Economic inequality is, in substantial part, a political phenomenon
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes:
NavigationThe World
Our writers |
 |
reconciling sustainable development and capitalismPosts: Joined: 2003-01-02
I'm glad that some have come around to the idea that capitalism is not an enemy to ecology. Economists have always argued that externalities exist in markets that must be accounted for or you don't really have a free market (someone some place is unvoluntarily participating as a victim of transactional effluents).
Now, where are the politicians with this viewpoint? I see few on the right and fewer on the left.
Submitted on Thu, 2005-12-01 05:11
Re: reconciling sustainable development and capitalism
Jonathan Porritt should read Herbert Marcuse's One Dimensional Man. Still highly relevant to the current debate.
Re: reconciling sustainable development and capitalism
Hmmm...isn't the bottom line of that guy that society is too stupid to know that capitalism doesn't work? Seems pretty simple-minded to me. He may be right, but if you're going to criticize the current system, you have to present an alternative that WINS in the battle of ideas. Saying the current state is wrong because people are stupid is both obvious -- humans are constantly learning and changing, and non-productive -- it ain't changing a single "stupid" mind.
So tell me something more about his theories...or am I too stupid to understand them so it's an excercise in futility?
Re: reconciling sustainable development and capitalism
with respect, you make the assumption that his main premise was that people are too stupid to take action, and then flagellate yourself with it.
I was only suggesting that Jonathan Porritt was in fact re-articulating many of the points made by Marcuse in his work. If your read the text you'll find his ideas as relevant now as they were in 1964. You can find an nice overview of his contribution to philosophy and social theory here:
http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell12.htm
You are correct, Marcuse did not propose any solutions to the problem in his works, but I don't think he could have forseen the rise of the social movements we have today - certainly a step in the right direction. The ecology movement and sustainable development may be gaining in popularity, but it's a shame it take the possibility of global catastrophe for the population at large to take notice. Again he articulates clearly how late industrial societies passify the society at large.
Finally, I don't know the answers to these problems and i'm not taking shots at people such as Johnathan who are trying to propose solutions. So, Kent what did you think about the article? Is market ecology the only way generate lasting environmental change?
Message was edited by: housefreeeek
Re: reconciling sustainable development and capitalism
"with respect, you make the assumption that his main premise was that people are too stupid to take action, and then flagellate yourself with it. "
And it may be completely a wrong assumption. I don't know that much about this guy. He seemed very difficult to follow. I'll read your link.
"Is market ecology the only way generate lasting environmental change?"
Of course not. Another system could more easily enforce some sort of environmental decree. The question just comes down to efficiency. It's very difficult to know how much global warming will cost us compared to the alternatives. If more expensive energy means one person can't afford an ambulance ride to the hospital, how much is that worth? Not much probably. 10 people? 100 people? Obviously get more expensive. And then what is the cost/benefit analysis. If Canada does better in a warmer world, how much is that worth compared to equatorial countries doing worse? How do I weigh the cost of a levee vs. the cost of a hurricane?
Of course the model is VERY complicated, but a simple approximation of costs, the oft mentioned carbon tax, probably is good enough since the warming model probably has a margin of error similar to that in a carbon tax.
Re: reconciling sustainable development and capitalism
I read a bit of that link, and this is what I came to that really reinforced my belief that this is just theory that says we're too stupid to understand what's good for us:
"Next, Marcuse published a wide-ranging critique of both advanced capitalist and communist societies in _One-Dimensional Man_ (1964). This book theorized the decline of revolutionary potential in capitalist societies and the development of new forms of social control. Marcuse argued that "advanced industrial society" created false needs which integrated individuals into the existing system of production and consumption. Mass media and culture, advertising, industrial management, and contemporary modes of thought all reproduced the existing system and attempt to eliminate negativity, critique, and opposition. The result was a "one-dimensional" universe of thought and behavior in which the very aptitude and ability for critical thinking and oppositional behavior was withering away."
Could it not just be that the "integrated individual" is smart enough to know he's where he wants to be? The problem with this theory is that it applies to any state of society...a hundred years past, a hundred years in the future. Maxist or capitalist. If consumption makes us sit like a frog in boiling water, can't thought or whatever replaces consumption do the same thing?
Re: reconciling sustainable development and capitalism
At the risk of showing my age here, I wonder just how different this approach is to that advocated by Schumacher in "Small is Beautiful"?
Equally, while capitalism is the only game in town are we talking western (i.e. US) capitalism or variants that accommodate the teachings of the Muslim faith - e.g. the charging of interest etc.
Somehow I have this nagging doubt that in any society where success is measured in terms of material values, any evolution of the same creed will progress along the lines of "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer". While there are some who practice philanthropy, there are many others who would not even countenance it.
I applaud Mr Porritt for pushing the boundaries but my scepticism is rooted in observation of human kind: for so many of the wealthy - people, organisations and governments - charity begins at home.
Re: reconciling sustainable development and capitalism
(someone some place is unvoluntarily participating as a victim of transactional effluents).
Or benefiting without paying for it. Kent makes some excellent points about Canada's gain and equatorial countries' losses. But what about the increased rainfall that's expected in a warmer world (due to more evaporation) ... that's very welcome in most tropical countries. On the other hand that very same increased evaporation also dries the water off more quickly, so its only a gain if the farmer can make use of rain that wouldn't have otherwise fallen before it is subject to evaporation that wouldn't otherwise have happened.
It is easy to suppose that global warming has done far more good than harm up to now and may continue to do so for a long time into the future.(I'm not saying it has, just that it could in fact be the case). Imagine in 200 years time, they may acutally be grateful that we warmed up the planet and increased the plant food in the air - they like it that plants grow faster and look back at blogs from 2005 and wonder what all the fuss was about. They may consider the dykes,levees,reservoirs that they have to build as a small price to pay ( the Dutch seem to do OK with dykes ).
I'm trying to make the point that its complicated. We need data and computation, then we need to decide what we want to do. Its not certain that GW is bad nor that we should make great sacrifices to stop it.
One could easily make the point that nature has been very unsustainable and sucked nearly all the precious
lifegiving carbon out of the biosphere and locked it up deep underground. Throughout most of earthly time the plants must have positively raged compared to the slow growth they have today. It could be argued that we are returning the planet to a more "natural" and life friendly state by putting that carbon back where it "should" be - in the air where the plants can "eat" it.
I'm not saying that is the case, just that we are not cetain of anything other than that interdicting fossil fuels will require big compromises in our lifestyles. Personally, I want to be able to fly to Australia for 100 pounds and get there in half and hour, but I'm prepared to forgo that if I must(big of me). Must I, does anybody know?
To my knowledge (experts please correct me if I'm wrong) we are in a golden age of humankind. Nearly all of us (especially the poor) expect to live longer and stand taller than our parents. We are better fed everywhere than ever before (even in Africa? - I stand to be corrected). Has global warming had anything to do with this? Will future generations thank us for warming the planet up and making it more fecund or curse us for wrecking the planet for the sake of cheap flights and cars?
If we are to do something ( I suppose we ought, leave it to future generation to warm up the planet if they want to) then dare I suggest that a carbon tax is the way to go. If its bad gear, then interdict it, but progressively via taxation. That should work nicely enough and is simple and cheap to implement. The tax can be raised from the primary producers, just increase the taxes they already pay - say 20% accelerator per year. Of course the situation muddies somewhat if sequestration technologies become succesful, perhaps then the tax needs to be at the point of use, but it is still only increasing a tax that already exists. Heavens ... it even leaves some scope to reduce taxes elsewhere.
Leave it to the people (with our amazing collective action joint stock companies)to decide what we're going to do about power generation in the face of carbon tax. And if we want to build half mile high windmills or mega nuclear stations, then let them get on with it.
Message was edited by: simonclewer2000
Re: reconciling sustainable development and capitalism
Let's get down to basics. Capitalism is based on self-interested individuals pursuing profit by using their capital. The problem in regards to sustainable development and environmental concerns is that individuals generally seek short-term profit, while sustainable development and environmentally friendly policies are long-term prospects. The government has to regulate and control this tendency for the quick buck in favor of policies that will benefit the greatest number of people in the long run. Indeed, if governments do not curb individuals, there will be no planet to protect.
Re: reconciling sustainable development and capitalism
Sustainability through the Guided Market
I can see that we are down for a rare old fashioned left-right riot here if we are not careful. Which would be a pity, because Jonathon Porritt has done us all a favour by posing the question of how we change the prevailing economy so that it can become sustainable?
Note that sustainablity, an innocent little buzz word, really packs a punch. It implies that the present economy is not sustainable, in other words that it is riding for a fall, will crash, will die, become defunct, fail, and will in due course, will become a late economy, or if you prefer, and ex-economy. It will be no more.
This should focus our minds on the question that we have to answer, and we can only solve it by looking at the ecological problems that we face now and in the future, not by looking backwards for answers in the scriptures laid down either by Marcuse, nor Marx, nor Adam Smith nor indeed any other holy book of words.
Neither free market capitalism (termed “market fundamentalism” by Soros ), nor the command economies of the communist countries have managed to achieve sustainability. They have failed to produce real human happiness and equity. A sustainable system of economic activity must avoid the excesses of both free market capitalism and the command economy.
A useful distinction may be made between micro-capitalism, or entrepreneurialism, and mega-capitalism of the giant corporations, where their sheer scale and overweening influence tends to work against human and environmental values.
Of course, some micro-capital enterprises change into mega-capital enterprises, and this process can be met with corporation taxes. Ironically, mega-capitalists (trans national corporations) often pay less taxes, by means of complex and sophisticated tax avoidance schemes. Lang and Hines (1993) propose a “Site Here To Sell Here” policy to overcome this tendency.
As we have seen earlier, social and environmental impacts of economic activities which are currently classed as externalities will be brought into the price equation through a variety of economic instruments such as taxes and levies. I suggest that this system might be termed a guided market.
The guided market values entrepreneurialism, which is an analogue of the tendency of biological species to find and adapt themselves to ecological niches, but subjects the entrepreneur to ecological cost internalisations together with regulations designed to ensure the health of society and environment.
I have a full outline of green economics up here: http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/GreenEconom.htm
I hope this is helpful.
Message was edited by: Richard Lawson
|
|
|
