It's capitalism or a habitable planet

[biffvernon]

There do seem to be some problems with Rob Newman's article. Take this bit:

Solutions need to come from people themselves. But once set up, local autonomous groups need to be supported by technology transfers from state to community level. Otherwise it's too expensive to get solar panels on your roof, let alone set up a local energy grid. Far from utopian, this has a precedent: back in the 1920s the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Battersea had their own electricity-generating grid for their residents. So long as energy corporations exist, however, they will fight tooth and nail to stop whole postal districts seceding from the national grid.

What's so great about local grids to the exclusion of international grids that might shift energy from Iceland to Algeria? Wandsworth Borough is not going to make solar pv panels - they need very big factories using technology that is not going to happen in an independant Battersea.

[Adam1]

Yes, exactly. I can't see why this has to be an either or. Local grids or cells could be customers/suppliers of the national grid. I don't know how much development of the systems needed to manage that more variable or dynamic situation is needed. I'm fairly sure that other equally or more complex dynamic systems already exist: pricing systems for airlines or stock exchange trading systems. It should be in the realm of the do-able. The problem of variability is the relative in-elasticity of electricity demand in any one given hour. Does anyone know more about this?

[21st_century_caveman]

It's interesting that at least one poster on here claimed there is no groupthink on this board.

I personally have not witnessed any groupthink, whatever that is.

"Capitalism is the cause of the resource constraints we have right now. Capitalism does this because it's a system designed to try to achieve unlimited growth. Since we live on a finite planet then unlimited growth is impossible. Therefore Capitalism must be the problem".

I think that statement is too simplistic.

Lets look at the facts:

We live on a finite planet with finite resources, therefore unlimited growth in consumption of those resources is not possible.

A form of capitalism based on neo-liberal economic policies and having as a core component the creation of money as debt with interest, which leads to a need for continued growth, has been and is currently the globally dominant political, economic and social system.

To therefore argue that the current neo-liberal capitalist system is not responsible for the resource constraints which humanity is currently facing is completely ridiculous. If capitalism is not to blame then what is?

The resource constraints are not the only problems with the current neo-liberal capitalist system, it is failing in other respects too, ecologically with climate change and the global destruction eco-systems and in terms of global justice with the widening gap between rich and poor to name but a few.

What we have is a system in which political and economic power is concentrated in the hands of the few whilst maintaining the illusion of democracy (the term pseudo-democracy has been used) and freedom, a new and chilling take the old authoritarian system. The illusion also extends to the market, which is supposed to be free, but is actually subtly controlled by governments using various means, the main one being in the form of 'defence' spending (the military-industrial complex), for the benefit of massive transnational corporations who have all the rights and freedoms of individuals but with none of the responsibilities and would be seen as psychopaths if they actually were individuals.

Whether the current system can be saved is not clear, what is clear is that the original thinkers behind capitalism such as Adam Smith would be utterly disgusted with the current system. Maybe it will be possible to remove the cancerous elements which i have described above and be left with a system incorporating the good qualities such as (actual) free markets, respect for individual freedom and creativity but i'm remain unconvinced that the bad bits can be removed without killing the host.

For further elucidation of the problems with capitalism and some possible solutions i suggest you have a read of the thread building future communities?

[Pippa]

We need to get along with nature if we want things to be sustainable. Man tries to make sense of everything and thinks that in learning we can become experts and then we will "know best". What we attempt is to conquer, adapt, use or improve on nature. There is no society that has lasted in any sustainable way, the two ideas are contraditions.

Sustainable society designed by man is not possible (look at history). I think this is largely because we are not adaptable enough and we like to believe we know best (ha ha ha fall off chair). The more of us there are the less adaptable we become.

The more of us there are, the more our societies find need for rules and conditions. It doesn't matter whether your society is based on capitalism or communism, end result ends the same in collapse of society.

Cheerful aren't I

[Keela]

Well said Pippa, it's all about increasing complexity until we become so complex that a silly simple problem is unsolvable!

(Sorry - being doing too much redtape stuff lately that makes my ordinary teaching so much more difficult........... everything must now be documented and kept as evidence...... )

[emordnilap]

Company directors are obliged to make decisions that maximise returns for shareholders. They are also obliged to obey the law.

The laws were changed in favour of capitalism as against simply trading, or at least as against capitalism with benefits to the wider community.

They can and, hopefully, will be changed.

[emordnilap]

The more of us there are, the more our societies find need for rules and conditions.

Interesting, I was talking to a Dubliner yesterday about that very thought. My 'theory' was that the Irish are more come-day go-day because of relatively sparse numbers (not as accountable) versus the Brits being much more law-abiding because they've been squashed together for so long.

Simplistic but there you go. The Irish tend to know thousands of people by name over a very wide geographical and familial area but in England you'd be lucky to know your neighbour...

Don't you just love stereotypes?

[21st_century_caveman]

We need to get along with nature if we want things to be sustainable.

That is true, and since we are a product of nature and an integral part of it we also need to get along with ourselves.

It doesn't matter whether your society is based on capitalism or communism, end result ends the same in collapse of society.

Indeed, thats because capitalism and communism have more similarities than differences, another name for communism is state capitalism.

[Neily at the peak]

I think this is a good definition of capitalism.

"An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. ..."

This certainly doesn't mean the same thing as the debt based neo-liberal capitalism that 21st century caveman writes about. I believe that private ownership of local assets for local benefit will become even more important in a zero growth or negative growth economy which is likely to occur post peak.


Neil

[syberberg]

I think this is a good definition of capitalism.

"An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. ..."

This certainly doesn't mean the same thing as the debt based neo-liberal capitalism that 21st century caveman writes about. I believe that private ownership of local assets for local benefit will become even more important in a zero growth or negative growth economy which is likely to occur post peak.


Neil

Good grief, that's almost Marxist. Just change "private ownership" to "worker ownership" and you're there.

[Neily at the peak]

are you saying that's good or bad syberberg???

[21st_century_caveman]

I think the problem with a statement such as:

"An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. ..."

Is that it is far too narrow, it could mean anything from every human being on the planet owning enough land to produce his or her food supply or other means of living all the way through to ownership by large biotech corporations such as Monsanto, ownership by the state consisting of V. I. Lenin and chums as in early 20th century Russia or ownership by Saudi Aramco/King Saud and his merry princes.

[SunnyJim]

My big problem is with debt and interest based monetary systems, and those are not very old. As best from 1694. Interest/Usury has been banned all the way since Aristotle until 1694. (1668 if you count the Swedish CB)

Ditto. It's our unsustainable economic system. Not the ideology that is at fault here. Its the mechanics of the system. Doesn't matter one jot if its being used by a capatalist, socialist or any of the ists does it?

[Neily at the peak]

My big problem is with debt and interest based monetary systems, and those are not very old. As best from 1694. Interest/Usury has been banned all the way since Aristotle until 1694. (1668 if you count the Swedish CB)

Ditto. It's our unsustainable economic system. Not the ideology that is at fault here. Its the mechanics of the system. Doesn't matter one jot if its being used by a capatalist, socialist or any of the ists does it?

Interest/Usury did not create a consumer society like the one we have today until cheap fossil fuels came along and the technology that came with it.

Neil[/quote]

[Neily at the peak]

I think the problem with a statement such as:

"An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. ..."

Is that it is far too narrow, it could mean anything from every human being on the planet owning enough land to produce his or her food supply or other means of living all the way through to ownership by large biotech corporations such as Monsanto, ownership by the state consisting of V. I. Lenin and chums as in early 20th century Russia or ownership by Saudi Aramco/King Saud and his merry princes.

I am not trying to argue that Capitalism is necessarily a good thing, just that it is the natural order of things, human beings respond best to ownership. Ownership by large corporations such as Monsanto and like Lenin and co is probably doomed in an energy starved world. Complexity is naturally going to decrease and it is much more likely that we will end up with much more local economies thriving on the back of private ownership.

I don't see a problem with a definition being narrow, a good definition is narrow, definitions by their very nature are never perfect and are only a set of words to help individuals understand. I happened to borrow this particular definition from another website. I think many people in society confuse capitalism, with democracy and globalism and industrialism and monetarism and many other isms. So I will have a go at my own definition of Capitalism.

Capitalism is the employment of capital to make more capital, capital in one form or another being essentially stored or usable energy, capitalism may or may not need a currency to work and can be a force for good or bad in society.

I can already see some faults in my definition but am enjoying it now and am looking forward to your contributions.

Neil (just another organISM)