|
|
When Russia ratified the Kyoto Protocol on the emission of greenhouse
gases in October there was some rejoicing in environmentalist circles
as this meant that the treaty now became binding on all the governments
that had signed up to it. The environmentalists were well aware that
the agreement was quite inadequate to achieve its stated purpose, but
took the view that something was better than nothing.
In a socialist world, once a problem like this had been identified, the
necessary remedial action could be taken rapidly. If scientists advised
that greenhouse gas emissions had to be cut to avoid global overwarming
and its consequences, then they would be, with the methods of energy
production being changed to achieve this. It would essentially be a
question of organisation, or rather of reorganisation. Everybody would
have an interest in this being done, and it would be done.
But, under capitalism, while in the abstract everybody including those
in charge of capitalist corporations has an interest in tackling the
problem, the vested interests of capitalist corporations and
governments get in the way.
Most of the excessive emissions of greenhouse gases come from burning
oil and coal, but some countries depend more on this than others. They
stood to be penalised vis-à-vis their competitors using other
sources of energy in that their costs would rise more. So, supported by
their governments, they fought against the treaty. This was the reason
America refused to sign. Its government was not prepared to see its
corporations rendered less competitive on the world market. And still
isn’t.
But even in countries which have signed, the arguments about
competitiveness still go on. At the end of October, the British
government announced that it was raising the amount of carbon dioxide
that factories, oil refineries and power stations in Britain could emit
by 6.6 million tonnes a year for the next three years. Hardly a
contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Referring to “the
need to protect the competitive position of UK industry”, Environment
Secretary Margaret Beckett explained: “projections suggested that if we
stuck with the original formula, it would have had a devastating effect
on our industry” (Guardian, Times, 28 October). In other words,
capitalist firms in other countries would be able to outcompete British
ones through being able to keep their costs lower as a result of not
having to spent
so much on equipment to cut emissions.
.
Competition is said by supporters of capitalism to bring all sorts of
benefits. Socialists can’t see any. The sad story of attempts to limit
greenhouse gases shows that having production organised by separate
enterprises all competing to make a profit has “devastating effects”
both on the environment and on those working for them.
 
Building a land route – whether a tunnel or a bridge or a combination
of both – between Britain and the Continent was long an obvious thing
to do. Eventually a rail tunnel was constructed, and opened in 1994.
But under capitalism things are never that simple.
In socialism, after an initial assessment of the need and impact of
such a project and after democratic debate and approval, it would go
ahead. The physical resources (digging machines, steel supports, etc.)
and the skilled labour would be brought together and the bridge or
tunnel built. After that, it would be used, the only additional
resources needed being those to operate and maintain it.
Under capitalism it was quite different as it was not just a question
of deciding to do something, then organising the physical and labour
resources, and then doing it. Finance and profit came into the
equation. The resources had to bought, and the money for this had to be
borrowed, and the lenders had to be paid interest.
So, to build the tunnel under the channel, in the first instance money
capital had to be mobilised, and was from private investors, banks and
governments. The tunnel was built and trains began to run through it
carrying passengers, cars and freight. A profit was made. So everything
was alright? No, since not enough profit was made. Although operating
costs were more than covered, not enough profit was made to pay the
interest on the capital borrowed to construct the tunnel. As a result
the company – Eurotunnel – has been in financial difficulties since the
start. Its debt is now estimated at £6 billion and rising. A
shareholders revolt last April threw out of the previous board of
directors, but the new chief executive, Jean-Louis Raymond recently
stated that “the financial structure of the group remains fragile and
the high interest charges continue to impact on operating results“
(Guardian, 30 October).
But the tunnel would still be useful and could still operate without
any “financial structure”. In fact, such a structure is just an
unnecessary complication. Unnecessary, that is, from a rational social
point of view but of course vitally necessary under capitalism where
the general rule is that every productive activity has to aim to yield
a financial profit and is in trouble if it doesn’t.
  Addressing
a press dinner in London in November, the head of BMW in
Britain, Jim O’Donnell, attacked the behaviour of the four businessman
who BMW sold Rover to in 2000 for £10. Apparently, they paid
themselves an average of £3 million each in 2002 as well as
setting up a generous pension scheme for themselves, despite MG Rover
still making heavy losses. This, said O’Donnell, was “the unacceptable
face of capitalism” (Times, 12 November).
Edward Heath, when Prime Minister, had famously said the same thing
about Tiny Rowland and Lonrho in 1973. But this criticism implies that
there is an acceptable face of capitalism. If so, what is it? Is it
acceptable that capitalist firms (such as BMW, for instance) make a
profit out of the difference between the value of what their workers
produce and what they are paid as wages and salaries? Is it acceptable
that capitalist firms should direct their investment to producing what
is the most profitable, while essential human needs are left unmet? Is
it acceptable that |
governments
should support and encourage all this?
Apparently so. Supporters of capitalism only get worked up when some
capitalist lines his pockets at the expense of other capitalists. But
the four businessmen can easily reply that they did nothing illegal,
and that in fact they were following the economic law of capitalism by
taking money out of an unprofitable line of |
production and
investing
it, or making it available for investment, in some line that is
profitable.
As far as Socialists are concerned, capitalism has no acceptable face.
Everything about it is unacceptable. Its accumulation for
accumulation’s sake. Its exploitation of wage-labour. Its putting of
profits before satisfying people’s needs.
|
|
|
|
