Louis Proyect wrote, in part:
The entire
planet, from the New Jersey suburb to the farming village in
Bangladesh,
will have to reexamine the value of these highly touted but
environmentally
destructive commodities once socialism is established worldwide. I am
sure
that reasoning human beings can think critically about their value and
choose long-term sustainability instead.
His full post is below. The final sentence above makes sense only when
read with the penultimate one, which has these "reasoning human beings"
thinking critically after socialism is established worldwide.
So, are we in a race between the killing of billions through global
warming and the establishment of socialism worldwide? In my judgement
the catastrophe to unfold from global warming is approaching faster
than worldwide socialism.
Can anything else be done about climate change? Will anything be done?
Gene Coyle
Louis Proyect wrote:
DMS:
"They," "socialists," are not at all doing
their duty when they
uncritically reproduce statements directly Malthusian claiming that the
"natural" carrying capacity of the earth is 2 billion people.
But clearly the Earth cannot sustain an infinite number of people.
Global warming is not a product of 6 billion
people on a planet built
for 2. Global warming is the product of the private property system of
capital's need to garner profit no matter what the SOCIAL cost.
But you are wrong. Global warming is a byproduct of the burning of
fossil
fuel. There is no "socialist" solution to this problem. There is
nothing in
Marx or Engels that can provide an answer. Even under socialism, there
will
be only one way to use internal combustion engines. This is not even a
question of "pollution" in the conventional sense. You can put all
sorts of
scrubbers on factory burners, car engines, etc. to prevent sulfur
emissions. But greenhouse gases are the inevitable byproduct of energy
consumption.
If that isn't the case, then indeed, the more
than 2 billion people
living on a dollar a day, the 4 billion living in poverty, the 5.2
billion living on the rations determined by a ruling class, have no way
out, as the energy requirements for their emancipation from privation,
that is to say the emancipation of us all, cannot be fulfilled.
dms
Of course there is a way out for a society that lives in balance with
nature. The idea is to share equally in the resources of the planet
without
class divisions. That being said, we still need to accept ecological
limits. Furthermore, the main problem facing the world's poor is not
being
deprived of automobiles or air conditioning. It is being driven off
their
land into the favelas and slums as Samir Amin pointed out in a recent
MR
article. The capacity to feed, shelter, clothe, educate and provide
health
care one's family is a function more of class relations than anything
else
right now. Once a basic standard of living is provided, you get into a
more
problematic area involving the desire for an automobile and other
energy-burning but dubious consumer goodies enjoyed in the West. The
entire
planet, from the New Jersey suburb to the farming village in
Bangladesh,
will have to reexamine the value of these highly touted but
environmentally
destructive commodities once socialism is established worldwide. I am
sure
that reasoning human beings can think critically about their value and
choose long-term sustainability instead.
Louis Proyect
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
|
