[Tarbourite]

This is a pretty good explanation/analysis of the role of the petroleum industry and why it is so focused on the dirt side of things.


http://canadiansocialistbroadcast.blogspot.ca/

What does anyone else think?

[Social_Critic]

There's no content to your link. But anything with "socialist analysis" in the title must be a sight to behold. "socialist analysis of the Oil Industry" is a real winner. Do you have other links like this, but with content? Say "Socialist Analysis of the North Korean Economy"? What about "Socialist analysis of product shortages in COMECON members, a historical perspective"? . I could also suggest "Socialist Analysis of the Cuban Biofuels Industry". The possibilities are endless.

[Daktoria]

I'll listen later, but for now, I'll just say that socialism and environmentalism never seem compatible.

Socialists require the depletion of natural resources in order to keep people employed. Therefore, environmental disasters would have to be tolerated for the good of the proletariat.

Besides, socialism depends on historicist economic planning. It won't adapt circumstances until after disasters happen.

[Mickey]

I'll listen later, but for now, I'll just say that socialism and environmentalism never seem compatible.

Socialists require the depletion of natural resources in order to keep people employed. Therefore, environmental disasters would have to be tolerated for the good of the proletariat.

Besides, socialism depends on historicist economic planning. It won't adapt circumstances until after disasters happen.

Why do you say this? Wouldn't complete depletion of natural resources be the cause of unemployment? How do you explain the Red-Green coalitions in Europe?

I would think Socialism and environmentalism work great together. It had always been capitalist interests that chopped down forests, milked oil for all its worth, and sell us carbon emitting products. I've heard it said that lack of a planned economy is what has allowed companies to disregard their effect on the eco-system.

I even think it would work in a more decentralised form of socialism like Anarchism: just start up a nice campaign to convince communities to find ways of reducing their carbon footprint. And a more democratic and worker-controlled form of buisiness would be more smart about their handling of resources.

[Daktoria]

Why do you say this? Wouldn't complete depletion of natural resources be the cause of unemployment?

The problem is people don't know when natural resources deplete in advance of depletion. We can forecast, but forecasts aren't omniscient.

Furthermore, workers don't have an interest in preventing unemployment into the future. They just identify with working in the present. If you demand that they change their ways in order to accommodate others, they get frustrated unless compensated.

Likewise, workers get frustrated when expected to compensate others whose ways they didn't create.

How do you explain the Red-Green coalitions in Europe?

They're a Machiavellian tactic against capitalism.

I would think Socialism and environmentalism work great together. It had always been capitalist interests

See, you're proving my point here. You haven't shown how socialism and environmentalism are compatible. You just immediately made a Machiavellian leap against capitalism.

that chopped down forests, milked oil for all its worth,

Capitalists deplete natural resources because they're socially alienated from the existing mode of production. If they didn't do this, society would treat them as second class citizens.

In fact, socialism is based on abstract versus concrete labor. It explicitly discriminates against those who work smart, not hard.

and sell us carbon emitting products.

Consumer sovereignty doesn't exist?

I've heard it said that lack of a planned economy is what has allowed companies to disregard their effect on the eco-system.

Can you show how economic planning coincides with environmentalism?

I even think it would work in a more decentralised form of socialism like Anarchism: just start up a nice campaign to convince communities to find ways of reducing their carbon footprint. And a more democratic and worker-controlled form of buisiness would be more smart about their handling of resources.

Anarchism would revert people back to a state of nature which is crude, brutal, and vicious. Unless you believe in intelligent design, I'm not sure why you're convinced that proper environmental handling is just obvious.

Everyone doesn't feel the same way about the environment, and you would be discriminating against weak minorities who feel differently.

[Conscript]

Socialists require the depletion of natural resources in order to keep people employed.

What bullshit. Let's hear your reasoning for this, if it's coherent.

[Lexington]

Capitalists deplete natural resources because they're socially alienated from the existing mode of production. If they didn't do this, society would treat them as second class citizens.

No, we just say, "Hey, look! There's some oil over there, let's sell it to someone who wants it and we can have fun with our money!"

I don't see any particular alienation in that viewpoint.

[Social_Critic]

Daktoria is right, nations such as the former Soviet Union were famous for their lack of regard for the environment. To explain why this happen, I invoke the simple principle that, when the state is both the owner of the means of production (and therefore seeks profits), and the regulator, the regulator function withers and the owner function of the state becomes the prime driver.

The owner function of the state becomes focused on production above everything else because it is inherently inefficient (public enterprises are less efficient as a general rule), therefore it tries to make up for its inefficiency by cutting corners.

There are other add-on effects, such as the problem we see with lack of feedback to the top when the top becomes so powerful, and the corruption associated with socialist systems, which degenerate into extremely corrupt and lawless regimes.