Joseph: > You ask, why not try the carbon tax? > > --because it would be marking time
If it delays global warming, that creates time before a total environmental disaster. That gives us more time to build socialism. > --because if it's carried out harshly enough to make a significant difference > it's likely to seriously hurt the masses and thus create widespread mistrust > for environmentalist measures Given the current balance of power, it's likely to hurt the masses, but so would _any_ kind of environmental measure instituted by a capitalist government, including those involving planning, command, and control. Though this is unlikely given the current balance of power, it's possible that a carbon tax (or cap'n trade) could be relatively progressive. If the working class were stronger (politically, economically, and socially), then we could insist that all of the revenues from the tax (or from selling the pollution permits) would go to raise working-class living standards. > --because it's wrong to lie to the workers about how the carbon tax won't > hurt them ... I never said we should lie to workers in this way. If you want to have a reasonable conversation, it's best not to imply that the person you're talking to is in favor of lying. > --because it's important to create a trend of serious, pro-working class > environmentalism as opposed to the corporate environmentalism that is > now so fashionable it seems to me that _any_ specific program (a carbon tax, planning, cap'n trade) can be totally anti-working class or much less anti-working class (or somewhere in-between). Repeating what I said above, he actual implementation of _any_ program depends on the balance of class forces at the time. It's a mistake to focus on any specific capitalist policy as being a disaster for the working class. Most importantly, simply calling for one program rather than another does not change that balance. > --because there is a serious danger that after the carbon tax or other > market measures fails, the bourgeoisie will move, not to regulation, but to > really dangerous geo-engineering schemes. Already Obama's science > advisor John Holdren has put this "on the table". Regulation (planning, command, and control) schemes can fail too, unleashing these dire forces. The old USSR did a really bad job of planning its economy (though it wasn't totally their bureaucracy's fault). That's enough for today. If you have a magic formula so that we can change the balance of class forces in the progressive direction -- so that whatever program is instituted is better for the working class than what's likely to occur today -- please tell me. -- Jim Devine / "All science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
