We
have a choice between climate change and system change, between
civilisation collapse or a better world. Despite their pledges and
promises, governments aren’t doing anywhere near enough to end the
environmental emergency. Capitalists have grown rich on polluting the
planet, pillaging and plundering resources, why should they stop?
Sociopaths are running the world. Facing up to them are the climate
strikers around the World. That's lesson our children are teaching
us today. We have a choice and we have an alternative.
No
one is disputing that in any consideration of existing social
problems, the question of the environment is of prime importance. The
current climate crisis is certainly a deep one and is driving
capitalist states and capitalist companies towards some desperate
measures to try and stabilise the eco-system and restore the
ecological balance. The climate crisis and the increasing misery it
is inflicting doesn't necessarily and inevitably lead to revolution.
Relying upon the effects seems to be the lazy way to try and approach
social change, scrap all the groundwork and hope the crisis does it
for you. But the vital question is about the reasons why the existing
world capitalist system cannot take up the technical possibilities
which now exist for the setting up of a safe and sustainable world
system. This question also takes us out of the sphere of applied
science and technology and inevitably into the sphere of world
economics and politics.
From
a practical point of view, society has available a wide range of
technical options and there are large reserves of skill, labour and
materials, yet at the same time we suffer from a chronic inability to
take these up in a free and consciously regulated manner to solve
global warming. We live in a social system predicated on endless
expansion and it is the blind, unplanned drive to accumulate is the
hallmark of capitalist production – the profit motive – that has
created the environmental problem, not individuals. There can be no
such thing as sustainable or environmentally friendly capitalism. It
is completely impossible under capitalism for humanity to use the
earth's resources for the benefit of all people, and it is equally
impossible for it to deploy the accumulated knowledge, the skills and
the techniques of production which now exist in a direct relationship
with human needs on a basis of world-wide co-operation.
The
protection of the environment is a social problem which requires
humanity to establish a viable and stable relationship with the rest
of nature. In practice this implies a society which uses, as far as
possible, renewable energy and raw material resources and which
practises the recycling of non-renewable resources; a society which,
once an appropriate balance with nature has been formed, will tend
towards a stable level of production, indeed towards “zero growth”.
This does not mean that changes are to be excluded on principle, but
that any change will have to respect the environment by taking place
at a pace to which nature can adapt. But the employment by capitalism
of destructive methods of production has, over two centuries, upset
the balance of nature. Humans
are capable, whatever the form of production, of integrating
themselves into a stable ecosystem. That was the case of many
“primitive” societies which coexisted in complete harmony with
the rest of nature, and there is nothing whatsoever that prevents
this being possible today on the basis of industrial technology and
methods of production, all the more so that renewable energies exist
(wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, waves, biomass, etc) but, for the
capitalists, these are a “cost” which penalises them in face of
international competition. So it’s not production as such (i. e.,
the fashioning of nature to meet human needs) which is incompatible
with a stable balance of nature, but the application of certain
productive methods which disregard natural balances or which involve
changes that are too rapid to allow a natural balance to develop.
So
it is not “mankind” but the capitalist economic system itself
which is responsible for ecological problems. In fact, not only have
workers no influence over the decisions taken by enterprises but
those who do have the power to decide - the capitalists - are
themselves subject to the laws of profit and competition.
In
socialism the producers, the immediate users of the common resources,
would not be trying to make an independent living for themselves but
would be carrying out a particular function on behalf of the
community in a social context where the aim of production would be to
satisfy needs on a sustainable basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment