Correct, however if the workers own the means of production they would have greater motivation AND greater ability to change the methods of industrialization to ways that are a little less… pollutey or dangerous.
Instead, under capitalism, we get politicians who are actively working to eliminate as many environmental, health and safety regulations as possible because they’re bribed lobbied to do so by their corporate masters.
Instead, under capitalism, we get politicians who are actively working to eliminate as many environmental, health and safety regulations as possible
Under capitalism, we got those regulations to begin with…
Which to be fair, isn’t because of capitalism we got regulation, but because of Democracy. Democracy is capable of keeping capitalism in check, to a point. After a certain amount of wealth inequality, which we’ve already passed, capitalism goes destructively out of control.
Correct, however if the workers own the means of production
I generally agree, although if you have a “dictatorship of the proletariat” like the USSR that desides it needs to heavily industrialize to compete with capitalist counties, it could be just as bad or worse for the environment.
You don’t want a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and neither do I, but we already have corporations trying to strip regulations and policies because they want America to be more like China or Russia. Mega corps could make a little more money if they were free to pollute and exploit as they pleased.
And, let’s be clear, aside from some Uber-comrade tankies, no one is suggesting we adopt a soviet or Maoist style communism.
I’m not really that much invested in politics and don’t really know much about any of the leading sociological/political theories aside from the common knowledge, but your point made me realize something.
if the workers own the means of production they would have greater motivation AND greater ability to change the methods
Oh, god. Give how does the political landscape looks across the world, be it the fact that there are still millions of Trump supporters, the fact that it looks like that in Slovakia, a guy who’s basically unhinged and outright evil will win elections, and Hungary has it the same, to give just a few examples I know about from the top of my head…
Imagine if people who vote or act like that had the means of production. But that’s just my general loss of faith in humanity, and I by no means want to start arguing about whether socialism is/isn’t good, since I know nothing about it. Just a random though I had when I read your comment.
That’s a very valid point. But the people you are describing are already in positions of power or authority, they’re just all concentrated near the top of the chain. When you distribute that power and authority amongst the entire work force, things suddenly have a chance change for the better.
I actually spent some time working for one of the largest employee owned corporations in America. There were plenty of MAGA minded people working there, and It’s amazing how quickly they’ll embrace traditionally liberal or socialist notions when it affects their shares of stock. Things like strict health and safety regulations, hiring diversity and strong unions.
Obviously there will still be shitty people who make shitty decisions, hopefully there just wouldn’t be as many as there seem to be today.
If the actual workers owned the actual means of production, I.E. if the people who’s entire livelihood depended on fishing that sea, do you believe they would have let unscrupulous people on the other side of the country exploit the sea the way they did?
Would the fishers be the only ones who got a say versus the farmers who utilized that water to irrigate?
This was a failure of a non-capitalist industrialized society that resulted in horrific environmental damage. The fact that it demonstrates that capitalism is not the ONLY source of environmental destruction should give you a reason to think about the accuracy of that claim.
The fact is nations like the USA weren’t causing widespread environmental havoc until the industrial revolution hit.
The simple fact that we have developed methods of production that can eliminate or, at the very least, mitigate catastrophic environmental impact, yet there are STILL corporate interests doing everything in their power to fight such progress because it’s cheaper to bribe politicians means that, clearly, we’re moving in the wrong direction.
In the example given it came down to the supposed needs of the larger society. The fishers owning the means of production ≠ as owning the Sea.
If the workers controlled the means of production at a coal mine are they going to stop mining coal because it is horrifically bad for everyone else or are they going to see to their needs first by selling coal?
The solution to these problems is not going to be fixed by changing economic ideologies to one proven to not be any better.
Funny you use that example. There have been concerted efforts to train coal miners in other fields in an effort to curb coal consumption. Regions that embraced changing to new sources of income in other industries tended to fair much better than the regions that refused such programs.
We have progressed enough as a civilization that we can absolutely change our destructive ways. “My great grand pappy mined these hills, why shouldn’t I” isn’t a viable excuse these days.
Correct, however if the workers own the means of production they would have greater motivation AND greater ability to change the methods of industrialization to ways that are a little less… pollutey or dangerous.
Instead, under capitalism, we get politicians who are actively working to eliminate as many environmental, health and safety regulations as possible because they’re
bribedlobbied to do so by their corporate masters.Under capitalism, we got those regulations to begin with…
Which to be fair, isn’t because of capitalism we got regulation, but because of Democracy. Democracy is capable of keeping capitalism in check, to a point. After a certain amount of wealth inequality, which we’ve already passed, capitalism goes destructively out of control.
I generally agree, although if you have a “dictatorship of the proletariat” like the USSR that desides it needs to heavily industrialize to compete with capitalist counties, it could be just as bad or worse for the environment.
You don’t want a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and neither do I, but we already have corporations trying to strip regulations and policies because they want America to be more like China or Russia. Mega corps could make a little more money if they were free to pollute and exploit as they pleased.
And, let’s be clear, aside from some Uber-comrade tankies, no one is suggesting we adopt a soviet or Maoist style communism.
I’m not really that much invested in politics and don’t really know much about any of the leading sociological/political theories aside from the common knowledge, but your point made me realize something.
Oh, god. Give how does the political landscape looks across the world, be it the fact that there are still millions of Trump supporters, the fact that it looks like that in Slovakia, a guy who’s basically unhinged and outright evil will win elections, and Hungary has it the same, to give just a few examples I know about from the top of my head…
Imagine if people who vote or act like that had the means of production. But that’s just my general loss of faith in humanity, and I by no means want to start arguing about whether socialism is/isn’t good, since I know nothing about it. Just a random though I had when I read your comment.
That’s a very valid point. But the people you are describing are already in positions of power or authority, they’re just all concentrated near the top of the chain. When you distribute that power and authority amongst the entire work force, things suddenly have a chance change for the better.
I actually spent some time working for one of the largest employee owned corporations in America. There were plenty of MAGA minded people working there, and It’s amazing how quickly they’ll embrace traditionally liberal or socialist notions when it affects their shares of stock. Things like strict health and safety regulations, hiring diversity and strong unions.
Obviously there will still be shitty people who make shitty decisions, hopefully there just wouldn’t be as many as there seem to be today.
Why does the Aral Sea a fraction of its size before communists were in charge of the area?
It’s industrialized societies that are the issue.
If the actual workers owned the actual means of production, I.E. if the people who’s entire livelihood depended on fishing that sea, do you believe they would have let unscrupulous people on the other side of the country exploit the sea the way they did?
Would the fishers be the only ones who got a say versus the farmers who utilized that water to irrigate?
This was a failure of a non-capitalist industrialized society that resulted in horrific environmental damage. The fact that it demonstrates that capitalism is not the ONLY source of environmental destruction should give you a reason to think about the accuracy of that claim.
The fact is nations like the USA weren’t causing widespread environmental havoc until the industrial revolution hit.
The simple fact that we have developed methods of production that can eliminate or, at the very least, mitigate catastrophic environmental impact, yet there are STILL corporate interests doing everything in their power to fight such progress because it’s cheaper to bribe politicians means that, clearly, we’re moving in the wrong direction.
Agreed but the cause isn’t inherent to only one ideology. It’s industrialism and how we handle it that creates the issue
Which is why I’m suggesting that, perhaps, we would make better decisions if the means of production were controlled by the workers.
In the example given it came down to the supposed needs of the larger society. The fishers owning the means of production ≠ as owning the Sea.
If the workers controlled the means of production at a coal mine are they going to stop mining coal because it is horrifically bad for everyone else or are they going to see to their needs first by selling coal?
The solution to these problems is not going to be fixed by changing economic ideologies to one proven to not be any better.
Funny you use that example. There have been concerted efforts to train coal miners in other fields in an effort to curb coal consumption. Regions that embraced changing to new sources of income in other industries tended to fair much better than the regions that refused such programs.
We have progressed enough as a civilization that we can absolutely change our destructive ways. “My great grand pappy mined these hills, why shouldn’t I” isn’t a viable excuse these days.