinese manufacturing firms have actually surpassed the power of the Communist regime, they are headed for another bloody revolution that will make Mao Tse-tung look like a proverbial Sunday School Teacher.

North Korea, with millions of starving inhabitants, is an example of modern Communism, rigidly controlled and paranoid and ever ready to hurl nuclear weapons in all directions. Cuba is another, where the American cars produced in the 1950s are the most recent available, only military vehicles have been imported since then. At least with their system of private land cultivation, they can feed themselves, unlike Korea.

The modern Socialist nations of Europe are all broke. As a wise woman once noted: "The problem with Socialism is that you soon run out of other people's money."

As we are starting to in the USA. Where the People's Republic of Kalifornia has racked up a debt second only to Greece, chasing Welfare for All and Alternative Energy.

The ultimate legacy of both Communism and Socialism is that of failed theories of Economics, tried briefly, and without any success.

[Lore]

Modern capitalism is a product of the later 20th century. Prior to that capitalism came in many forms. It wasn't till we obtained the necessary energy to fully exploit the system that we settled on it. In its present form it's an experiment yet to be realized. Since capitalism's dependence is determined by resource constraints I believe that in its current incarnation it is unlikely to survive.

Money itself is a human construct, used because we put an arbitrary value on stuff to control a system of needs and wants and people in general. If we as a civilization want to take the next evolutionary step to enlightenment then it is something we need to grow out of as a medium of exchange for what really is important to the individual and human society.

[Quinny]

I would not contend that the USSR was actually a true Socialist republic, but it did have some fantastic achievements during it's existence. The USSR much of which was essentially 3rd world countries had universal education and healthcare and raised the standard of living of millions of people. This was at a time when the American continent had obscene wealth living side by side with the poorest people in the world.

The sharing of wealth across the USSR obviously meant that many living in Russia/Ukraine were not as materially wealthy as just across the Iron Curtain, a fact that was exploited by the west. Many in the former USSR would love to go back to a communist system.

[Newfie]

IMHO capitalism is already dead. Read both definitions and see which is a better fit.

Capitalism -Wiki
Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy.[1][2] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labor.[3] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.[4]



Consumerism - Wiki
Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the purchase of goods and services in ever-greater amounts. Early criticisms of consumerism are present in the works of Thorstein Veblen (1899). Veblen's subject of examination, the newly emergent middle class arising at the turn of the twentieth century,[1] comes to fruition by the end of the twentieth century through the process of globalization. In this sense, consumerism is usually considered a part of media culture.

In Capitalism the goal is more profit. The 1% have a Capitalist system.

In Consumerism the goal is not stated. The 99% have consumerism.

Now consider this, consumerism is a construct of the 1% by which they achieve their goal. Which means, by deduction, that Consumerisms goal is Capotalisms goal, to make them rich.

I could argue with that, but it does have a certain poignance.

[Timo]

There seems to be an incorrect assumption that "Capitalism" and "Communism" are opposite approaches to running a country. Wrong. Capitalism is a system of economics, and Communism is a system of governance. Granted, there never has been a communist and capitalist country at the same time, unless you ionclude China and North Korea in that mix, but the more appropriate discussion would be between capitaliam and socialism, not capitalism and communism. Socialism generally defers to public ownership of resources, while capitalism defers to private ownership of those resources. I know there are several other distinctions between the two, as well, but when discussing the end of capitalism, any discussion of communism is going off on the wrong track. We're talking economics, not politics. They're hard to seperate, i acknowledge, but still.............

[ralfy]

I did not mention anything about good or evil.

Put simply, the goal of capitalism is continuous economic growth. But that can't happen in a world with physical limitations.

The same goes for state capitalism.