Do you environmentalists understand...

[dfens]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

I mean, I realize most of you are left wing, but have you really internalized this? Have you really, really, thought it through...that the function of capital is to produce as much as quickly as possible.

The fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they possibly can, and the rest of the consuming society is obligated to consume as much as they possibly can. The same is true of all industry. As such, the entire earth is basically a waste dump for capital.

So my point is...either come up with critiques of capital, or give up. Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist. But you'll never go there, will you, because that brings back the ugly spectre of nazism or communism or worse, or regressing to third world status, and you won't tolerate that at any cost.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist.

It does when capital owns chunks of the environment.

Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What part of NOT being completely capitalist don't you understand? We're a social democracy with the ability to demand better from our private businesses and demand better for our people. Thank god.

 

[MisterBeale]

What part of NOT being completely capitalist don't you understand? We're a social democracy with the ability to demand better from our private businesses and demand better for our people. Thank god.

Where the hell did you ever get the idea that we are a "social democracy?"

We are a republican democracy. derp.

 

[Nosmo King]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

I mean, I realize most of you are left wing, but have you really internalized this? Have you really, really, thought it through...that the function of capital is to produce as much as quickly as possible.

The fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they possibly can, and the rest of the consuming society is obligated to consume as much as they possibly can. The same is true of all industry. As such, the entire earth is basically a waste dump for capital.

So my point is...either come up with critiques of capital, or give up. Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist. But you'll never go there, will you, because that brings back the ugly spectre of nazism or communism or worse, or regressing to third world status, and you won't tolerate that at any cost.

Capital has indeed found that respect for the environment means the ability to garner more resources. If a timber company clear cuts a forest, the available trees won't be around for another twenty years. If the fishing industry over fishes Blue Tuna, their market for Blue Tuna disappears.

Your contention seems to be Capital must exploit both resources and the environment in order to scratch out a profit. Meanwhile, such exploitation ruins both the resources and the environment's ability to renew them.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

[
Capital has indeed found that respect for the environment means the ability to garner more resources. If a timber company clear cuts a forest, the available trees won't be around for another twenty years. If the fishing industry over fishes Blue Tuna, their market for Blue Tuna disappears.

Your contention seems to be Capital must exploit both resources and the environment in order to scratch out a profit. Meanwhile, such exploitation ruins both the resources and the environment's ability to renew them.

Not when capital owns the environment.

For example; BLM land is almost always overgrazed, while privatively held ranch land is not.

 

[emilynghiem]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

I mean, I realize most of you are left wing, but have you really internalized this? Have you really, really, thought it through...that the function of capital is to produce as much as quickly as possible.

The fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they possibly can, and the rest of the consuming society is obligated to consume as much as they possibly can. The same is true of all industry. As such, the entire earth is basically a waste dump for capital.

So my point is...either come up with critiques of capital, or give up. Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist. But you'll never go there, will you, because that brings back the ugly spectre of nazism or communism or worse, or regressing to third world status, and you won't tolerate that at any cost.

Dear dfens
1. When I asked a dematerialist about his findings on what it would take to stop overconsumption of energy and resources,
he said it was impossible in our capitalistic culture and dependence on amenities people aren't willing to give up.
he said it would take nothing short of going back to activities during sunlight hours, and shutting everything OFF at nighfall,
to go back to harmony with nature. So people aren't going to do that.

2. However, it doesn't have to be 'through govt' that people decide to cut down on consumer waste and pollution.
As people grow more aware about the environment, they naturally have greater respect and want to conserve more.
Nobody really wants to see forests destroyed, or waterways polluted where there is no longer safe drinking water.

This can be achieved by education and patronizing and investing in companies that develop better methods.
Capitalism also works by people CHOOSING where to invest their labor and money.

So if we CHOOSE more ethical companies, the money we save in terms of
NOT polluting the environment, NOT endangering wildlife or ecosystems,
and NOT threatening the health and lives of people, PAYS OFF in the longrun.

dfens you can also say that environmental considerations ARE part of the cost
of capitalist run business, and just because the costs are not CHARGED back to the corporations
doesn't mean it isn't costing SOMEBODY else! So it like corporations making money
WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT how much they are costing their workers or communities affected by their production.

Capitalism can still take that into account as part of the costs of operations.
So only the companies that really work cost-effectively and don't endanger the health of people or the planet
would succeed in sustainable business. And beat out the competition that is sloppier or less ethical/environmentally friendly,
so consumers decide they can't afford to patronize such companies that are killing them and the community or environment.

That's STILL within the capitalistic model for consumers to consider ALL costs
in the equation, and decide if it's worth it to ENABLE corporations to make
money while destroying waterways or forests that they don't use their profits to clean up.

How fair is that?
Who has to pay for the cleanup?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What part of NOT being completely capitalist don't you understand? We're a social democracy with the ability to demand better from our private businesses and demand better for our people. Thank god.

We are no "social democracy". We are a representative Republic under a Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

I mean, I realize most of you are left wing, but have you really internalized this? Have you really, really, thought it through...that the function of capital is to produce as much as quickly as possible.

The fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they possibly can, and the rest of the consuming society is obligated to consume as much as they possibly can. The same is true of all industry. As such, the entire earth is basically a waste dump for capital.

So my point is...either come up with critiques of capital, or give up. Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist. But you'll never go there, will you, because that brings back the ugly spectre of nazism or communism or worse, or regressing to third world status, and you won't tolerate that at any cost.

Capital has indeed found that respect for the environment means the ability to garner more resources. If a timber company clear cuts a forest, the available trees won't be around for another twenty years. If the fishing industry over fishes Blue Tuna, their market for Blue Tuna disappears.

Your contention seems to be Capital must exploit both resources and the environment in order to scratch out a profit. Meanwhile, such exploitation ruins both the resources and the environment's ability to renew them.

Dear Nosmo King and dfens

We can compare two models for running the same company,
and see the difference between SUSTAINABLE operations and profits,
vs. short term profits at the expense of longterm growth and development:

In the case of Headwaters Redwood Forest,
the original owning company Pacific Lumber used Sustainable logging, growing trees in 70 year cycles, so the loggers would always have jobs culling the trees when they were mature enough while letting others grow back.
And they never cut into the ancient Old Growth groves that were million year old ecosystems containing endangered wildlife.

When MAXXAM a corporate raider seized PL in a hostile takeover,
they raided the company assets and gutted the pension funds to "crash the company" and drop the workers after bleeding everything out.
This included GUTTING the Old Growth groves and destroying the interconnected ecosystem relying on those trees including migratory seasons for seabirds connected to ocean ecosystems (and rare salmon affected in the rivers destroyed by the erosion from clearcutting the forests).

Had they continued the rotating pattern of growing and cutting NEW redwoods in 70 year cycles,
those loggers would still be employed.

This is a key example of SUSTAINABLE company operations, jobs and profits
vs. UNSUSTAINABLE unethical "unfair competition" for short term profits.
(and the WORST part is taxpayer money was abused to bail out the junk bonds
the raider company used to buy out PL. So taxpayers paid that bill, the company
went under, and all the money they "lost" went to the owners/shareholders)

so taxpayers helped buy out the land for this company to raid and suck the resources
out for them to split up by basically liquidating all the assets and claiming losses,
gutting the company, raiding the pensions and leaving workers out of jobs.

So we should first clarify if the approach to "capitalism" is compatible or incompatible.

If you look up"fair trade" "conscious capitalism" and "cooperative economics"
there are other models of Free Enterprise and even microlending and business training
that promote SUSTAINABLE economics that MAINTAIN relationships
and not cutthroat tactics that destroy them!

 

[PurpleOwl]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

I mean, I realize most of you are left wing, but have you really internalized this? Have you really, really, thought it through...that the function of capital is to produce as much as quickly as possible.

The fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they possibly can, and the rest of the consuming society is obligated to consume as much as they possibly can. The same is true of all industry. As such, the entire earth is basically a waste dump for capital.

So my point is...either come up with critiques of capital, or give up. Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist.

you can say that about anything racism, war, slavery, minimum wage, gay marriage. They're all connected to capitalism and until liberals realize that they are working to preserve capitalism itself by proposing these reforms and are guaranteeing the continuation of all these things they claim to fight.

Using your example of environmentalism, we can see that the only thing environmentalists have accomplished is the general acceptance by the populace of destruction of the environment, global warming is destroying the planet, people are burning fossil fuels more than ever, clear cutting forests, mining, dumping chemicals etc etc. What they have done is created and preserved the perception that environmentalism currenlty exists, they create the idea that through "regulation" the environmental crisis caused by capitalism can not only be solved to create some utopian society where capitalism can exist in full force for the benefit all people with no consequences., but that capitalism itself is natural and is inevitable and we should be eternally grateful for environmentalists for without them the world would be somekind of wasteland with air as black as coal and yellow phosphorus in all our drinking water.

Or as Lenin would say
"The liberal bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand, and with the other always take them back, reduce them to nought, use them to enslave the workers, to divide them into separate groups and perpetuate wage-slavery. For that reason reformism, even when quite sincere, in practice becomes a weapon by means of which the bourgeoisie corrupt and weaken the workers. The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled."

 

[flacaltenn]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

I mean, I realize most of you are left wing, but have you really internalized this? Have you really, really, thought it through...that the function of capital is to produce as much as quickly as possible.

The fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they possibly can, and the rest of the consuming society is obligated to consume as much as they possibly can. The same is true of all industry. As such, the entire earth is basically a waste dump for capital.

So my point is...either come up with critiques of capital, or give up. Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist. But you'll never go there, will you, because that brings back the ugly spectre of nazism or communism or worse, or regressing to third world status, and you won't tolerate that at any cost.

Capital has indeed found that respect for the environment means the ability to garner more resources. If a timber company clear cuts a forest, the available trees won't be around for another twenty years. If the fishing industry over fishes Blue Tuna, their market for Blue Tuna disappears.

Your contention seems to be Capital must exploit both resources and the environment in order to scratch out a profit. Meanwhile, such exploitation ruins both the resources and the environment's ability to renew them.

None of that is "feature" of Capitalism. The fishing example is a "tragedy of the commons" story. The way to protect fisheries is to LEASE fishing areas to recognized stakeholders. Stakeholders will ENHANCE their plots by sinking reefing material, and protect against poaching and pollution. When the STAKEHOLDERS extracts a resource, they do it in a sustainable way.

It works. It's compatible with Capitalism. And it takes the GOVT out of the commons MGT biz.. (for the most part). Because the BLM and the Forestry Service don't HAVE a lot of glowing admiration for their mgt styles --- but the Nature Conservancy and other PRIVATE orgs do have enviro cred and respect.

Also worked to stem the tide of big game extinction in Africa. As you incorporate villagers and small farmers into being stakeholders. And get them to see the wildlife NOT as pests, but as an INCOME --- they work hard to protect that resource. LOTS of money made for poor areas in eco-tourism and wildlife mgt now..

 

[Shrimpbox]

Let's see. Our capitalist system has cleaned up,the water, cleaned up the air, protected forests, saved fishes, cleaned up chemical dumping, promoted wildlife, created an environmental consciousness among the public and among business. Did that happen in Russia? Did that happen in China? Did it happen in Africa. Did it happen under dictatorship?

Having said that, global corporations are a corruption of capitalism. Their scale presents them more as governments than businesses, divorcing them from local,considerations. Much the way monopolies were attacked in the early 1900s to get us back to a real capitalism, global corporations should receive the same fate.

 

[emilynghiem]

WILD CALIFORNIA in the style of Dani California/Red Hot Chili Peppers
Dedicated to David Nathan "Gypsy" Chain and his
family and friends who cherish what he lived, fought and died for
[VOCALS recorded by Chance McClain
http://www.emilynghiem.istemp.com/mp3/WildCaliforniaCM.mp3
Lyrics and Vocals by Emily Nghiem:
http://www.emilynghiem.com.istemp.com/mp3/WildCaliforniaMix.mp3
for KPFT Public Radio]

Preying on the nation, Maxxam Corporation
Bought Pacific Lumber as a logging operation
Up in Humboldt, trees took a tumble,
Raided pension funds, watching jobs going under

Endangered species in the redwoods have no price
Why cut our losses that our taxes paid for twice

Gypsy was a leader, came from Pasadena
Killed as a pawn in a political arena
Called for justice, to stop illegal logging
Died for a cause that will never be forgotten

Defending forests that preceded the birth of Christ
Don’t they deserve to survive

California redwood trees
Standing up to corporate greed
Like the heavens in your reach
Can’t we learn to live in peace
Yeah Yeah [silent prayer: Save - the - nation God's - Cre - a - tion]

In Headwaters Grove, there’s a major hole
Where the ecosystem’s dying by the droves
Bald eagles, left without a home
Elk River salmon, got nowhere to go now

How can we cut Mother Nature to the core
Demanding more and more . . .

California redwood trees
Rise against the force of greed
Like the heavens in your reach
Can’t we all just live in peace Please Please

What if, the public knew the truth, That land was bought by me and you
With junk bonds in the billions, Bad loans we had to pay (hey!)

Hurwitz loves children, how could he be a villain
Blame it on the Board for making bad decisions
Sister Butterfly, prayed for him to listen
Saved her favorite tree, but the rest will cost millions

Can we agree to protect the remaining lands
In keeping with God’s plans . . . It’s in our hands . . .

Can’t we be like redwood trees
Rise above the force of greed
Can’t we all, unite in peace
Bringing heaven in our reach Yeah Yeah

Like the giant redwood trees
Rise above our world of greed
Bringing heaven in our reach
Can't we all just live in peace Please

-- Houston Progressive Music Library
http://www.americanwildlife.ca

 

[MisterBeale]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

I mean, I realize most of you are left wing, but have you really internalized this? Have you really, really, thought it through...that the function of capital is to produce as much as quickly as possible.

The fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they possibly can, and the rest of the consuming society is obligated to consume as much as they possibly can. The same is true of all industry. As such, the entire earth is basically a waste dump for capital.

So my point is...either come up with critiques of capital, or give up. Being "concerned" about the environment doesn't change anything, because to capital the environment doesn't even exist.

you can say that about anything racism, war, slavery, minimum wage, gay marriage. They're all connected to capitalism and until liberals realize that they are working to preserve capitalism itself by proposing these reforms and are guaranteeing the continuation of all these things they claim to fight.

Using your example of environmentalism, we can see that the only thing environmentalists have accomplished is the general acceptance by the populace of destruction of the environment, global warming is destroying the planet, people are burning fossil fuels more than ever, clear cutting forests, mining, dumping chemicals etc etc. What they have done is created and preserved the perception that environmentalism currenlty exists, they create the idea that through "regulation" the environmental crisis caused by capitalism can not only be solved to create some utopian society where capitalism can exist in full force for the benefit all people with no consequences., but that capitalism itself is natural and is inevitable and we should be eternally grateful for environmentalists for without them the world would be somekind of wasteland with air as black as coal and yellow phosphorus in all our drinking water.

Or as Lenin would say
"The liberal bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand, and with the other always take them back, reduce them to nought, use them to enslave the workers, to divide them into separate groups and perpetuate wage-slavery. For that reason reformism, even when quite sincere, in practice becomes a weapon by means of which the bourgeoisie corrupt and weaken the workers. The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled."

So you'd like to see a globalist tyranny then?

 

[Crick]

The environment is the source of all resources. And when you say fossil fuel industry is obligated to produce as much as they can and that consumers are obligated to consume as much as they can, I have to ask: obligated to whom?

 

[koshergrl]

[
Capital has indeed found that respect for the environment means the ability to garner more resources. If a timber company clear cuts a forest, the available trees won't be around for another twenty years. If the fishing industry over fishes Blue Tuna, their market for Blue Tuna disappears.

Your contention seems to be Capital must exploit both resources and the environment in order to scratch out a profit. Meanwhile, such exploitation ruins both the resources and the environment's ability to renew them.

Not when capital owns the environment.

For example; BLM land is almost always overgrazed, while privatively held ranch land is not.

BLM *management* is a joke.

And it's going buh-bye.

 

[koshergrl]

Trump is taking down the EPA. I can hardly wait.

 

[Nosmo King]

Trump is taking down the EPA. I can hardly wait.

Just can't wait for all that new pollution, eh? More childhood diseases, more deaths, less aerable soil, rivers catching fire! Ah! The shortsighted idiot's dream!

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Just can't wait for all that new pollution, eh? More childhood diseases, more deaths, less aerable soil, rivers catching fire! Ah! The shortsighted idiot's dream!

Do you not understand how utterly preposterous this sounds?

 

[ding]

that protection of the environment (the commons) is incompatible with global capitalism as we presently understand it?

No. It isn't. By any objective measure free enterprise has gotten better at being stewards not only of the environment but also safety.