GREEN antipathy towards capitalism
is based on an ideological animosity towards material prosperity; people like Australia’s Clive Hamilton have been critiquing materialism for some time; hatred of capitalism follows because it is the best vehicle for producing material prosperity; since capitalism is based on private ownership of property and means of production this explains the merging of ecotism and socialism; with centralised, non-individual economic control lip service can be given to preserving nature; but as I have shown in ‘The 10 Worst Man-Made Disasters’, the worst examples of environmental despoilation have been in non-capitalistic societies.
Still, the defining characteristic of the green is misanthropy; it is ridiculous for any green supporter to claim that it is only fringe fanatics who espouse drastic reductions in human population, or even eradication; such people as John Holdren, James Lovelock and Gus Speth are mainstream greens and have clearly enunciated programs for reducing population. The irony is of course that material prosperity is the best check on population as most Western nations show.
Prosperity is also the best for nature as Bjorn Lomborg shows but there comes a point when it has to be said that the interests of humanity diverge from the idea of pristine nature. The idea of pristine nature is terribly elitist and decadent; only a person nurtured by an advanced, unnatural culture could develop a non-utilitarian aesthetic about nature which dominates survival exigencies; how could it be otherwise; if one was living the sustainable life based on natural dictates one would be too busy doing what had to be done to survive to bother about that tree or that koala. This aspect of green ideology is both hypocritical and unrealistic; it is also as good an example of cognitive dissonance as a human could produce.
Cohenite lives in Newcastle, Australia
**************************
This series ‘Defining the Greens’ been archived here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/tag/philosophy/
A series on ‘What is Wilderness?’ is here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/tag/wilderness/
Read more from Cohenite here, including ‘The 10 Worst Man-Made Disasters’: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/cohenite/
The picture was taken yesterday at Agnus Water, Central Queensland, by Jennifer Marohasy. Click on the image for a larger and better view.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
well either I’m not a green, and I don’t know any greens, or you are flat out wrong cohenite.
“With some rabid environmentalists human induced global warming has evolved into a similar religous belief system. This I argue in the last chapter of this book, is an urban atheistic religion disconnected from Nature and it evolved to fill a yawning spirtual vacuum in the Western world. Contrary scientific data and conclusions are greeted with anger, rejection and hostility. As more contrary data is aired, the defence of the indefensible produces grimmer and grimmer future climate scenarios. The scientific arguments are not addressed. These are the characteristics of a fundamentalist religion.” Ian Plimer
I note the “anger, rejection and hostility” on this blog from the zealots refered to. I think the your comment Cohenite also refers to characteristics of fundamentlist religion thought. Human life and welfare are secondary to the cause.
BTW Plimer expands on the history of climate in the very beginning of his book. The points he makes are irrefutable. The climate has always change as far back as geologists can look. It has been hotter, colder, wetter and drier. To say humans caused it over the 100s of millions of years of the past and can now change it is delusional. To say it is not can only be achieved by the ignorant or the religious.
I note the comment that Cohenite is flat out wrong, maybe someone is ignorant of who he travels with. Lomborg was vehemently attacked by a Green group for daring to suggest costs should be considered. A concerted effort was mounted to end his career. Who was the leader of the group? Ehrlich author of the population bomb. That “pollutant” CO2 is produced by humans. Whose is the enemy? Humans of course. “Alternative energy” is designed to fail Nuclear is wicked and evil so what is the answer? Reduce world population by fair means or foul. I say to “Greens” who think this is wrong and actually don’t hate their fellow man wake up that is what you are supporting.
If the objective is to slash world population then why on earth would greens want to avoid climate change?
Not to mention destroy capitalism, the global socio-political structure, and slash material wealth. Bring global warming on comrades it will crush these capitalistic pigs! lol.
The leaders of the green religion more than likely realize there is no such thing as “climate change”. It is a means to another end. To serve as a rallying call for the followers who cannot see the wood for trees. Any actual solutions to such rallying calls are to be opposed. What do you do to stop a volcano, easy sacrifice a virgin. Keeps the flock in control. If the invented danger ceases to be believed then find another to play on. Humans are suckers for this B/S.
Matty you are spitting chips mate; DHMO has given you one reference to Erhlich who is thick as thieves with Holdren; here is a very fair review of Hamilton’s philosophy about capitalism and population;
http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spr03/polspr03-7.htm
And here is a delightful little article about the misanthropy of prominent greens like Erhlich, Mead, Lovelock, Holdren etc;
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-23/pdf/50-55_723.pdf
you will note I haven’t linked to anything uttered by that bastion of reason, Hansen or Speth but I can refer you to some doozies; here in Australia we have Glikson going nuts calling humans parasites with John Reid advocating drastic population reduction; then there is PETA ‘culling’. These are your fellow travellers Matt.
As to climate change prevention; you are simply barking up the wrong tree; the philosophy these greens want is a fairy tale; it is a pristine environment unsullied by human deviation from a primitve, entirely natural lifestyle; local acedemic and all-round hypocrite Glenn Albrecht says the only truly sustainable lifestyle for humans is that lived by indigenous culture 40,000 years ago; and even this is too harsh on the environment; preventing AGW is a total red-herring; it’s merely the vehicle for some severe self-loathing [I presume] extrapolated to the rest of humanity; really Matt they are a bunch of misery-guts.
Actually Matt, I will link that Speth rubbish;
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/green-bridge-to-nowhere
Speth is an anti-anthrocentrist; does that rhyme with misanthropist?
Cohenite,
Good post, but it occurs to me that we are looking at ‘environmentalism’ from a Judaeo-Christian perspective. For example, just across the water, there are a billion Indians, and most of them are Hindu. As they grow wealthier, so they will have an increasing influence on us.
I am certainly not an expert on Hinduism, but, from gleanings on the internet, I believe there is emphasis there on the importance of three worldly aspects of life; karma, darma, and artha. These can lead to eventual moksha, or release from the worldly cycle of birth, life, death. Some of our ‘environmentalists’ seem to want to leap directly to ‘moksha’, without tussling with the three worldly aspects.
The first worldly aspect, karma, is, as I understand it, the cut and thrust of everyday human life – our deeds, and reactions to the deeds of others.
The second, darma, is the ethical aspect of human life – decency, fair play, honesty.
The third, artha, is our material wellbeing – wealth, comfort, not being a drain on others.
So I suggest that ethical economic progress is every bit as important as an ethical attitude to nature. Hindus may have a sounder, more sustainable, more balanced philosophy than our Judaeo-Christianity. Given their enormous numbers, and economic potential, we should not ignore it. ‘God’ is on the side of the big battalions.
Perhaps others can contribute Muslim, or Taoist perspectives on ‘environmentalism’. There are big battalions there too.
At the time of the “Population Bomb” a considerable amount of food was being exported to India. There were many who advocated denying food exports in order to control the population growth. In religous circles misanthropy is applied to the others. Those who do not believe the same thing!
GD, Hinduism, like most religions has some pleasing aspects to it but I tend to find that ultimate source scenarios always lead to tyrrany; humans seem to need checks and balances; with that in mind I find it interesting that a lot of churches/religous groups have come out in favour of AGW [George Pell being a noted dissenter] including this pleasant lot;
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/230408Qaeda.htm
The population issue is an important one in all these discussions. Take Australia for example and compare it population wise to other countries:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?
In 1789 it was one million. Now it is about 7million and the average population density is less than 3 people/sq km. Compare this density with some countries; Belgium 344, India 300, UK 240, Germany 240, Switzerland 170, China 130, and suppose some people claimed that for equality’s sake Australiaya’s population density should also be around 240. This means that the population will rise to about 1.7 billion. Where are you going to find the energy to sustain such population?
The real issue is “sustainable world population” and not capitalism or the green movement. The capitalists tried to better the world but failed so far and it is very doubtfull that they will succeed in the near future. The greens aimed at a better world but disappointed the hopefulls.
It seems all scientific findings and all this technology failed to be in the service of humanity as evidenced by so much poverty and low standards of survival.
I am hopefull that such issues will be handled by more technical people in the future as numbers always point out to the truth.
Correction:
Australia’s population is about 21 million and NOT 7 million. Sorry for that mistake.
One way to define green groups is by their veneer of peace full protest that hides an underbelly of violence and sabotage.
Most green groups promoting blockading and direct action link to Earth First’s manual Ecodefense: A guide to monkeywrenching – available at: http://www.omnipresence.mahost.org/inttxt.htm.
This manual also explains how to spike trees, destroy machinery and disable aircraft.
Booby traps and tree sits have replaced derelict cars concreted into the forests as the latest weapon of choice in the Weld and Florentine Valleys in South East Tasmania.
See Selective harvest, selective truths at http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/letters/gap-gets-wider-20090506-avb5.html?page=5
Recently the self claimed ‘inventor’ of tree spiking used a monkey wrench to scuttle a whaling ship http://www.tasmedia.org/node/1885 and the Canberra Times has a blog that defends these “intrepid activists” called …? http://www.canberratimes.com.au/blogs/monkey-wrench
cohenite “since capitalism is based on private ownership of property and means of production this explains the merging of ecotism and socialism”;
I don’t follow your logic mate. We’re in the midst of an election in British Columbia, Canada, and there is a neck and neck race between the socialist NDP and the ultra-right-wingers in Liberal-clothing called the BC Liberal Party. The Greens are running candidates in all ridings and the Green leader is glad-handing it with the right-wingers every chance she gets while running down the socialists. In fact, the famous David Suzuki, a rabid activist and environmentalist, is siding with the right-wingers because they brought in a carbon tax. The socialists have vowed to get rid of the tax.
I’ve said several times in this blog that the Greens are not socialists. I have no idea what they are other than religious zealots. They do not support socialist causes like overcoming poverty, unemployment insurance, medicare, etc., they care only about a peculiar slant on environmental issues and not about people. Suzuki is a wealthy man, as is Gore and Maurice Strong, the hippie-cum-billionaire behind Kyoto.
I can’t agree with you at all that capitialism alone is about private property. All socialists in Canada, and probably the world, value private property and their right to own it. Socialism is a workers movement, not communism, a detail of which many people are oblivious. Socialists may have come from a background in which they could not afford property but the changes they brought in through their struggles have given them the affluence to own property. I think it’s a quaint old notion that only capitalisst value private property.
In fact, I’ve just been reading a book on the struggles of Mao, Chou En Lai and others to incorporate communism in China. In his early years, Mao wanted nothing to do with communism, which was of Russian origin. As a child, he was quite an intellectual, a trait that horrified his peasant father, who wanted sons who had brute strength and stupidity. Later, as a young man, Mao became involved in strikes to protest the inhumane treatment of workers and peasants. At one point, he had to watch his young wife being executed by strangulation, with other protesters. He developed a ruthlessness for which I don’t blame him in the least.
He was driven to communism by the excesses of capitalism. He hated foreigners and their ways of life because the imperial British, US, French, etc., capitalists were ripping China off and Britain in particular was making huge profits getting the Chinese stoned on opium.
During WW II, the US and their puppet, Chiang Kai Shek, conspired to keep material support away from Mao to fight the Japanese. Despite all that opposition, Mao prevailed, and I say good for him. I’m no communist, but I see the wisdom of using whatever system benefits your people, especially when they are severely oppressed by brutal land barons (capitalism gone wrong). Women had absolutely no rights and were sold as concubines. Mao changed all that, and although the system turned for the worse, as did the Russian experiment, it was born out of necessity, out of the ravages of capitalism.
China wanted to form a democracy in 1910 and they were denied help by Britain, the US, Germany and France. Imperialist forces in the East did not want a democratic China because it would have meant a severe reduction in their profits. When you come down to it, that’s what capitalism is really about…profit…the more the better. That translates to maximizing profits and keeping costs like wages low.
When Adam Smith started capitalism, it had heart. He did not foresee international corporations and their ruthlessness, nor did he foresee how blackhearted many capitalists couldn be. I realize there are many decent people who have adopted the prinicples of capaitalism but I think it’s incredibly naive to ignore the inherent greed and abuse in the system. Capitalism needs to be fixed to get heart back into it and to prevent the more severe capitalists from taking advantage.
I think the better systems in the world today are a healthy mixture of socialism and capitalism. I don’t know anything about Australia, but Canada has such a mixture. Many capitalists want to retain the socialist ideologies like universal medicare, pensions, unemployment insurance, etc. Here in BC, the right-wingers tried to privatize our electrical utility, BC Hydro, and they met stiff opposition from capitilists. In fact, BC Hydro was nationalized from a private electrical company by one of the most right-wing leaders we’ve had in BC, W.A.C.Bennett.
I also think that ideologists on both sides are to blame for the rabid hatred between socialists and capitalists. Sweden, for example, went too far with punitive income tax schemes as did Britain. We have experienced several provincial socialist governments in Canada and they have not crippled people with severe income taxes. In fact, unless you’re a hardline ideologist, you’d have to admit that many socialist implementations in Canada were for the betterment of everyone.
There’s a funny story about that. The socialist government in BC brought in private automobile insurance in 1973. Subsequent right-wing governments have sworn to get rid of it but it’s still with us. The current premier, an ultra-right winger, brought in a financial specialist to set it up for sale. When the specialist saw it in operation, he advised the premier to keep it.
I find it quite peculiar in this blog that so many people equate the Greens to socialists. In reality, I don’t think capitalism or socialism has anything to do with the extreme form of environmentalism practiced by the Greens. In fact, I’d like to see people study the history of capitalism, socialism and communism to get a feel for the differences in the systems. Things have changed in this world and to relate any of those ideologies to the stereotypes of a century ago is a mistake.
Dear Haldun Abdullah,
Assuming, from your name, that you are Muslim, I am interested to hear your opinion on my proposal that most discussion of ‘environmental issues’ in western circles is through the myopic spectacles of Judeo-Christianity, whether the speakers/writers realize it or not.
I raised the matter of a possible rather different Hindu model. Is there yet another Muslim model, perhaps based on further fundamentally (whoops! Careful now…) different assumptions? If so, perhaps you could submit it to Jennifer as a potential post (The Greens 10; A Muslim View).
After all, who can claim the colour green more than Islam?
Yes Gordon, it’s a twisted continum between uber capitalism [which really doesn’t exist without strict anti-trust or anti-monopoly legislation] and uber communism [which also probably doesn’t exist outside of an ant’s nest or Pol Pot’s diseased ideology].
It really is a matter of what values you want to prevail in a society; democratic principles with minority reprsentation; tiers of government and healthy parliaments where oppositions have some teeth, independent judiciary, free press, rights of assembly, the usual checks and balances.
Socialism is a term which I find less than useful and contradictory but then, as your examples show, so are the other labels; given this the best approach to the greens is to deconstruct their declared intentions and actions; I listed a few of them in the essay; perhaps I should have said they were similar to communism rather than socialism but essentially I think, despite the pious assertions of moral and ethical superiority, the greens are anti-human; there are elements of pathology there but the difficulty is that there are a few good aspects of green philosophy as well. Increasingly though, I think those good points are incidental, and the genuine worth of a few individuals or groups who espouse green values are irrelevant to the main thrust of the brandname.
On another tact, I studied comparative constitutional law and the conclusion was the problem with Canada is you didn’t play cricket.
cohenite,
I think you point is oversimplified. Some greens are as you say, but there
are many varieties. For every Greenpeace corporate warrior who spends
the donations there are thousands of people who donate . Are the donors
Green or not? I’m sure they think they are and would justifiably reject
outright your suggestion that they are misanthropic communist mass
murderers.
To me the Greens are looking more like a Fascist movement than a
Socialist/Communist one. That is, a developing alliance b/w grassroots
politics and big business (biomass/solar/wind/geothermal/lightbulbs/etc).
Of course, either way the donors/supporters are just a means to an end
and ultimately the big losers.
graham,
The only possibility for China that I can see from here is to become a Fascist state. Probably already there.
Dear Green Davey
Your assumption is correct. I am not a very religious person but very much scientific and documentary. I do abide very much by the Koranik commandments: “seek science from cradle to grave”, “there is no priesthood in Islam”, “to each his own religion”. Some Muslims in history, who believed in these commandments were contributers to mathematics (algebra), astronomy, chemistry and medicine. That was at times in history when world overpopulation was not an issue.
It has never occurred to my mind what religious beliefs drove the minds of Eugene Odum, E Kormondy, Fikret Berkes, Mine Kışlalıoğlu and the like when I was reciting (reading) their contributions to the natural science “ecology” (I suggest you do the same). This science tells all about how natural ecosystems function within the ecosphere and points out how human intervention disturb the healthy natural cycles.
I never expected capitalists to appreciate this science because its fundamentals could systematically lead to prevention of over-consumption and of depleting the natural resources. Obviously the baby boom policy was profitable for many industries!
When it came to “greens” I thought at first that they were equipped with the findings of this science and would act on world human misdeeds accordingly. As I said before, I was disappointed!
Good luck with the Hindu environmentalism.
I’ll butt in here and point out that capitalism is essentially individuals choosing their own destiny, rather than the state.
Cohenite’s initial post here reminds me of Rumpole after quaffing good claret – the goals are recognisable but the delivery somewhat meandering.
Whoops, helps if I read the next batch of comments, but my previous post stands.
I don’t think any commentators here actually understand the difference between capitalism and it’s opposite.
One can only be charitable if one has the means to be so. Socialists can’t because socialism is essentially consumption of capital.
I’ll leave it there and see how the discussion develops. Further expositions on this topic are found at the Mises site (www.mises.org) and at Lew Rockwell’s.
Sorry Cohenite, but the stuff you wrote was about as a convincing as a GPT commissioned survey on who doesn’t want the railway.
Maybe the stereotyping of greens as socialists is somewhat Australian. I struggled and failed to finish reading “Main currents in western environmental thought” by Peter Hay (UNSW Press), but he described the contrasts in the origins of the green movements around the world.
For example, in the UK, Hay argued that the green movement arose from the desire to protect the countryside from change, so to protect a heritage building, save a prominent tree on the village green and so on. The strident defence of “wilderness” is probably a bit pointless in a country where they felled the last native forests to build the HM Royal Navy. It’s a sort of respectable upper middle class country thing to protest about new roads, and GM crops, and become obsessive about organic everything and banning hunting.
In Australia, Hay suggested that the green movement gained a major boost when the Berlin Wall came down and the communists and socialists were lost for a cause. So I wonder if this is why we rednecks on the underside of the planet see greens as flipped over reds. Curiously, some of the most prominent communists in the union movement in the days of the 1970s Green Bans were also heritage conservationists, a bit like the Brits. This was before the days of land rights for gay whales, and before some people placed responsibility for the future of an entire little blue planet upon the shoulders of some mountain ash trees.
Maybe I misrepresent Peter Hay’s point a tiny bit, but I still found it to be an interesting observation.
In the 1960s & 70s many of us did the same thing over Vietnam. Something beyond us to give us meaning, even though we really knew little about it. What we were really concerned about was being drafted, and at the same time we got to watch napalm attacks in (almost) real time which was really terrifying stuff when you grew up on Julie Andrews and The Sound of Music. Then that war ended (bummer man, no cause), but we were socialists (a bit interesting) and we applauded Pol Pot in Cambodia for the agrarian revolution. “Yeah man, living in the country, growing their own food.” Until we heard about what really happened. Jesus, how embarrassing. What should I believe in now?
The common element I find in the greens that I have known is that they are searchers, they need something bigger than themselves to anchor their life onto; a need to have some foundation for self esteem. As we all do, but some more than others. Doctors for This and Lawyers for That seem to be people with this acute longing, in common with the puzzled and lost souls chaining themselves to skidders in the forest and anything else they want to stop working.
I suspect Men of The Cloth who go all green in the pulpit are probably those who privately doubt their own faith in God, but can’t face the turmoil of a major career change. In the past we had the Christian leaders going along okay with the notion of human supremacy over the beasts of the field, and God didn’t strike them down (the Christian leaders, not the beasts; for Christ’s sake, try to keep up will you?). You’d think there was a message in there somewhere.
So maybe we shouldn’t get too bent out of shape over this. Like the Crusades of the 11th and subsequent centuries, and many many other causes considered worthy of great personal sacrifice, this fad will pass, to be replaced by another one. There will always be searchers and there will always be those who take advantage of them for personal glory, by portraying themselves as the most righteous amongst the chosen. There are so many gods/causes to follow, maybe none of them amount to much.
Well Louis, I’m more a white wine man so maybe that explains the lack of clarity; as I said to Gordon it was perhaps a mistake to revert to the socialist/capitalist continuum because these labels mean different things to different folks; a case in point; both Australia and the US could be said to be capitalist based nations [although our leader’s recent opinion piece on the evils of capitalism is a worry]; but apparently there is a major difference between the altruism of the rich, those who have benefited the most, arguably, from the capitalist/free enterprise structure, in the respective countries; the US rich donate twice as much as the Australian rich; what wasn’t said on the [ABC] report was the difference between the 2 countries of the social security network; Australia’s safety nets are far more generous and supportive than the US’s. The point is, here are 2 capitalist countries which have major distinctions in how capitalism functions; as to which is the best, Shaw’s ‘Major Barbara’ has some interesting things to say about which method of looking after the welfare needy, government or private, is best.
JC, your little jest raises a crucial point; in the debate about AGW and indeed generally, the greens assume the moral/ethical highpoint; which is to say, they are motivated by altruism and not by the fifthy lucre; so a green survey would have integrity; a “capitalist” survey is dubious. Let me give you a cutting edge issue; the UN is proposing to remove all DDT use; currently it is limited to indoor spraying; there is no doubt the removal of DDT will increase deaths from malaria but no doubt will also leave nature more ‘pristine’. Is is right for green groups such as Jeff Angel and the TEC to assume an ethical superiority about this when scientists are quite plain that increased deaths will occur?
Gordon Robertson,
you are confusing the Greenies stated socialist goals, that is, what they want others to do and put up with, and what they PERSONALLY WANT FOR THEMSELVES!!!
The Greenies here in the US typically vote for and support socialist agenda. Of course, as you pointed out, they are generally well off.
Poor people can not afford environmentalism.
Boxer,
Is that the same Peter Hay that described himself as a Watermelon green?
See interview at http://walleahpress.com.au/FR12interview.html
Where Hay and his mate, fiction writer and green propagandist, Richard Flanagan are recorded as
Flanagan: “Watermelon Greens, Hazy.”
Hay: “Watermelon Greens mate.”
Flanagan: Green on the outside, red on the inside.”
Hay: “The difficulty is, as my wife who is pretty astute has pointed out, watermelons are mushy and soft and insubstantial….”
The Red is clearly for communist or socialist values.
A fair point Boxer but I’m not as sanguine as you about this current “fad” of the lost/needy soul syndrome; the damage could be generational; this time the greens seem to be very organised having infiltrated the educational process and media;
http://www.sustainableschools.nsw.edu.au/Default.aspx?tabid=198&&TID=42
Click on the greenhouse calculator to find out when you should die for the good of the planet; just the thing for impressionable kids.
But as I say your point is pertinent and instead of looking at labels like socialism and capitalism maybe we should be looking at the psychology of those people who feel they have the right, on any pretext including the future of the planet, to determine what others should do and not do.
Dear Haldun Abdullah,
Thank you for your rational thoughts. I know the ideas of Eugene Odum, and have heard of Berkes. The other two I will track down and read. I do not intend becoming a Hindu, but I think it is important for ‘westerners’ like me to try to understand other perspectives on environmental issues. I do appreciate the Muslim contributions to maths (al gebra), science (al chemy), and even computing (al gorism), if you will pardon my dreadful Arabic. Even the supposedly traditional English ‘Morris dancing’ is, in fact, ‘Moorish dancing’, copied from the Berbers in Spain.
Boxer, well done again. Your mini-essay should have been submitted as a main post.
kuhnkat “The Greenies here in the US typically vote for and support socialist agenda. Of course, as you pointed out, they are generally well off”.
How about Schwarzeneggar? He has introduced Green legislation and he’s about as right as you can get. How about whatzisname who lost to Obama? Another right winger with Green ideas.
I don’t know what you mean by a US socialist agenda because you don’t have any socialist parties. The Democrats are as close as you come but they are firmly rooted right of centre. When Clinton was in power for 8 years he did nothing about implementing universal medicare. He talked about it but did nothing. Gore was just as silent. If he’s a socialist why has he never stood up for socialist causes?
Haldun Abdullah “The greens aimed at a better world but disappointed the hopefulls”.
The problem was that they did not tell us what they were doing, or trying to do. The first I became aware of the current Green movement with respect to global warming was the likes of David Suzuki telling us the science was settled, and generally carrying on a like an arrogant twit. He does not want to discus anything, he wants us to accept his vision for the world.
A movement for a better world should not be rooted in environmentalism. The best approach I have read is from Jiddu Krishnamurti, who feels we must first understand the human mind, and from that understanding, our natural intelligence will lead us to action. Most of us don’t understand that the mind we use to reach a better world is distorted and rife with ego. Many dogooders are insufferable power mongers with the Greens ranking near the top.
cohenite “On another tact, I studied comparative constitutional law and the conclusion was the problem with Canada is you didn’t play cricket”.
I think you may be onto something. We are rather a load of sticky wickets in that sense. Then again, there’s baseball, which many see as a game of rounders gotten out of hand.
I agree that the values people want to prevail are important but there is a mental blockage we need to address first. Put simply, the human mind does not work very well and there is a mechanism in place that deludes us into thinking it works just fine. We have a tendency to overlook the plight of others while maintaining an image of being in control.
Given their capacity for intelligence, humans are about as stupid a species as ever walked the Earth. Political and socio-economic ideologies are nothing more than thoughts, but the feelings they illicit make us stupid. When a homeless person is found dead in an alley, and the media reports it, everyone rings his/her hands in remorse. Yet, when that person is alive, very few people will raise a hand to help him/her. It would cost us pennies to ensure a decent quality of life for the less fortunate but we insist on regarding them through rhetoric and nonsense.
I don’t give a hoot for left or right ideologies, I am deeply bothered by our ability to ignore exploding populations, disregard for the poor, and so on. That’s why I can’t stand the Greens and their ideologies. When push comes to shove, they will defend a tree over a human any day.
You are right about the term socialism. Many socialists now refer to themselves as social democrats. I just don’t like hiding behind terms and I’ll be damned if I’m going to step aside while others steal a term for their own use. I refuse to call homosexuals ‘gay’ and I’m not going to allow communists to steal the term socialism. Karl Marx didn’t like the term and Russia and China should piss off and find their own terms.
Louis “I’ll butt in here and point out that capitalism is essentially individuals choosing their own destiny, rather than the state”.
Suppose for a second we all undertook that option to choose our own destiny. Who would do the work? The system counts on the fact that only a minority will be businessmen and that enough gronks will be left to use for their labour.
Where in a democratic country do you see the state directing individuals in what to do? I admit some governments gets far too idealistic and intrusive, but it doesn’t have to be that way if a bit of intelligence is used in lieu of ideology. I don’t think your system can work in the world today, where pioneers can live on a spread, being entirely self-sufficient. We depend on each other to build roads, hospitals, water supplies, sewage systems, etc. Whenever the lives of others becomes inter-dependent, you need a central government to sort things out.
We have a right-wing government here that is privatizing everything and shutting down hospital beds and services. I had major surgery recently and they wanted to kick me out of the hospital after less than a day. Sitting up in bed was a major effort due to the pain and getting out of bed was a major undertaking. They threatened to call security to remove me when I refused to leave.
“One can only be charitable if one has the means to be so. Socialists can’t because socialism is essentially consumption of capital”.
That’s not true, Louis. If we decide that’s the way we want to go, we can make it work. There’s plenty of capital with a lot of it tied up by a minority. I’m talking about a system in which entrepreneurs can entrepreneur themselves to death with a portion of the capital directed to public services. After all, we can support corporate welfare bums with tax breaks and deferrals, why not ordinary people?
I love the old American metaphor of what one strawberry said to the other, “we’re in the same jam!”. It has so much imbedded truth. World population increasing arround 220000 daily and projected to continue to do so for the next 40 or so years. We know for sure that the present world situation (I don’t want to call it names!) will not be fixed for the better in the near future. I am affraid that no greens, reds, whites or blacks are going to be able to provide any cures with existing paradigms.
We have to admit to the existance of forces of nature that lead to what is called “intra-specific” and “inter-specific” competition. The avoidance of the consequences of such competition could lead the path to solutions to sustainable populations that would live in peace and harmony. Otherwise it looks like caos and suffering.
I wonder if raising our children on competition basis is a good idea. Look at how we inerpret political elections as an example. We don’t say such party “won the election” bur rather the saying is that “this party beat that party” etc.
Examples of inter-specific competition are existing in India for quite sometime now. Monkeys are invading human habitats and stealing food for survival because their natural habitats have been narrowed down by growing populations. Elephants are attacking humans for similar reasons.
Now there is even a third type of competition, “Diachromatic competition” which, I am told, basically means “steeling natural resources from future generations” (used in the sense of depleting too much natural resourses presently). We used to think of coal, petrol, nuclear, natural gas, as the economically feasable non-renewables but with the population at such high levels (and going up higher) land is becoming the new non-renewable (we need alot of it to intercept solar,wind and for agriculture).
You see “greens” your task is not so easy, you have to be much more convincing.
As for the capitalists it is easier, they just justify everything they do with “free” and get on with it. Sorry that preaching convincing promises will be very dificult for them from now on.
Man will find a way,he always has.If it ends,so what?
Cohers,
A lovely side slip on your part. My congratulations (sincerely).
Gordon Robertson wrote: > I’ve said several times in this blog that the Greens are not socialists.
In fact, though, they are, as is anyone who denies the primacy of property. It’s definitional.
Socialism, according to Oxford, Webster, and virtually all economists, is “government ownership of the means of production.” The distinguishing characteristic of socialism is the abolition of private property. Thus, price and wage controls also distinguish socialism since government control over production and the distribution of production are easily achieved in this way. (Indeed, it was by means of this latter method that socialism operated on the Nazi pattern.) Remember: the only alternative to private property is communal or governmental ownership, both of which in the end amount to the same thing: control of the property by an elite bureau of “planners.”
That is a crux.
Anyone can say whatever she wants about anything. That doesn’t make it true. For instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, or, for that matter, George W. Bush can say they’re “conservatives.” So what? We are each defined by our actions; our actions are defined by our convictions. To the exact extent that someone — anyone– denies private property rights, that person is, to that extent, an anti-capitalist.
Capitalism, a word coined by Karl Marx, is defined as “a social system based upon private ownership of the means of production and the preeminence of the individual over the collective.”
That’s what capitalism is. It matters not at all what lip-service anyone pays capitalism; find out only the stance on property, and the entire political philosophy will be disclosed.
Part of your confusion, sir, comes, I believe, with all due respect, from an incondite definition of property. Property is “not only money and other tangible things of value, but also includes any intangible right considered as a source or element of income or wealth. The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others. It is the right to enjoy and to dispose of certain things in the most absolute manner as he pleases” (Electric Law Library).
Like all rights, property is first and foremost the right to action: specifically, it is the right to produce, use, dispose.
“For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? … Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor, and by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is property.” (Fredric Bastiat, The Law, 1848).
Here are some of the things environmentalism explicitly believes about property:
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is possible under capitalism” (Judi Bari, of Earth First!).
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (Maurice Strong, Earth Summit 91).
Quoting the Green Party’s first Presidential candidate in American, one Barry Commoner:
“Nothing less than a change in the political and social system, including revision of the Constitution, is necessary to save the country from destroying the natural environment…. Capitalism is the earth’s number one enemy.”
From Barry Commoner again:
“Environmental pollution is a sign of major incompatibility between our system of production and the environmental system that supports it. [The socialist way is better because] the theory of socialist economics does not appear to require that growth should continue indefinitely.”
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” (Harvey Ruvin, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Dade County Florida).
“Private property,” in the words of one environmental group, “is just a sacred cow” (Greater Yellowstone Report, Greater Yellowstone Coalition.)
From the socialist Sierra Club: “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
My list goes on and on and on, but it’s purely academic: the environmental movement has never made any secret of its socialist agenda. None at all, in fact. Most environmental groups were founded by explicit Marxists, which is precisely why Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, described environmentalism as “repackaged Marxism.” Paradoxically, it’s only the environmental apologists who don’t seem to know this. But, as previously stated, you needn’t listen to what anyone professes about which side of the political spectrum she or he is on; you need only check her or his stance on property. “Control the property, control the person,” said V.I. Lenin correctly.
Gordon Robertson wrote: > All socialists in Canada, and probably the world, value private property and their right to own it.
Not in full, sir. You must never forget: money is property. Property is fundamentally the right to produce, use, and dispose. Mandatory recycling laws (e.g.) are a breach of private property rights. So is mandatory healthcare. So is welfare in any of its multifarious guises, as is compulsory taxation. Et Cetera.
Gordon Robertson wrote: > When Adam Smith started capitalism …
Again with all due respect, Adam Smith didn’t “start” capitalism. Karl Marx didn’t actually coin the word capitalism for almost a century after Adam Smith, but capitalism’s most important ingredient — private property — has existed ephemerally a number of times throughout history — at the height of ancient Roman Civilization, for instance. In fact, the very idea of rights has it’s origins in Ancient Roman law and is related to the Roman word jus (justice). According to historian J. Stuart Jackson, “[jus] is wider than that of positive law laid down by authority, and denotes an order morally binding on individuals as members of a society.” In the Roman sense of the word, “right” meant “what is just.”
Apart from that, though, the French Physiocrats, who proceeded Adam Smith and who influenced him inestimably, deserve perhaps more credit than anyone for ushering capitalism into the modern era. Indeed, you may read all about the Physiocrats in Chapter 9 of Adam Smith’s famous book The Wealth of Nations.
Gordon Robertson wrote: > I think the better systems in the world today are a healthy mixture of socialism and capitalism.
But that’s exactly what we have in the preponderating number of developed countries today, and it’s not working! It’s what von Mises called “the hampered market economy.” The devastating refutation of that economic system is given is his brief but brilliant paper How Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism. Download it for free from my website (scroll down to the bottom of the page, and you’ll see the words “Free Download”):
http://www.the-thinking-man.com/leave-us-alone.html
Gordon Robertson wrote: > Suppose for a second we all undertook that option to choose our own destiny.
Sir, that is exactly what we do — if and when we’re left free.
Gordon Robertson wrote: > The system counts on the fact that only a minority will be businessmen and that enough gronks will be left to use for their labour.
Gronks? In any case, I’m afraid that’s also incorrect. In a free society, such as Hong Kong under Sir John Cowperthwaite, anyone is free to open up a business or not. Employees work for these businesses not by coercion but by contractual agreement. If at any time one or all of these employees develop enough capital and have enough wherewithall, these people too can start up their own business and hire, if they can afford it, other people who come in looking for work. This is all voluntary and freely chosen. Indeed, that is exactly what happened in Hong Kong for over fifty years, and Hong Kong, a barren, resource-poor rock in the ocean, flourished. It’s called a voluntary exchange of services.
Gordon Robertson wrote: > Where in a democratic country do you see the state directing individuals in what to do?
Are you kidding? Let us count the ways. Emissions regulations. Smoking bans. Drug laws. Consensual sex laws. Laws prohibiting victimless prostitution, pornography, gambling, gaming. Laws against alcohol, fellatio, even cunnilingus (perish that thought!). Radio and television laws. Laws banning “hate speech.” Fire codes. Gun control. Laws prohibiting advertising. Ammunition laws. Zoning laws. Meaningless laws for “water conservation.” Healthcare laws. Welfare laws. Social security. Progressive income tax. Mandatory recycling. Carbon taxes. Bans on private farmers using perfectly safe pesticides. Did you know that in America, there have been over 50,000 NEW financial regulations added in the last decade alone. Let us not forget either the over 80,000 pages of environmental regulations added annually to the Federal Register. How about the bans on logging, grazing, mining, even recreation. How about the laws restricting the building of new homes and businesses, all in the name of “no-growth.” What planet are you living on, friend? This list doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface.
Gordon Robertson wrote: > Whenever the lives of others becomes inter-dependent, [sic] you need a central government to sort things out.
Not exactly, no. In fact, not at all. Fundamentally, government possesses only one legitimate function: to protect against the instigation of aggression — or, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “the legitimate functions of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others” (Notes on the State of Virginia). The private planning of each individual regulates itself, as was unanswerably demonstrated here, among other places, and as the incontrovertible failure of socialism worldwide has indisputably testified. Quoting the polymathic Wilhelm von Humboldt:
Any State interference in private affairs, where there is no reference to violence done to individual rights, should be absolutely condemned…. To provide for the security of its citizens, the state must prohibit or restrict such actions, relating directly to the agents only, as imply in their consequences the infringement of others’ rights, or encroach on their freedom of property without their consent or against their will…. Beyond this every limitation of personal freedom lies outside the limits of state action (Wilhelm von Humboldt, The Limits of State Action).
Cohenite, great post.
MattB, the following is a small sampling from some of the environmentalists you don’t know, but whom you tacitly endorse:
“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs” (John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal).
“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth” (past-president of PETA and environmental activist Ingrid Newkirk).
“If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species…. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental” (Ibid).
Quoting Richard Conniff, in the pages of Audubon magazine: “Among environmentalists sharing two or three beers, the notion is quite common that if only some calamity could wipe out the entire human race, other species might once again have a chance.”
Environmental theorist Christopher Manes (writing under the nom-de-guerre Miss Ann Thropy): “If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to ecological sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS.”
Environmental guru “Reverend” Thomas Berry, proclaims that “humans are an affliction of the world, its demonic presence. We are the violators of Earth’s most sacred aspects.”
A speaker at one of Earth First!’s little cult gatherings: “Optimal human population: zero.”
“Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as ‘disease’ (e.g., malaria) and ‘pests’ (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere … [We have] an antipathy to ‘progress’ and ‘technology.’ We can accept the pejoratives of ‘Luddite’ and ‘Neanderthal’ with pride…. There is no hope for reform of industrial empire…. We humans have become a disease: the Humanpox” (Dave Foreman, past head of Earth First!)
“Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line we … became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth…. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” (Biologist David Graber, “Mother Nature as a Hothouse Flower” Los Angles Times Book Review).
“The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’”(Paul Taylor, “Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics”).
David Brower, former head of the Sierra Club and founder of Friends of the Earth, calls for developers to be “shot with tranquilizer guns.”
Why?
“Human suffering is much less important than the suffering of the planet,” he explains.
This same David Brower, pushing for his own brand of eugenics:
“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
That, if you don’t know, is limited government environmentalist style.
“There’s nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write history” (Sierra Club board member Paul Watson).
Again from Paul Watson, writing in that propaganda rag Earth First! Journal: “Right now we’re in the early stages of World War III…. It’s the war to save the planet. The environmental movement doesn’t have many deserters and has a high level of recruitment. Eventually there will be open war.”
And:
“By every means necessary we will bring this and every other empire down! Mutiny and sabotage in defense of Mother Earth!”
For fun, here is list of terrible things caused by global warming. Can you add to it?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Thin King man “Socialism, according to Oxford, Webster, and virtually all economists, is “government ownership of the means of production.” The distinguishing characteristic of socialism is the abolition of private property….”
Dictionaries are highly unreliable as a source of the meaning of something like socialism. The definition you provided is for communism, not socialism, but US-based dictionaries cannot seem to fathom the difference. Noam Chomsky, a self-described libertarian socialist (what do you say to that, Louis?) claims that the term socialism was adopted by the Russians to bring respectability to communism and to con the workers into going along with it.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986—-.htm
Chomsky makes this claim in his article:
“The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period”.
Chomsky says later:
“Since its origins, socialism has meant the liberation of working people from exploitation”.
That’s what has always driven socialism. Ruthless capitalists have driven people to it just as they drove them to unions. It takes an awful lot of abuse to motivate people enough to rebel against a system, but history has shown that once they do, things can get out of control. I’m sure the Russian revolution started out innocently enough and I know the Chinese revolution was based on abuses of the Chinese peasant and working class by capitalists. As Chomsky says, however, it’s not fair to relate socialism, which is basically a rebellion of workers with no particular ideology, to the ideologies of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. Those people used socialism as a vehicle and gave it a bad name.
The notion that government control of production is a tenet of socialism has come from the fever of revolution. Its evolution through more peaceful, democratic times lead to a modern form of socialism, better known today as social democracy, in which people can enjoy the best of both worlds. Whereas it would not work very well if governments did control distribution and manufacture, it is not good to leave that entirely in the hands of private forces. We have seen recently what can happen when unscrupulative capitalists artificially inflate the price of oil and other commodities.
Look around you at countries that have socialist governments, or who have had them. The governments did not try to abolish private property or to own the means of production. In Britain, they did build massive public housing schemes which they rented to people at reasonable rents. They did not confiscate any private property, however. Thatcher sold off all public housing when she was in power, and acts like that ultimately sent the Tories off to the political wilderness.
Here in Canada, private property has never been an issue with socialist provincial governments and it has never been on the NDP (socialist) agenda. One government nationalized the auto insurance industry because the private crowd were gouging people, especially the young.
If you trace socialism to its roots, apparently it was a practice in Germany by which wealthy Germans gave handouts to the poor. That enraged Marx, who was German, and he would have nothing to do with it. Engels was open to the idea of calling their work socialism but not Marx. In more recent times, unionists adopted socialist principles in which systems like pensions, unemployment insurance, medical coverage, etc., were universalized and they pushed more right wing governments into implementing those plans.
Socialism ‘could’ range from a system where it is almost communist to a system in which it allows for a free range of capitalist enterprises. That’s the case in Canada now, where the socialist parties are actually small-c capitalist parties. I feel strongly that government has to look after the working class while ensuring a healthy business environment. The notion of many right wingers that the working class can fight over the crumbs and don’t deserve more is rather short-sighted.
If you look back in history, you can see communist states described by the like of Socrates. They were talking about intelligent democracies, however. Socialism does not seem to have been described as such, leaving the impression that it came from disgruntled workers. There was no ideology driving them, they were just pissed off. There may have been ideologists drawn to the movement but to describe socialism as coming from communist ideology is basically wrong.
In the coal miners’ strikes against the Thatcher regime in Britain during the early 1980’s, there were communists involved, but the average miner did not want much to do with them. Even in the union I belong to in Canada, there have been communists involved, but they were a small minority. We tolerated them because they were good union men and did not push their ideologies on anyone.
Thin Straw Man, are you suggesting that in any other political movement there are not quotes made by members, that you could show to other members who would wholeheartedly disagree with them while still feeling comfortable with their membership to that movement?
In what way are we more important than slugs anyway? Important to what?
Hello Gordon,
Communism is a species of socialism, not the other way around. Democratic Socialism is a species of socialism; so is Welfare-Statism, Council Communism, Civil Libertarianism, environmentalism, and many, many, many others besides. Socialism is the genus of all these species.
Socialism, as it’s been said (and I agree), is mercantilism after the industrial revolution.
Communists advocate the violent overthrow of government and the forcible expropriation of property. Democratic Socialists intend to use force peacefully after they’ve been elected into office. By the nature of socialism, they must use force. Democratic Socialism is one variant on modern welfare-state liberalism…. Welfare Statism in theory is this: assume all the advantages of capitalism are here to stay, and then undermine everything that makes capitalism possible in order to redistribute wealth. Welfare Statists want the power to hold the threat of force or coercion over everybody’s head, and they want to retain those milk cows — i.e. the capitalist producers (Isabel Patterson, The God of the Machine).
Avram Noam Chomsky, about whom I’ve written volumes, is a self-described Civil Libertarian, a word I emphasize because, by his own terms, it’s a crucial distinction — specifically from (for example) a libertarian like Murray Rothbard. Civil Libertarians are, by their own admission, socialist. (Chomsky also, incidentally, has at various times classified himself as a Council Communist.) This illustrates why the word libertarian, like democracy, is really a rubber word that can be stretched to mean virtually anything. And it’s also one of the many reason I don’t use it.
It’s perhaps worth pointing out also that as Chomsky tells us on pages 3-55 of the Chomsky Reader, his “real political mentors” are “Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Korsch, Paul Mattick, Anton Pennekoek,” and others. These people called themselves “Council Communists.” They began as a small left-wing sect opposed to the German Communists in the 1920’s. The Council Communists based much of their ideology on the anti-Bolshevist writings of Rosa Luxemburg; they are embraced by, among others, certain despicable holocaust revisionist groups like La Vielle Taupe, with whom Chomsky also has close ties, as I’ve written about before.
As everyone knows, Chomsky has publicly and stridently defended Pol Pot’s genocidal Khmer Rouge, Chairman Mao’s blood-red China, the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, and so on. He also has proven Neo-Nazi ties — this latter thing represented most obviously (though not necessarily most significantly) by his long association with the Neo-Nazi Robert Faurisson, which outraged, quite rightly, many of Chomsky’s fellow “Civil Libertarians” and which Chomsky himself tried to defend in the infamous and thoroughly indicting “Chomsky Preface.”
He is, in short, hardly a persuasive source, especially considering the sheer number times he’s been caught prevaricating outright.
The Oxford English Dictionary, as its very name implies, is hardly an American dictionary, friend. In fact, it is the absolute gold standard of lexical scholarship — for any language, hands down and by light years the most amazing lexical feet of all-time, the Mount Everest of philological work, an unbelievable human accomplishment. For you, then, to expect us to just go with what you say socialism is and ignore its etymological roots is a kind of lunacy.
Here is precisely how my Oxford English Dictionary (Unabridged, 2004) defines Socialism — not that you care, I realize:
Socialism: A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, money, land, capital, property, etc….
I tell you what, though: if you’re so suspicious regarding economists and dictionaries (though not, I can’t help but notice, regarding your man Chomsky), we needn’t bother with economists or dictionaries at all: we need simply trace the actual provenance of the word to identify its distinguishing characteristic:
The only alternative to privately owned property is communal or governmental ownership of property.
Capitalism and socialism, the two political ideologies that embody these, represent the only possible alternatives anent production, property, and trade.
If, then, socialism (and not capitalism) is, as you seem to be suggesting, private ownership of property, what, we must ask, is capitalism? And what is free exchange? What’s being referred to when certain people talk of capitalism (and not socialism) as the “right to produce and exchange property that is privately owned”? What are we observing when we observe someone produce without any coercion or the threat of coercion a commodity or product and then exchange that commodity or product voluntarily with someone else? Are we seeing there socialism? Surely you don’t really think that.
Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. There is no getting around that. It’s what the word denotes.
Historically, the first socialists — whether Robert Owen and his disciples, or Pierre Leroux and his, or Marie Roch Louis Reybaud and her’s — were fighting against the putative inequalities that industrialization and laissez faire free markets bring — i.e. they were fighting against capitalism, which is private property and free exchange. Words are defined by what they denote in reality. You cannot just dispense that or subvert it because it conflicts with what you wish to believe. I mean no disrespect.
Gordon Robertson wrote: > Look around you at countries that have socialist governments, or who have had them. The governments did not try to abolish private property or to own the means of production.
Actually, they did. And do. Are you crazy? Have you not heard of the Nationalsozialist party? Have you not seen all the (failed) socialist regimes of Central America and South America, of eastern block Europe. Are you unaware of the current-day brand of socialism, so-called European Socialism, which is very en vogue today, and in which production is controlled through things like price and wage manipulation, and through nationalizing industries, like oil and gas, banks, insurance companies, utilities, agriculture, healthcare, and an endless litany of others? Friend, it is an utter takeover of private property.
I say this to you: if it’s the worker and her safety you care about, it is individual rights and tort law — that and that alone — that you must fight for.
If it’s environmental stewardship that you care about, it is fully protected private property rights and private ownership of the means of production — that and that alone — that you must fight for.
Private ownership is inherently conservationist, because land value is thereby increased, and a collective consists only of individuals, which is why the individual always has hierarchical primacy.
Thin king man “Gordon Robertson wrote: > Where in a democratic country do you see the state directing individuals in what to do?
Are you kidding? Let us count the ways. Emissions regulations. Smoking bans. Drug laws. Consensual sex laws. Laws prohibiting victimless prostitution, pornography, gambling, gaming. Laws against alcohol, fellatio, even cunnilingus (perish that thought!). Radio and television laws. Laws banning “hate speech.” Fire codes. Gun control. Laws prohibiting advertising”.
Are you kidding ‘me’? You’re talking about what makes us civilized. That has nothing to do with socialism. All of the laws you describe above were introduced by capitalist governments. When you say ‘consensual sex laws’, are you refering to sex with underage kids? There are looneys out theire who defend child porn as ‘art’ and who feel it’s ok to have sex with a child provided the child agrees. Seriously, there are people who see laws against sex with a child as an infringement on their rights.
You are confusing the introduction of legislation by socialist governments to control abusive capitalism, on behalf of all the people in a country, with an interference with the right of capitalists to do business according to the directives of ‘laissez faire’ enterprise. You mention that Marx coined the term capitalism, and even if he did, there is little distinction between the capitalism of his day and the capitalism of today. That change came about because the working class demanded rights and they got them. That was socialism in action. people wanted those laws and they voted socialist governments in to get them. That’s democracy.
The mistake you idealistic capitalists make is your notion that only your rights matter. How about the rights of working people? Many capitalists think having wealth gives you more rights than anyone else. That was true in feudal times, and much later, but you’d better get it in your head that those days are gone. We want most of the laws we have even if you see them as an assault on individual freedom.
With respect to the Greens, I don’t care what they say, I consider them yuppie looneys. I see no resemblance between them and the social democracy I grew up with in western Canada. If anything, they are using socialism just as the Russians did. They don’t care about humans, they care about the vehicle. David Suzuki, one of the most militant Greens, just came out in defence of a party that is about as right as you can get in a democracy. He is discouraging people from voting for the socialist alternative, even though they are advocates of the AGW paradigm.
Earth first! is a load of lunatics. One of their spokesmen was asked what would happen if their policies in Africa lead to the deaths of Africans. He claimed humans were dispensible. I don’t know where those looneys come from but they certainly have nothing in common with social democrats, who put ordinary people first. You’ll probably choke on this but socialism is much closer to democracy for all the people in a country than is capitalism.
I’m sure somewhere we have a common ground because I don’t like laws for the sake of them. I don’t obey them if they don’t make sense, but I’m not going to get arrested for something as illusionary as principles. We elected a socialist city government here in Vancouver recently. One of the hippie-dippie councellors started in with all this crap about car-free Sundays and hopefully someone has put a muzzle on her. We have fireworks nights in the summer during which an entire section of the city is shut down and invaded by thousands of people. Those are the kinds of infringements on peoples’ lives I am annoyed about.
When it comes to laws prohibiting smoking, I don’t know why smokers have to be told about the effect of smoke on people. I grew up in an era when people just lit up when they wanted to, even in the close confines of a car. I can’t tell you how many times I returned from night clubs as a young guy with my hair stuck together, my clothes reeking of smoke, and my sinuses so clogged with smoke and tar that I had trouble breathing while asleep. I’ve seen smokers in night clubs stomp their cigarettes out on carpets. I’m glad we brought in the legislation in Canada to stop smoking in public places.
We need those kinds of laws because non-smokers have rights too. Some laws become antiquated and only the dourest of police enforce them. In general, I think our laws are for the good of everyone and I’m for most of them.
MattB, in answer to your convoluted query (the first one), No, I’m not.
I am saying that a thing is defined by its essence. And you may read more about the essence of environmentalism in the good Doctor Marohasy’s fine first post on the subject here and in my comments immediately below. Also, I strongly encourage you to buy my new book, which is scandalously inexpensive, and which lays bare this issue in very fundamental terminology, terminology I believe even a slug could comprehend.
To answer to your second question — in the very asking of which you confirm for us everything we already suspected — we are more important than slugs because we possess the power of reason, which gives rise to volition, which gives rise to moral agency. “Man,” as Aristotle said, “is the rational animal.” We possess (therefore) the capacity to grasp nature, to learn, to apprehend, to discover truth, to introspect, “to be aware that we are aware that we are aware,” as Nabokov said. We are, in short, better than slugs (a term, incidentally, that the environmentalist you champion was using pejoratively — both toward slugs and humans) because we are more highly evolved: specifically, we evolved a conceptual brain, which gives rise to everything from buildings and bridges, to space stations and civilizations, to movie theaters and mathematics, to beauty and truth, to condoms and CAT scans.
In religious terms that I’m candidly not all that comfortable with Dante otherwise answers your question very appositely:
“The greatest gift that God made in creation, and the most conformable to His goodness, and that which He prizes the most, was the freedom of will, with which the creatures with intelligence, they all and they alone, were and are endowed” (Paradiso, Canto V, lines 19-24).
Please click my handle to read much more about the crucial distinction that separates humans from the rest of our beautiful animal kingdom.
Gordon wrote: > Are you kidding ‘me’?
No, actually.
Gordon wrote: > You’re talking about what makes us civilized. That has nothing to do with socialism.
In one sense that’s true — insofar as it has everything to do with freedom, which capitalism is the political manifestation of. “Capitalism is the inalienable right to life and property applied to economics.”
Said a wise woman.
Gordon wrote: > All of the laws you describe above were introduced by capitalist governments.
Wrong! That’s not only historically wrong: it’s definitionally wrong. Capitalism means that government removes itself entirely from such laws as I describe. “Laissez-faire capitalism means that government removes itself from business, just as it removes itself from your bedroom, and for the same reasons.”
Said another wise woman.
Gordon wrote: > When you say ‘consensual sex laws’, are you refering to sex with underage kids?
No! My God, man. Are you crazy? Obviously, children aren’t old enough to consent — not by any standard imaginable. You stagger me with your inference, sir. I’m referring to fully consensual sex among adults, against which there are endless laws on the books, worldwide.
Gordon wrote: > You mention that Marx coined the term capitalism
Yes. In the mid-1800’s.
Gordon wrote: > With respect to the Greens, I don’t care what they say
Yes, I know. That’s the problem.
Gordon wrote: > Earth first! is a load of lunatics.
Yes!
Gordon wrote: > The mistake you idealistic capitalists make is your notion that only your rights matter.
That’s incorrect — and it’s the crux of everything. Rights by definition are compossible. I’ll finish by pointing out that if you’re ever in doubt about what a right is, a foolproof method exists for determining: your rights, my rights, everyone’s rights stop where another’s begin. If you follow that simple tenet, and if you remember that money is property and property is an extension of person, you’ll never again confuse the issue of rights.
I urge you to purchase my outrageously inexpensive book to see a greater explication of these important subjects:
http://www.the-thinking-man.com/leave-us-alone.html
thinking man “Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. There is no getting around that. It’s what the word denotes”.
It sounds like you’re the perfect little McCarthyist, a totally paranoid right-winger bred on a Nazi type of propaganda. I don’t give a damn where it came from or where capitalism came from. We live today and people like you are living several centuries ago. I have read through your treatise and I find it scary that someone can be as confused as you. You are mentioning the Nazis in the same breath as British socialism. Remember WW II? If they are so close, why was Britain so vehement about fighting them? Remember Chile, a country that tried to begin a democratic socialism till US right-wing interests had Allende liquidated?
You have a diabolical hatred of socialism and there’s no way to communicate with anyone whose life runs on hatred.
You said “I say this to you: if it’s the worker and her safety you care about, it is individual rights and tort law — that and that alone — that you must fight for”.
You are incredibly naive. It’s the courts we are fighting half the time because they side with business interests. That’s the latest scam, anti-union governments creating anti-union legislation and handing it over to the courts. The courts impose heavy fines trying to break the unions. Do you think those hob-nobbing lawyers and judges give a hoot about people who earn their living by getting their hands dirty? The all drink toegther at the same exclusive clubs. Shove your tort law, we’ll use civil disobedience, as suggested by good, old Ben Franklin. They haven’t found a way to deal with that yet, unlike Hitler, who used concentration camps and death squads.
Don’t tell me what I have to fight for. You strike me as the type who is too afraid to fight for anything meaningful. As far as private property is concerned, you can shove that too. The property in the Vancouver area is out of reach of the average young person with old shacks starting at half a million dollars. That’s your capitalist pigs for you. They all bought in when property was cheap, sat on their fat asses and did nothing, now they are all worth upward of half a million on paper. The prices got inflated out of sheer greed and the lack of intervention by the government.
The system has to change toward a socialist system where the government can intervene. You are wrong about the intention of such legislation. It is not to steal private property, it’s to give young people a chance to make a life for themselves after my generation and subsequent generations screwed it up for them. The job of the government ‘should’ be to represent all people, not a privileged set of people as it is now. Our laws were created largely by lobbyists operating on behalf of the wealthy.
As a friend points out quite often, there are more severe penalties in law against property crimes than there are against a young girl being raped. That’s sick, and it’s the fault of capitalists and their damned greed. Our priorities are ass-backwards. The Greens have no interest in those kinds of human issues, they care only about control.
Thinking man; some great comments from you and Gordon; ultimately I think the conversation proceeds to a comparison between the American Constitution and Bill of Rights on one side and eugenics, as decided by green equivalent values, on the other; is your book available through the booksellers?
There’s a lot of verbal diarrhoea on this thread. Is it green or brown? Can it be linked to global warning?
After reading all the above excellent informative comments on “defining the greens” posts, I wondered why the “greens” are so silent and not trying to define themselves, or have they? A quick web-check revealed it all: http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html
Instead of putting down an agenda for the 21st century of their own, they have adapted (or rather adopted) agenda 21 of the UN. The UN, which is existing with the fundings of all nations but appears to be operating under the influence of only a few!
If the green movement was a global movement, as they try to make people believe, I would assume that the UN should have adopted the green’s agenda 21!(if they had one!)
What a disappointment!
Whoa, bit of blood on the camera lens folks. Lots of “with the greatest respect” demonstrated by all, meaning a pox on you and your children and your children’s children, and may all your chooks turn into emus and kick your dunny down.
While we are all busy appealing to higher authorities, I’ll toss in another one from an occasionally silly and misspent youth (but a lot of it was fun).
“Wouldn’t it be a real drag if we were all the same”
Savoy Brown (1969) A Step Further
http://www.savoybrown.com/history1.htm
@ Louis Hissink
“…socialism is essentially consumption of capital.”
If i may be permitted, the above requires correction to “socialism is essentially consumption of other peoples capital”.