eugene Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 how is it that you guys (eugene, misterE) are somehow making the leap that "changing capitalism" = marxist communism ? I don't follow. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, and communism != socialism. i don't, i'm just saying that environmentalism or anti-environmentalism is not a consequence of the systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 "i'd bet that the root of the problem in the eyes of the people advocating such practices most probably isn't capitalism, just particular practices associated with it" Well obviously, because they're reformists like Luke who believe that capitalism can be changed into something more enviromentally friendly with enough consumer pressure. I disagree, but that's besides the point - we're in agreement that the problem is caused by the way capitalism is operating right now. Incidentally, the "core ideas behind capitalism" are "profit at any other cost" - so this kind of destruction is entirely consistent with those ideas. #yolo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 To be clear, I'm just not entirely sure where I stand on capitalism as a system, and I don't want to make claims about areas in which I feel relatively uninformed. It's a huge topic. I suppose "reformist" is a decent way to describe my outlook at the moment, but my mind changes all the time. "Incidentally, the "core ideas behind capitalism" are "profit at any other cost" - so this kind of destruction is entirely consistent with those ideas. #yolo" Yeah, this is my issue with it. Capitalism needs foresight to work long-term, and it's just not built in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 how is it that you guys (eugene, misterE) are somehow making the leap that "changing capitalism" = marxist communism ? I don't follow. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, and communism != socialism. i don't, i'm just saying that environmentalism or anti-environmentalism is not a consequence of the systems. Well, the systems are what govern commerce, and global commerce as it pertains to the environment is the topic of the discussion, so I'm gonna go ahead and say that the political system directly influences the treatment of the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Let's not derail this thread by taking it too far into why Marx was right and Eugene is wrong, but the very fact that this large-scale environmental destruction is occurring is proof enough that the capitalist mode of production isn't working "pretty great" at the moment. Whether you think the solution to this is reforming the system or replacing it with something else, anybody in their "right mind" absolutely should want to change it. but what does it have to do with the core ideas behind capitalism ? as if soviet communism-totalitarianism was somehow more pro-environmental. Because the environment is being destroyed in the short-term interests of companies who would profit from it - within the context of a legal/regulatory framework that allows them to do so with impunity. I didn't say a word about communism, soviet or otherwise. I'm talking about a very clear, obvious and widely-acknowledged failing of the capitalist mode of production as it exists today. You don't need to be a communist to see that. but isn't it company specific ? there are also companies who can profit from building pro environmental products, does that make them anti-capitalist ? "i'd bet that the root of the problem in the eyes of the people advocating such practices most probably isn't capitalism, just particular practices associated with it" Well obviously, because they're reformists like Luke who believe that capitalism can be changed into something more enviromentally friendly with enough consumer pressure. I disagree, but that's besides the point - we're in agreement that the problem is caused by the way capitalism is operating right now. Incidentally, the "core ideas behind capitalism" are "profit at any other cost" - so this kind of destruction is entirely consistent with those ideas. #yolo the problem is the lack of environmental awareness, there's nothing inherently anti-environmental about capitalism, it can be tuned either way you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Environmentalism can fit into capitalism, so long as being environmental brings profits. It is starting to do just that. Not saying this is the best system, just pointing out what inspires capitalist businessmen to actually protect the environment: cost-effectiveness. Again, capitalism is short-sighted, but if businesses are shown that waste is stupid and costly, they will listen. http://vimeo.com/15266520 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 i think it's even more grassroots and basic than that, if people become more aware of the environmental dangers they'll gradually stop supporting anti-environmental companies, like you do for example. basically, capitalism is not autonomous, it obviously operates within cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Let's not derail this thread by taking it too far into why Marx was right and Eugene is wrong, but the very fact that this large-scale environmental destruction is occurring is proof enough that the capitalist mode of production isn't working "pretty great" at the moment. Whether you think the solution to this is reforming the system or replacing it with something else, anybody in their "right mind" absolutely should want to change it. but what does it have to do with the core ideas behind capitalism ? as if soviet communism-totalitarianism was somehow more pro-environmental. Because the environment is being destroyed in the short-term interests of companies who would profit from it - within the context of a legal/regulatory framework that allows them to do so with impunity. I didn't say a word about communism, soviet or otherwise. I'm talking about a very clear, obvious and widely-acknowledged failing of the capitalist mode of production as it exists today. You don't need to be a communist to see that. but isn't it company specific ? there are also companies who can profit from building pro environmental products, does that make them anti-capitalist ? Yes it's company specific, but every company - every one - will ultimately be motivated by their bottom line. The problem is that large and powerful companies can make vast profits through methods which devastate the environment and they have no incentive not to do so. "Pro-environmental products" would be lovely, I'm sure, but unless they can profitably regrow the Amazon or refreeze the glaciers, they're not going to undo the damage being wrought by other companies elsewhere. "i'd bet that the root of the problem in the eyes of the people advocating such practices most probably isn't capitalism, just particular practices associated with it" Well obviously, because they're reformists like Luke who believe that capitalism can be changed into something more enviromentally friendly with enough consumer pressure. I disagree, but that's besides the point - we're in agreement that the problem is caused by the way capitalism is operating right now. Incidentally, the "core ideas behind capitalism" are "profit at any other cost" - so this kind of destruction is entirely consistent with those ideas. #yolo the problem is the lack of environmental awareness, there's nothing inherently anti-environmental about capitalism, it can be tuned either way you want. The people in charge of these businesses are FULLY aware of the consequences of their actions. But the profit motive is more important to them, and if it wasn't - they'd be replaced with someone for whom it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 amazon just checking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 well that's the marxist "humans-are-objects"-speak that i despise. people are people, if you started a company of some sorts would you also be "profit no matter what" and fuck the environment ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Corporations (in the US at least) are required by law to maximize their shareholders profits; that is the bottom line. The owners can be as environmental as they want, but they can't do anything about it if they can't maximize shareholder profits at the same time. It's a systemic problem, coming straight out of the way the law is written, which is (I think) what Iain is driving at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 well that's the marxist "humans-are-objects"-speak that i despise. people are people, if you started a company of some sorts would you also be "profit no matter what" and fuck the environment ? And here's the capitalist "corporations are people"-speak that is simply laughable. We're not talking about mom-and-pop hardware stores run by friendly Uncle Bob. Even businesses like that are motivated by profit above all, but this tendency is amplified to an insane degree when you're talking about global businesses interacting with each other. Do I think some shadowy master-capitalist has sat down and decided to destroy the environment? No, I consider it to be an inevitable side-effect of many businesses making decisions based on maximising profit. But seriously - if you believe that the only problem is a "lack of enviromental awareness", please do write to the CEOs of every FTSE100 corporation and let them know they're destroying the environment. If you're right, they'll stop. Or perhaps the problem is, we only have evil bad guys running businesses - the sort of guys who WOULD decide to destroy the enviroment to make a buck. If that's what you believe, then ask yourself - how come they're the ones in charge? Why haven't they been replaced, if they're so evil compared to everybody else who would run the business ethically? I'll tell you - because they make more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Corporations (in the US at least) are required by law to maximize their shareholders profits; that is the bottom line. The owners can be as environmental as they want, but they can't do anything about it if they can't maximize shareholder profits at the same time. It's a systemic problem, coming straight out of the way the law is written, which is (I think) what Iain is driving at. you could say that it's a product value problem, if pro environmental product is less profitable than the anti-environmental one, then yes, it's obviously a problem. but the thing is that it's not only the capitalist system itself that designates the value, but society(ies) as a whole. so the fact the environmentalism is non profitable is also an education, culture, etc issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 well that's the marxist "humans-are-objects"-speak that i despise. people are people, if you started a company of some sorts would you also be "profit no matter what" and fuck the environment ? But seriously - if you believe that the only problem is a "lack of enviromental awareness", please do write to the CEOs of every FTSE100 corporation and let them know they're destroying the environment. If you're right, they'll stop. but what would be their reasons for not stopping ? their ignorance or the fact that they're capitalists ? they also have families and they also want them to have high quality of life in a healthy environment. (i addressed the other parts of the post in reply to luke) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 well it makes sense but it's a bit extreme, i don't really buy this "ultimate selfishness caused by capitalism" argument, there's a big cultural and human factor to all of this, and i doubt those people will be contempt with living alone in some ivory tower on the decaying earth. i also think nations and nationalism are capable of dealing with this particular case. there should be some research dealing with historical behavior of corps. in usa regarding environment, but i don't really have the time atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 it's super awesome that you can manage to cook and clean in such a short timescale (10 mins is for cleaning plates and dishes, not pots and pans included btw). you must be some like, master chef or something. I however, am not. so you can go back to implying that everyone can and should go through this, because it's high and mighty. Look man, I'm trying to be nice here, and all I've suggested is that you spend a bit of time thinking about the world implications of your diet. If thinking about reality is "high and mighty," then color me a douchebag. But I think it's the "I won't budge from my lifestyle" attitude that is truly douchey, so we can end this here if you'd like to just avoid ever thinking about the topic again. I do hope you give it some consideration though. I've considered it, along with my work schedule (which means I am travelling to/from work up to a total of 4 hours each day) and it isn't viable for me, as it would cut too much into my free time, like I've already said. is it viable to move nearer your job? my travel time totals 2.5-3 hours just now so i'm moving nearer my job soon. with my financial situation at the moment, it's not possible for me to move for at least another year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 there should be some research dealing with historical behavior of corps. in usa regarding environment, but i don't really have the time atm. Yeah, it consists of said corporations buying off politicians and influencing regulation policy and practice so they can treat the environment however they like (i.e. not good). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 It's the squeakiness I distrust. There's something about it that's just severely unpleasant, I feel the same way about paneer, I'm a cheese racist. I was pretty much on board with most of your posts in this thread until you started disparaging haloumi and paneer YOU MONSTER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 It's the squeakiness I distrust. There's something about it that's just severely unpleasant, I feel the same way about paneer, I'm a cheese racist. I was pretty much on board with most of your posts in this thread until you started disparaging haloumi and paneer YOU MUNSTER fix'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 lol so cheesy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.