How do we stop capitalism from killing the planet?

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The five warmest years in history have all come in the 2010s.
Glaciers are melting and causing sea levels to rise faster than scientists’ predictions.
Species are dying off at a pace that has led scientists to conclude that the earth’s sixth mass extinction is already underway.
An algae bloom along the Gulf Coast of the U.S. has killed 267 tons of marine life, with carcasses washing up on beaches and causing respiratory problems for residents.
Massive floods sweeping through Kerala, a state in southern India, have killed more than 350 people and displaced 800,000.

JUST AS there can be no doubt that a climate change disaster is already taking place, there can be no doubt about its cause: capitalism.
The source of environmental destruction, spreading pollution, immense waste and the failure to address the long-term effects of all of these is an economic and social system that prioritizes the profit and power of a few over the needs of the many.

To read more:

https://socialistworker.org/2018/08/22/how-do-we-stop-capitalism-from-killing-the-planet

[Mike Rows His Boat]

1. Are threads like this allowed on DU? I thought DU was intended for Dem candidates and platforms.

The Democratic party platform certainly doesn't call for stopping capitalism.

[guillaumeb]

2. This article makes the case for regulating capitalism.

Unless you are promoting unregulated capitalism, and FDR certainly was not, you should have no problem with it.

[Mike Rows His Boat]

4. I don't. Was wondering if this is allowed on DU.

Hard to know where the lines are drawn these days.
I mean, didn't the DNC just rescind their ban on fossil fuel PAC contributions?
I'm lost on where the lines are to be crossed. That's all.

DNC reverses ban on fossil fuel PAC donations
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100211010204

[guillaumeb]

5. I understand your question.

After the SCOTUS declared that money=speech, most of us knew what would happen.

[Mike Rows His Boat]

6. So, isn't posting Socialist Worker articles that run counter to Democratic party principles ...

... banned here on DU? This is a site that is for supporting Democratic party principles/platforms, that now include fossil fuel PACs (the very same fossil fuel co's that are destroying our planet, and are in support of deregulating capitalism).

I don't get it.

[Hekate]

21. Actually, you are correct.

If you choose, you can click on the Alert Abuse button at the bottom of his post and choose how you believe his OP and choice of sources violates the TOS (Terms of Service). Then it goes to a jury, who may or may not agree with you. It is an imperfect system -- but the best we have at this point.

[Mike Rows His Boat]

22. Thanks. I know.

Was more a general question that has been resolved. This thread was locked (I didn’t alert) and has now been unlocked.

My point was that the Democratic Party platform now has revered to the old position to allow fossil fuel PAC money contributions. That does not comport with socialist principles of saving the planet from capitalism, as espoused in the OP article.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. I don't think you should try and hide behind FDR, when your article attacks Obama and Jerry Brown

It's not as if it mentions FDR at all. It does look to Marx for solutions, however.

No, it's attacking regulated capitalism too. It's demanding an end to manufacturing for profit, for instance.

What we need is a rational agriculture system that takes into account conservation and sustainability. You can only truly do this under a social and economic system that is planned, where everyone has a democratic say in how resources are used.
...

The problem is not emissions, the problem is capitalism. The climate issue is like every other issue. It’s very important to working people, poor people, people around the world. It threatens their food, their water, their lives.

Extending the political and economic influence of workers is crucial to solving the climate crisis. If workers extend their control and power over politics and economic decision-making, I very much doubt, if it goes to the full process and conclusion, that what’s left standing would be called capitalism.

Any solution to climate change requires a reasonable, democratic and planned economy that stops making products to sell for a profit, that ends wars, that radically curbs waste and pollution and that transforms all the other things keeping energy and transportation demands so high.
...

Every single facet of industrial life — energy production most urgently, but also transportation, housing, trade, agriculture, manufacture of commodities, and waste production and treatment — all require gigantic systemic change and complete structural reorganization. It will be nothing short of totally remodeling the world on a social, political, technological, cultural and infrastructure level...

[mr_lebowski]

30. I say it's still worth reading ... and I'm no dirty commie ;)

[guillaumeb]

44. The article attacks capitalists for whom profit is the only

consideration.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. Is that what you think Obama and Brown believe?

It does attack them explicitly. It attacks capitalism in all forms. I gave the quotes. It's not just "for whom profit is the only consideration". Don't sugarcoat it. It wants the end of for-profit corporations.

[guillaumeb]

56. Are huge for-profit corporations a necessary thing?

They did not exist for most of the earth's history.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. They may not be, but regulated capitalism includes them

so it's incorrect to say that article, website and organization are "for regulating capitalism". They are for abolishing it.

[guillaumeb]

3. From the same article:

Capitalism is driven by the endless pursuit of profit. It is a system that has no consideration for the long-term health and well-being of the vast majority of people on the planet, let alone the natural world — the land we live on, the water we drink, the air we breathe.

Expropriation and exploitation of both land and labor are vital to capitalism. They are turned into commodities to be bought and sold on the market. As Chris Williams writes in his book Ecology and Socialism, Karl Marx described how capitalism’s robbery of both the worker and the soil together was the “original source of all wealth.”

[SWBTATTReg]

7. In answer to your ?, How do we stop capitalism from killing the planet?

Unfortunately I think we are too late. In some areas, we doing better, but it seems like swimming upstream the Mississippi River. In other areas, we are doing more, but it's like putting a rubber band on a finger, while the whole body has been damaged...

Predatory capitalism is what I call it...

People are finding out that only 100 people win, while 7,999,999,999,900 lose at this game...

[ZeroSomeBrains]

8. Cap and trade

We're incentivising the wrong things through our tax system and by not taxing carbon. If you implement a cap and trade system where you tax carbon output and keep the taxes into a fund similar to the alaska permanent fund and distribute out the dividends to all US citizens with a social security number then you would incentivise electric vehicles and clean energy and reduce the toll on the environment.

It may already be too late but when you're not dealing with the negative externalities associated with the burning of coal and oil (like the damage to the environment, asthma, cancer, etc) then you can't necessarily blame capitalism as much as public policy. You could also outlaw gas powered cars like in Scandinavia. There's a lot of options if the government of the US cared. Sadly, it's not that high on people's lists' of priorities.

[Donkees]

9. K&R

Socialists want to build a culture around a reconnection to the land — based on the knowledge that humans are not separate from nature.

In the process, we can open up the possibility of learning from Indigenous cultures, including their conservation practices.

And we have to organize for justice for immigrants and refugees who are going to continue to be on the move around the world, due to the unfolding climate crisis among other reasons.

https://socialistworker.org/2018/08/22/how-do-we-stop-capitalism-from-killing-the-planet

[GulfCoast66]

15. That sounds as batshit crazy now as it did in 1970

Learn from Indigenous cultures? The Indigenous culture in North America hastened the extinction of all megafauna, totally altered the original landscape by using fire to create a better hunting environment for them to prosper and otherwise behaved as humans always have. And all with Stone Age technology. But also with human ingenuity.

The Soviet Union did untold environmental damage. And while the were not socialist in the 2018 sense, they sure as hell were not capitalist.

Our challenge is to use our ingenuity to find ways to continue improving the physical condition of humans while not harming the earth. Properly incentivized and regulated capitalism is more likely to do that than some dreamed up plan of worker owned businesses which gets blurry about who provides the capital to start those businesses.

I have plowed and picked up a potatoes patch and howed a 3 acre garden. Aint no one lining up to do that shit today.

The ditty ‘how you gonna keep them down in the farm after they've seen Paris’ was actually a serious question. And they left the farm in droves.

[True Dough]

26. You're rather blunt

and I like it. No sugar-coating going on here, just good points. So much is easier said than done. Rather than advocate for going backwards or adopting unwanted ideology, we are better off relying on ingenuity to save the day. The climate is already showing extremes with greater regularity and it's truly concerning. I'm not sure we can come up with any solutions to prevent things from going over a cliff. I sure hope so.

Thanks for the post.

[Hortensis]

43. :) I like what you said also.

Socialists of course do not, per se, "want to rebuild a connection to the land." Many of us do, and some of us have to various extents, but that's not what socialism is about. I'd bet good money that their windows are closed all day and HVAC running as much as most people's. And science denial is not intrinsically part of socialism.

Among the vast majority who tried to make a lifestyle of it in the 1960-70s and changed their minds was, famously, Bernie Sanders. I like that he tried many things when he was young and don't hold it against him in the least that he decided he much preferred the greedy comforts of our defective modern culture. But then he isn't recommending silly stuff like denying the great advances of the Information Age or regressing to ways of life that wouldn't work and are quite simply no longer acceptable.

[NCTraveler]

10. So many great Democrats are usind the government as a function to do just that.

Along the way they are influencing society to help force change.

[KT2000]

11. enforce liability

in any way possible, hold profit making entities responsible for the damage they cause. Where it affects climate, surely there is enough evidence that would pass the test for something modeled on toxic tort cases.

[jalan48]

12. A different system or a heavily regulated capitalist one. I think with shortages of food and

water (not to mention coping with heat extremes), the baubles that we currently chase will cease to be all that interesting.

[NickB79]

13. I don't think we can, honestly

We have a global economic and social order built on resource extraction, consumption, and infinite growth.

Try to imagine a civilization built on a concept of zero growth year to year. Hell, how about one based on negative growth, since we're about 2 billion people past the planet's sustainable carrying capacity. What would that look like?

It goes beyond capitalism IMO. Socialism and communism also require an ever-expanding economy as a financial basis; they just prioritize resource distribution differently.

I honestly have no idea what kind of system we can transition to at this point that can save us. Maybe the pre-Columbus, Native American model that didn't have a concept for private land ownership?

[MineralMan]

14. From that website:

http://socialistworker.org/where-we-stand

We do not support candidates of capitalist parties like the Democrats or the Republicans. We support genuine left-wing candidates and political action that promotes independence from the corporate-dominated two-party system in the U.S.

See the DU TOS.

[Hekate]

20. He's just going to keep going like the Energizer Bunny...

...until finally stopped.

[JI7]

31. they don't care about the environment .

[guillaumeb]

45. You misread the TOS.

Or missed the point of the article.

[MineralMan]

47. I did neither.

Socialistworker.org is not a source that is suitable for DU. That was my point, and remains my point. The organization that publishes that website does not support Democrats. Not at all. DU does support Democrats.

Using it as a source is a mistake.

[guillaumeb]

49. Suitability has already been determined.

Attempts to restrict are censorship. And the point was the article itself, and the point it makes about predators who are called capitalists.

[MineralMan]

50. And yet, my comment remains. I will repeat it

anytime someone posts from that anti-Democratic website. There used to be a DUer here who frequently posted links to that site and to wsws.org. Eventually, everyone grew tired of the anti-Democratic slant and the poster was shown the door. I objected to that site then, as well.

[guillaumeb]

51. If anything, it is anti-both major parties.

Perhaps you missed that part of what you quoted.

But your point is far too simple in that social-democratic candidates, like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, among others, are accepted here as people with valid viewpoints.

[MineralMan]

52. I edited the post to which you are replying.

Now, I'm done with this subthread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. There's a huge gulf between Sanders, or Ocasio-Cortez, and Socialist Worker and this article

For a start, as you note, that site is anti-Democratic party. Sanders and AOC clearly are not - they work with, and get the support of, the Democrats. They stand (sometimes) as Democratic candidates.

It's not just on the environment that they attack the Democrats - also from the current front page:

https://socialistworker.org/2017/03/01/fair-weather-friends-of-abortion-rights (attacks Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Obama, with sideswipes at Madeleine Albright and John Kerry).

It's Leninist: https://socialistworker.org/2017/04/24/how-is-leninism-relevant-today

It's Trotskyist: https://socialistworker.org/2018/01/24/leon-trotsky-the-historian

It's got nothing to do with social democrats. That's a class of politics that Leninists and Trotskyists despised. The ISO is very left wing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Socialist_Organization

[brooklynite]

16. There's no indication that socialism would be a better steward...

Russia and Eastern Europe had horrific environmental conditions.

[guillaumeb]

17. Yes they did, and do.

But when profit is fetishized over all else. we should expect what we see when capitalists are essentially unregulated.

[Mike Rows His Boat]

18. Authoritarian regimes are not socialist.

Nice use of another party’s talking point though.

[Loki Liesmith]

29. "No true socialist..."

[mr_lebowski]

32. He's right ... in theory ...

You're right in practice ... at least, thus far in history.

[Lee-Lee]

36. As someone once told me

If you kept trying to follow a recipie and every time the end result tasted like crap, and people who had never actually made it taste good kept screaming that you were doing it wrong and if you just did it again it would be perfect- how many time would you need to try before you realized the recipie was bad and all the critics were living in a fantasy world?

[Mike Rows His Boat]

37. That's a criticism that can be made against capitalism and attempts of socialism.

As, it turns out, the more successful economic formats are mixed economies... but that’s not what the OP article is about. It’s about saving the planet from the capitalism part of economies.

Btw, I’m Cuban-American, and I know that Cuba is not a socialist nation/economy.

[EX500rider]

60. "Authoritarian regimes are not socialist" Yes they are if they own the means of production.

Government owning the means of production is the definition of socialism.

If they own everything they are communists.

[Hekate]

19. So this is the new buzzword? you are aware, I suppose, that Barack Obama moved us forward a lot...

Trump and enablers are the wrecking ball. And what is the difference between them? Is one a socialist (since your link is to the Socialist Worker) and the other a capitalist?

Hmmm. I know! One is a Democrat and a decent human being, and the Party Platform he ran on includes language to protect the planet. The other one is an opportunistic criminal who ran as a Republican, had their party platform changed, and is enabled at every turn by the Republican Party.

It's not as simple as using "capitalism" as a boogy-man.

[guillaumeb]

46. Would you agree that capitalism must be regulated?

If so, how much must it be regulated?

[SoCalDem]

23. when the last human eats the last mouse/cockroach/glob of algae

capitalism will be done

[flibbitygiblets]

24. too sleepy...thought that said "how do we stop Capitalization from ruining the world"

...and I was honestly thinking "Yeah, people who use all CAPS suck. And those idiots who use apostrophes everywhere do, too!"

[True Dough]

27. An over-reliance on capitalization is a plague that affects us all!

Please start that thread on all caps!

[Loki Liesmith]

28. Geoengineering is the only path I can see at the moment

We had better tools but we’ve pissed them away.

[anarch]

33. it seems to me the problem is unfettered exploitation of resources

both as a big-picture cause of our various global issues, where human societies the world over have prioritized human convenience over sustainability for millennia, and at the individual level where nobody really wants to make personal sacrifices in the interest of our planet's and our society's future--I mean, some individual people have made tremendous sacrifices, but generally speaking it's hard to get people to give up things like eating a meat-heavy diet or driving cars (and in some cases, the whole culture is built around really unhealthy practices, making it all but impossible for an individual to effect meaningful change).

At any rate, capitalism, socialism, whatever the systems of production and distribution of the stuff of human existence, if humans don't intentionally and radically change how they live their lives from the perspective of resource consumption, there are going to be very hard times to come.

Besides, capitalism always has the answer to everything...we just need to find new resources to exploit, perhaps on other planets. So...umm...Space Force, yeah!

[guillaumeb]

48. Well said.

Capitalism as practiced by predatory capitalists allows for nothing to interfere in making maximum profit. Exploitation and division are some of the tools used to maximize that profit.

[mr_lebowski]

34. Whilst I agree with a large amount of what this article is putting forth and feel it was a good read

The fact that only Democratic politicians are called out by name ... is pretty troubling. I guess the reader is supposed to just 'know' that all GOP Pols are far more evil and 'capitalist' than Obama and Brown, so no need to mention any of them?

[Lee-Lee]

35. Despite thier fairy tale portriat they paint, there is no reason to believe

their system would change anything.

They are pushing socialism. Not some Nordic Model neo-socialism but pure socialism- where nobody owns a farm or a business but they are all either government owned or cooperative systems where everyone who works there “owns” it only in a standpoint that they get an equal say in managing it. Bug not in a way anyone could sell what they “own”, if they don’t work there anymore they just lose the share.

They outright call for a centrally planned economy where and how to work, to produce, and then who gets what from the prosecution.

According to them this will solve all the worlds environmental problems.

Along the way they throw in some things like “learn from indigenous peoples” that are essentially meaningless. But sound good.

Two main problems here.

First, they assume somehow once their people gain total control of the means of production and distribution and everything in the economy is run from a central authority that mankind will suddenly become virtuous, and that only profit corrupts. That isn’t true, of course, anywhere but in their fantasy land. The same kind of person who woud dump barrels of waste in a river to make extra money will do it just the same to make their job easier, to make sure their plant or team makes production goals, to try and gain prestige for running an efficient plant to get promoted, etc.

Second, they ignore the past. Every nation who has tried to practice what they preach has been an environmental disaster. Of course I am sure they will say “they just didn’t do it right” because that’s the blanket excuse the hard-core socialist always gives. But the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, etc all have been environmental disasters. I know, they will come along and say “they didn’t do socialism right”. But all those are the closest thing to what these folks are preaching. And if every time you try something you end up with those “not the real thing” results maybe those results are the real world outcome of your ideals.

[Mike Rows His Boat]

38. Nice to see the other party's talking points in your post.

Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2018, 09:56 AM - Edit history (1)

USSR, China, Venezuela, socialist failures blah blah. Well done.

All are authoritarian/kleptocratic regimes, not socialist by any stretch (not that I’m advocating for pure socialism), so these attempts to call the aforementioned regimes “socialist” are pure capitalist bunk.

Cheers, comrade.

[Hortensis]

39. Regulation of course. For both capitalism AND,

more importantly, regulation for what humans will do under any system.

Over 7.6 billion and growing for another couple decades before world population growth finally reverses its course and starts declining.

This time last century the population of the U.S. was less than a third what it is now, 103,000,000 versus 327,000,000. 224,000,000 more people, most of them in our lifetimes. Btw, the U.S. has 4.2% of the world's population.

Anyone noticed that the more extreme people become in their thoughts, the more narrow, rigid, and ultimately clueless? It also takes a great deal of constant dishonesty to support irrational belief systems, but being up to that is what extremism is about.

[Mike Rows His Boat]

40. Well, the more people who are punching holes in the bottom of the lifeboat...

... the more radical those who are trying to stop them become. People sitting around while the lifeboat is being sunk and debate if punching holes is good or bad aren’t being helpful. When will they realize it’s bad? When the water overruns the gunnels?

[Hortensis]

41. :) If we all became "radical" with danger,

the human race would have died out before we developed. Most people have enough sense to be able to recognize the problem and fix it. As opposed to those who start railing about capitalism when they see water pouring in.

Or those so busy blaming a word for everything that they are blind to the collision all around them of industrialization, explosive population growth, and resulting environmental depredation.

For 20,000 years people lived not much differently from all those who came before. The development of capitalism in the 1500s didn't change the human condition.

Then the industrial revolution happened and EVERYTHING changed.

(Regarding your "allowed" question, imo this would be alertable for extremist content and requirement to support Democrats, since it clearly does not, but hey, variety in discussion? As long as it isn't allowed to just keep pouring in.)

[Mike Rows His Boat]

42. I hear ya.

As I mentioned upthread, socially tilted mixed economies seem to be doing better. Not perfect in context of “saving” the planet.

This thread was locked. Then, unlocked.

Have a good one.

[David__77]

53. "Socialism" and "capitalism" can both cause environmental damage.

The issue is how public policy will handle environmental protection. I do not think handling the issue requires implementation of a socialist system, whatever that might mean. It does, I think, require public policy and not unrestrained market operation.

A non-private economy can prioritize different things. GDP in the short term, human health, etc.

[guillaumeb]

54. Agreed. Neither system is perfect.

My point, that I have made before, is that any system needs to be regulated, but any system that fetishizes profit above all else will inevitably be a net negative for the planet.

[David__77]

59. If "profit" is that product that exceeds that required for sustenance, I support it.

Defined as such, “profit” is in itself neither capitalist nor socialist. I think there’s a political thought that’s nominally socialist that is too exclusively focused on economic distribution and not also on economic production, including developing means of production, and performing research and development. I think serving humanity means building the capacity for economic output while avoiding severe polarization in wealth and severe environmental damage.

[guillaumeb]

61. Your last sentence is, in my view, an excellent summation.

But essential to avoiding the well know negatives of capitalism is that it must be strongly regulated. Even the Republicans of Theodore Roosevelt's time knew this.