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.
But for those that own the mine there is no compelling reason to do so if they risk starvation. Workers owning the means of production would not solve environmental problems.
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.
But for those that own the mine there is no compelling reason to do so if they risk starvation. Workers owning the means of production would not solve environmental problems.