Skip to Content

Voice From The Back

Pollution and profits

Every vote-seeking politician in the world waxes eloquent about the urgent need for a curb to be placed on global emissions. They fly hither and thither across the world addressing congresses about their deep concern for the planet's future. Behind these vote catching antics however lies a more pressing problem – how to compete against international rivals in obtaining a larger share of the profits. At a recent meeting in Singapore those politician showed where their real priorities lie. "A key element of the international plan to address climate change is in jeopardy after several of the most powerful nations failed to confirm a previous commitment to halve gas emissions by 2050. The Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) forum, which includes the US, China, Japan and Russia deleted their commitment from the final version of the official communiqué issued after a two-day meeting in Singapore. ...Most climate scientists believe that a 50 per cent reduction in global emissions by 2050 is the minimum needed to have a chance of avoiding catastrophic change." (Times, 16 November) For some national governments to reduce industrial pollution could be economic suicide. Their costs would go up and they would not be able to compete with other nations that had not reduced their pollution. Inside capitalism in the battle between less pollution or more profits there is only one winner.

Capitalism in action
The case for a transformation of society from one of class division to one to one of social ownership was made very powerfully by two recent press reports. Here is how the present class division favours a tiny minority. Take the example of John Paulson, a hedge-fund manager in New York. "His firm made $20 billion between 2007 and early 2009 by betting against the housing market and big financial companies. Mr. Paulson's personal cut would amount to nearly $4 billion, or more than $10 million a day." (Wall Street Journal, 15 November) At the other end of the class division we read of this. "According to the FAO, the number of malnourished people in the world rose to over 1 billion this year, up from 915m in 2008. Economists at the World Bank reckon that the number living on less than $1.25 a day will rise by 89m between 2008 and 2010 and those on under $2 a day will rise by 120m.." (Economist, 19 November) Some people trying to survive on a couple of dollars a day while some useless parasite rips off millions, don't you think we need a new society?

The next war?
Capitalism is an explosively competitive society. We have had two world wars. One was supposed to be "the war to end all wars" the other was supposed to be a "war for democracy". That was all nonsense of course. War inside capitalism is the logical outcome of competition for sources of raw materials, trade routes. markets and spheres of political dominance. Where is the next powder keg of competition? No one knows, but here is a possibility. "At the crossroads between east and west in the desert nation of Turkmenistan, a quiet battle is under way for natural gas, oil and influence, and the U.S. and Europe are losing out to China and the Muslim world. There's a lot at stake: the Central Asian country has the world's fourth-largest reserves of natural gas and substantial oil reserves, putting it in the same energy league as Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iraq. Plus, its position just north of Afghanistan could be hugely beneficial to NATO as it seeks more reliable supply routes to its troops on the ground there." (TIME, 29 November) Socialists are as clueless as everyone else about where the next conflict will arise. What we are certain about is that thousands of men and women will die in conflicts in the future over their master's quarrels. We are also certain that only world socialism can stop such a tragedy.
 
It must be obvious
"Hospital cleaners are worth more to society than bankers, a study suggests. The research, carried out by think tank the New Economics Foundation, says hospital cleaners create £10 of value for every £1 they are paid. It claims bankers are a drain on the country because of the damage they caused to the global economy. They reportedly destroy £7 of value for every £1 they earn. Meanwhile, senior advertising executives are said to "create stress". The study says they are responsible for campaigns which create dissatisfaction and misery, and encourage over-consumption." (BBC News, 14 December) Of course think tanks, because they are servants of capitalism see everything in terms of pound notes, but even they must see that all useful work and a lot of useless work is carried out by the working class. The owning class produce no wealth whatsoever. All they do is consume wealth.