Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Brian, there are solutions out there, and world socialism is the only society that can implement them.
Alan, if by “solutions” you are referring to climate change you seemed to have forgotten that the beast – Co2 – has already been unleashed and there’s no stopping it whatever steps are taken. We could possibly mitigate or alleviate the effects of rising sea levels with socialism – and obviously with a socialist framework the means for climate adaptation would have a positive outcome – but has for putting the genie back in the bottle it just can’t be done.
We can reduce the rate of carbon emissions on the short term and we can then reverse the effects of climate change on the long term. Whatever negative impacts we inherit can be focused upon and tackled.
Here you are asking for the impossible. For its impossible to reduce the rate of carbon emissions in the short term and the effects of climate change according to the scientific evidence are going to felt long into the future. But nevertheless, we will be able to reduce the effects of Co2 in the long term.
I note that you’re adopting a change in emphasis with “tackled” rather than “solution”. About bloody time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvqY2NcBWI8 and here: #189980
Either we argue the capitalism is incapable of providing solutions and therefore we are inevitably heading towards the intensifying consequences of climate change.
You are missing the point by suggesting there are “solutions” when there are none even if we had socialism. The fact of the matter is – as you well know – the best we can offer is a more positive framework for tackling the effects of climate change.
Indeed, it would be disingenuous to state otherwise.
While I’m writing, I agree with Brian that this thread would be better if, instead of repeating doom and gloom stuff, we highlighted technical innovations and possibilities which show how the problem might be tackled if we had common ownership and democratic control of the Earth’s resources.
One technical innovation we would by necessity encouraging is the ‘greening of the earth’ which paradoxically is already occurring with the increase in Co2. However, much of this greening is being offset with the destruction of the rain forests. Obviously, such greening would require an initial intake of water which would mean cleaning up the polluted waterways or desalinating the oceans without the use of osmosis – which uses a tremendous amount of energy.
I don’t think we would go so far has to try and capture Co2 by industrial methods because this also uses a tremendous amount of energy. Far better to use natural sources which are plant based.
Hi David,
Welcome to the SPGB. I assume your application went through the Membership Department. If so a member of that department will make contact with you shortly.
Can the Party presently put meat on the bones of what has already been suggested by the informed professionals as solutions. We can collate them and we can categorize them but presently our 100 active members have not got the sufficient technical expertise other than access the knowledge that is already out there to offer new answers with new ideas. (my emphasis)
Which is what we are doing anyways. But in this case what I’m suggesting is that in the case of climate adaptation – and with the effects of climate change a foregone conclusion – we compare and contrast how the different frameworks of capitalism and socialism tackle climate change and adaptation.
For instance, with science, production, distribution and the decision making process no longer shackled by the profit system there can only be positive outcomes in reference to climate adaptation. We need to back up our claim that socialism is the only framework for tackling the problems and issues of climate change by outlining how this framework will take a proactive approach rather than waiting for market reaction.
Wez, I agree the market will respond to the problems thrown up by capitalism but only when and if there’s a possibility for a profit to be realised. John Englander is implying that most, if not all, adaptations will be profitable. Which is just not the case.
If the cost of the adaptation outweighs the profitability society will have to bear the consequences. A recent example of this occurring is the cancellation of the M4 extension around Newport. Nevertheless, he’s honest enough to admit that there’s no solution to climate change, and we have to live with it.
With the probability of capitalism taking a hit and miss approach to climate adaptation its essential we make a start on putting some flesh on the bones on how socialism will go about tackling the effects positively. Once that is the cause has been dealt with.
Came across this which is an update on the possibilities on climate change adaptation. However, it seems to suggest that capitalism will find adaptation profitable.
That’s not the only thing that climate scientists don’t know for certain. They don’t know the exact relationship between an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the consequent rise in average global temperature. There is a causal link but nobody knows exactly what. Hence the differing views of different scientists depending on their assumption. The proof of the pudding is going to be in the eating, not that any of us here are going to be around in 2100 to eat it.
Exactly my observation on the whole debate of climate change. From what I have observed the main issue is the measurements for ‘average global temperature’ is not a given or exact. In that most measurements are taken in urban areas where the local temperature is influenced by the surrounding buildings.
See more here:
What’s interesting is that in Cardiff when ER held a four day protest no arrests were made. So defeating and deflating the tactic of overwhelming the justice system!
“Well, in political terms, Brian, ‘an elite’ is precisely what ‘specialists’ are.”
Again you are projecting the implications and consequences of a class society onto a classless society. That definition only holds true when the specialists have a direct access to the decision making process and can decide what’s best for serving their interests over and above the interests of society. In a classless society such a situation will not arise where the common interests of society take precedent over individual interests.
“Unless you are prepared to state that the decisions of the ‘specialists’ will be subject to the democratic control of ‘generalists’” …
The specialists will advise whilst the generalists will decide. How the generalists reach a decision will obviously depend on the democratic framework employed by the associated producers. We can speculate on this democratic framework but it would be undemocratic to decide now on a “blueprint”. Nevertheless, it would be safe to say that the scientific method would be applied in determining what actually constituents an advancement in social progress.
“… – that is, that ‘generalists’ as a political force know better about any ‘specialism’ than do the ‘specialists’. This means that the assumptions, aims, theories, methods and practices of the ‘specialists’ will be dictated by the ‘generalists’.”
This is anti-democratic by implying there will be a ‘them and us’ situation where the advance of and purpose of science is perceived has a threat to human progress. It not only places social progress in a mental strait jacket where all ideas, theories and practices are restrained by a search for The truth before all else, but it also means that a socialist society will be unable to realise the potential for producing an abundance.
In short stagnation!
“If you disagree with this democratic belief in the power of the ‘generalists’, all well and good – but then announce that clearly, that there will be an elite within your version of ‘socialism’ that will be outside of our democratic control.”
I have “announced it clearly” above. But yet again a further projection which does not hold water by implying the division of labour into specialists and generalists – by definition – creates an elite on the one hand and alienated labour on the other.
You denounce the SPGB for being undemocratic yet here is an example of you making undemocratic statements simply because you always fail to search out the implications and consequences of such statements. But nonetheless expect the SPGB to do just that!
“The real irony is that Bijou considers himself to be democrat, but won’t tell us which elite would produce truth, and how they would do it within socialism, without the participation of the democratic producers.”
In actual fact the real irony is that LBird is projecting his truth that a scientific elite would also be in existence in socialism because he’s concluded the specialists by definition constitute an elite.
Bijou’s idea is also a trial I welcome. The downside is that they are not local activity that can be carried out daily or weekly or even monthly. People need constructive things to do to feel useful.
I could not agree with you more for it echoes my feelings on ‘Positive Socialist Activity’.
I get my weekly buzz by talking about the need for socialism to fellow members of the working class for a couple of hours on the street stall in Cardiff. Every week we hand out and sell party literature and have conversations with people from all over the globe. Admittedly, nobody has joined the party as yet but what the heck more people are being connected to socialism through this activity than ever.
The point is through such activity we are reaching out to the workers and not expecting them to come to us. Further, we are talking with them and not at them – which is picked up from attending a public meeting.
For those interested in metabolic rift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1673&v=iOs_T6c-Fsc
