Capitalism: GUILTY of the WAR against the air, water, and soil.

[Union Yes]

BP's oil gusher that is KILLING the Gulf is..

A SCATHING INDICTMENT.

CAPITALISM IS ECO-TERRORISM.

[corpseratemedia]

1. and innocent species..terrorism indeed

[L0oniX]

4. ...like these...

[Mojeoux]

34. How can anyone argue this point? Because we all use petrolium products?

That is a bullshit argument.
Fucking HEMP can be made into anything we need.
And thats why they outlawed Hemp.......GREED


Beautiful Darling Dolphins BTW!!

[Regret My New Name]

2. Hmmm... Does this mean non-capitalistic nations do not cause eco-damage?

Let's say the US and other major world players were non-capitalistic societies, would that mean incidents like this wouldn't happen? Don't you think the problems are humans in general?

[L0oniX]

3. Capitalism or nature. One or the other has to go.

[MajorChode]

5. That almost brings a tear to your eye until you realize the BP oil rig was socialized

[Union Yes]

6. In America the funding side is socialized, reaping the profits is privatized.

:fistbump:

[MajorChode]

7. Not true in the case of the BP oil rig

The federal government owned the oil lease and BP was the agent used to extract that oil. The same accident could have happened in Norway, who also uses private companies to extract public oil.

[readmoreoften]

17. That's not "socialization", that's capitalism. Every time the government is involved in something

it isn't "socialized." What you describe isn't even nationalization. It's contracting out to the private sector.

Socialization is when an operation is organized by the common people for the common good. The capitalist state, on the other hand, is a STATE, meaning it has a government, that it is not anarchy or total rule by private entity. The state under capitalism functions primarily to make things nice for business. It seizes and "owns" things (like oil rights) in order to give it to the private entities it serves.

[Hannah Bell]

19. +100

[MajorChode]

22. The federal government owns the oil

Private companies have to buy that oil from the federal government. The money from the purchase goes to the treasury. Nothing is given away, as you claim. BP pays the federal government for every barrel of oil it extracts. This is how it works even in so-called "socialized" nations.

[rug]

29. +101

[corpseratemedia]

8. BP Transocean and Halliburton are all public, "the common good" doesn't drive

ceo's to meet in secret with a vp (with a conflict of interest) to forgo vital safety measures, maximizing individual profit does

and of course subsidies and "public/private partnerships" are great, because capitalists can use other people's money instead of their ownunder one guise or another (often the elusive"job creation") to fund their business, and have very limited to no obligations in return

maybe try not to confuse quasi-free-market social democrats with actual socialists



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[MajorChode]

9. Of course we all know "actual socialists" have stellar safety records, yes?

May you should not try to confuse whatever idealistic vision you have of "actual socialists" with reality.

[corpseratemedia]

10. Norway has apparently required

remote-controlled acoustic triggers on offshore rigs since 1993

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504...

.."The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well. ...
On all offshore oil rigs, there is one main switch for cutting off the flow of oil by closing a valve located on the ocean floor. Many rigs also have automatic systems, such as a "dead man" switch as a backup that is supposed to close the valve if it senses a catastrophic failure aboard the rig. As a third line of defense, some rigs have the acoustic trigger: It's a football-sized remote control that uses sound waves to communicate with the valve on the seabed floor and close it...."

Our former VP has a private meeting with oil execs..and our gulf rigs don't have back up plans..and bp is limited in liability to 75m...and our whole gulf is possibly finished as an ecosystem.

Now which motive performed better...performed safer, in "actual reality?"

[MajorChode]

11. I thought you said Norway was "quasi-free-market social democrats"???

...and not "actual socialists". Explain.

Do you have any examples of the acoustic trigger performing safer in "actual reality?"

[corpseratemedia]

26. in none of the text did I say or imply that, I was responding to your

remark that part of the oil rig was "socialized"..whatever you mean by that. I thought it was clearly obvious by what I had stated that substitutes and tax incentives, (which I assume is what YOU mean by "socialized," and why I included the actual definition of socialism in my post) are plans that typical social democrats and corporations like: public funding/risk for private business/profit

the proof that the "common good" vs. "maximizing profit for private citizens" is better is in the fact that Norway has the back up equipment; hence, no catastrophic oil spill


sorry to reference another DU post but the article referenced is by Joe Conanson

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x533795

Why Norway's offshore drilling is safer
Statoil operates the most environmentally friendly offshore oil rigs in the world -- because it's state-owned

By Joe Conason

...The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Statoil rigs in the North Sea are required by law to maintain special "acoustic switches" that shut down operations completely (and remotely) in case of a blowout or explosion. The US Mines and Minerals Service, under the industry-friendly Bush administration, decided that rigs operating in American waters need not install those switches because they are "very costly." At $500,000 per switch, they now look like an enormous bargain, of course...


I already gave you that example and another citation but you could not take that into account - that the Bush administration, in order to provide a greater profit-margin to it's oil exec friends, COMPROMISED ON SAFETY...for profit..not for the "common good."

[MajorChode]

27. The inference was fair

in none of the text did I say or imply that, I was responding to your remark that part of the oil rig was "socialized"..whatever you mean by that. I thought it was clearly obvious by what I had stated that substitutes and tax incentives, (which I assume is what YOU mean by "socialized," and why I included the actual definition of socialism in my post) are plans that typical social democrats and corporations like: public funding/risk for private business/profit

So you are describing the US as "quasi-free-market social democrats"??? Sounds a bit more like Norway to me and nothing like the US, so I don't think my inference was out of line. Either way your description of the BP oil rig is not accurate. BP does not simply get "substitutes and tax incentives." All offshore oil rights in US sovereign waters belong to either the federal government or the state. None of them are privately owned. As such, the oil belongs to the people and BP pays the people a royalty for every single barrel they produce from the well. Well guess what? That's exactly the same way Norway operates. Some of their oil production is managed by Statoil, but Statoil doesn't manage all of their rigs and even Statoil isn't even close to being 100% owned by the state. Statoil is also far from being free of corruption.

the proof that the "common good" vs. "maximizing profit for private citizens" is better is in the fact that Norway has the back up equipment; hence, no catastrophic oil spill


sorry to reference another DU post but the article referenced is by Joe Conanson

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Why Norway's offshore drilling is safer
Statoil operates the most environmentally friendly offshore oil rigs in the world -- because it's state-owned
...

This is neither "proof" or "fact". This is clearly opinion. It's not even the opinion of an expert. It's the opinion of a journalist, and an obviously biased journalist at that. Now maybe his opinion is accurate, and maybe it isn't, but it sure as hell isn't fact or proof of anything. Trying to pass this off as proof or fact is either ignorant or duplicitous.

I already gave you that example and another citation but you could not take that into account - that the Bush administration, in order to provide a greater profit-margin to it's oil exec friends, COMPROMISED ON SAFETY...for profit..not for the "common good."

This demonstrates quite clearly the hazard of basing your assumptions on a non-expert with clear biases. Mr. Conason is either woefully ignorant on the subject or he is lying by omission. The "fact" is US oil companies most certainly do have a third remote shutdown option. They just implement it differently than the Norwegians. So cost was only part of the equation. US oil companies already had that base covered well before the Norwegians. The acoustic switch has never been tested in a real world situation and has never prevented one single blowout, ever. Claiming that Norway has the better or "safer" solution is clearly opinion, and not even well supported opinion. He further alleges such a switch would have prevented the disaster, which is also very poorly supported opinion trying to be pawned off as fact. The Norwegians have a dismal safety history despite having only a fraction of the offshore rigs and no hurricanes to worry about.

But let's assume for a moment your assumptions are correct and the Bush administration did compromise safety. The very best you can say is that this is indicative of the problems associated with crony capitalism with a heavy emphasis on the "crony" part. You further suggest these problems can be fixed with some form of "socialism", but this assumes there is no such thing as crony socialism, and that's very far from reality. It also assumes the Norwegians have a socialist model and they most certainly do not. They have a mixed economy, just like the US and their oil industry is only partially owned and operated by the state.

[flvegan]

12. By that note, accepted humanity is eco-terrorism.

What?

[paulsby]

13. not of capitalism

unless you want to discuss the environmental horrors of such distinctly NON capitalist systems as , oh ... for example, the USSR

taken a swim in the river volga?

oh, and then there's ... wait for it... chernobyl

get real

[subsuelo]

15. so, others do it, therefore, capitalism is not guilty?

that makes no sense.

[paulsby]

16. read the OP

for content

Guilty OF the war on the (environment etc.)

not even guilty IN, but guilty OF

it is singled out as a singular guilty party, and the word OF is highly indicative of it being THE culprit.

i have seen NO evidence that capitalist societies are any particularly more prone to environmental degradation than (for example) socialist and communist societies

so, if in fact, the economic system is NOT relevant in this regards and/or it is true that communism is actually WORSE (which ime it is - see china, USSR, north korea, etc.O) then it is disingenuous at best, a falsehood at worse, to say capitalism is guilty OF the war on the environment when
1) other systems are worse
2) many other systems are just as bad

do you really think the OP would have said "soviet communism guilty of the war on the environment" vis a vis chernobyl?

here's a hint. countries other than capitalist countries have been involved in oil exploration.

and once environmental disaster does not indict an economic system.

its just silly on many levels

but i expect the kneejerk "capitalism is evul" crap here, so there you go

[subsuelo]

21. so are you defending capitalism or not? n/t

[BzaDem]

23. You are making a somewhat silly argument.

You cite capitalism as the culprit behind these disasters. Yet when someone points out that socialist states have many MORE disasters, you ignore their point and duck the question. For your argument to have any merrit, you need to cite a system of government in which these disasters don't happen (along with a host of example countries under similar circumstances where these disasters didn't happen).

[subsuelo]

24. I haven't made an argument.

I'm not sure how you can conclude that my argument is silly, given that ...

[William Z. Foster]

33. no

The OP did not say that Capitalist states are the culprit, nor would failed socialist states prove anything, since it is not states that are being compared.

The debate is not one of "comparative" or "alternative systems" since that implies the imposition of a system buy someone on the general public. People who talk about "alternative systems" betray their identification with the rulers, since they immediately begin talking as though the issue were what sort of system should be imposed on the many by the few as though that were the only way to discus politics.

Politics is a dynamic ongoing battle, involving power an economics, not a matter of selecting "alternative systems" off of some shelf and "installing" them. The OP did not say "installing and posing a Socialist system as an alternative will prevent all environmental disasters."

We could list hundreds of brutal dictatorships that were not Socialist, but were free market investor friendly countries. Why do not those examples invalidate and cause us to reject Capitalism?

Certainly environmental disasters have occurred in countries nominally Socialist. So what? Why is Socialism be perfect in order to be considered? We don't require Capitalism to be perfect.

You may as well reject democracy as well while you are at it, since democracy can become corrupted and bad things can happen. The same logic you are using to tell everyone they should reject socialism applies just as much to democracy.

[MajorChode]

28. Here is what makes no sense

Holding up some romanticized fictional notion of socialism as a metric for the very real example of US capitalism makes no sense. It's no different than some fuckstick teabagger pointing to an example of a Democrat politician's bad behavior and claiming that's what happens when you elect Democrats.

[subsuelo]

30. where did I hold up a "romanticized fictional notion of socialism"? n/t

[MajorChode]

31. Where did I claim you did?

nt

[subsuelo]

35. If not me, then who are you referring to?

Who has held up this "romanticized fictional notion of socialism" which apparently troubles you so much?

If we follow the subthread that you've responded to back to the OP, there's actually no mention of socialism...

[MajorChode]

36. Are you trying to claim that is a poor assumption?

So following your logic if one is denigrating capitalism we can't possibly assume their preferred economic system is socialism. Interesting. Perhaps they meant a 3rd way, yes? Something like Mussolini's idea of fascism? That's it! Surely they meant fascism! No wait. We can't assume that either because they didn't use the word fascism and even if they did how can we possibly know they meant Italian fascism? Perhaps they have their own secret economic system that nobody else knows about except them, and they will reveal this secret master plan when the political climate is ripe.

Yep, that's it. That's got to be it! Thanks for enlightening me. I learn so much on DU.

Cheers!

[subsuelo]

37. There is nothing inherent in a criticism of capitalism ...

... that contains any assumptions whatsoever about socialism - or about *any* economic system.

If someone says 'I hate dogs' would it be reasonable to respond "quit holding up a romanticized notion about cats!" ... or about birds or horses ...?

No, I just don't see how that's helpful, or even how it's at all relevant.

Also, maybe the OP *does* actually have an idea about a better economic system. If so, I would be open to hearing it - wouldn't you?

[blindpig]

25. The ecological problems of the socialist east

stemmed from a too dogmatic application of capitalist production technique. Marx did point to capitalist production as the most bountiful in human history, it is indeed this productivity which will make the socialist society possible by taming if not eliminating scarcity. Like their capitalist model they ignored what capitalist blithely refer to as externals, trying to beat the capitalist at their own game. Clearly this was not the kind of rationality with which to build a society, ignoring so many other aspects of the common good. We know better now.

These people were pioneers in making a new society, mistakes were made, bad ones. When discussing this we must keep in mind that what was going on in capitalist dominated countries was much of the same, if less centralized. And continues today, though out of sight, out of mind, oil extraction in the Niger Delta and Amazonia, the genocidal mayhem in the Congo, the leveling of the rainforest for palm oil in Southeast Asia.....

k&r

[proteus_lives]

14. CAPS-LOCK MEANS I'M TELLING THE TRUTH!

[Union Yes]

20. Not as true as taking refuge in obfuscation.

[KillCapitalism]

18. We need oil to power things but oil = stupidity.

By now we should be relying mostly on wind, solar, hydroelectric, biofuel, etc. to power most of society. Hydrogen cars should also be widely available.

[DatManFromNawlins]

32. Socialism: GUILTY of the WAR against the air, water, and soil.

Chernobyl's toxic radioactive wasteland that is KILLING the area is..

A SCATHING INDICTMENT.

SOCIALISM IS ECO-TERRORISM.

Good, glad we got that stupidity out of our systems.

[blindpig]

38. See post #25

Stack up the environmental damage done by capitalism vs socialism, it ain't even close even with Chernobyl and the Aral Sea included, capitalism is killing us.