A seventy year long break from capitalist economic practices over half of Europe and most of Asia seems like it should have produced a noticeably different set of ecological outcomes.
But industrialization appears to take the same ecological toll from Beijing to Belgrade.
Capitalism requires continuous and unlimited economic growth. Economic growth requires accelerated resource extraction. Capitalism is not ecologically sustainable in nature.
Capitalism, like socialism, means many things to many different people. At it’s core capitalism is simply a philosophy built around the idea of the free exchange of goods and services between individuals. I don’t think most people would that infinite growth is an essential part of that equation as there are real examples of capitalistic economys that shrink every year.
Where are those capitalist “economies” that don’t require growth? Are they decoupled, and not relying on the growth of the global economy? Does their pension system not explode if economic growth would come to a halt? If so, what makes them capitalist?
I think government pension is probably one the least capitalist ideas out there. There’s no such thing as a pure capitalist society, just like how there’s never been a true socialist society. Only ones that subscribe more to their respective ideas more than their peers. To me, what makes a society capitalist is a foundations belief in a free markets and the voluntary trade of goods and services, and a socialist society is one where the means of production are pushed towards collective ownership.
The underlying mechanism of government pensions in their current state requires there to be more people paying in than being paid out, so growth is needed.
I don’t know a lot of government pensions that pay out enough for the recipients to even stay afloat, they rely heavily on there being additional private pension funds (401k/BVG), which by themselves presuppose that the economy grows, it doesn’t work otherwise. I guess you are right that we have different assumptions on what capitalism even is, you link it a lot to free trade but not to the fact that it is about investment and accumulation (letting the money ‘work for itself’), which is kinda the core principle of it. Trade and money has existed before capitalism, exchanging commodities and services is not what makes a system capitalist in itself. I am also not necessarily arguing in favor of socialism, I don’t know why you keep bringing that up. Economic systems are more complex than a dichotomy of capitalism/socialism. What I want to convey is that there can be no ecological sustainability withing the capitalist growth imperative. It can be your opinion that capitalism works without growth, but I’d like to see how that works and how we get there. If we can get there, I’d argue that such a system is no longer capitalist.
I think our ecological failures are often misattributed to economic philosophy. Collectivist societies have also caused irreparable ecological harm in the past, so the issue can’t be capitalism exclusive.
Why you bring that up
Sort of a famous counter-example.
A seventy year long break from capitalist economic practices over half of Europe and most of Asia seems like it should have produced a noticeably different set of ecological outcomes.
But industrialization appears to take the same ecological toll from Beijing to Belgrade.
when will that 70 year long break happen
It already happened, in the early 90s, when Yeltsin rode a tank up to the Moscow Parliament and started shelling it.
The USSR latest from 1922 to 1991, give or take a few years depending on how you want to count it.
Dengism, in China, kicked off in earnest at about the same time (Tianamen Square was largely a Maoist reaction to capitalist land reforms).
both have no motives or actions towards anything else than the same pyramid scheme, albeit with different lingo
Both? We’re taking about billions of people.
yes, both ussr and china, had and has billions of people under the global pyramid scheme
Because I believe ecological sustainability is achivable under any economic system!
Capitalism requires continuous and unlimited economic growth. Economic growth requires accelerated resource extraction. Capitalism is not ecologically sustainable in nature.
edit: replaced “by design” with “in nature”
Capitalism, like socialism, means many things to many different people. At it’s core capitalism is simply a philosophy built around the idea of the free exchange of goods and services between individuals. I don’t think most people would that infinite growth is an essential part of that equation as there are real examples of capitalistic economys that shrink every year.
Where are those capitalist “economies” that don’t require growth? Are they decoupled, and not relying on the growth of the global economy? Does their pension system not explode if economic growth would come to a halt? If so, what makes them capitalist?
I think government pension is probably one the least capitalist ideas out there. There’s no such thing as a pure capitalist society, just like how there’s never been a true socialist society. Only ones that subscribe more to their respective ideas more than their peers. To me, what makes a society capitalist is a foundations belief in a free markets and the voluntary trade of goods and services, and a socialist society is one where the means of production are pushed towards collective ownership.
The underlying mechanism of government pensions in their current state requires there to be more people paying in than being paid out, so growth is needed.
yes, and pensions are not needed for capitalism to function
I don’t know a lot of government pensions that pay out enough for the recipients to even stay afloat, they rely heavily on there being additional private pension funds (401k/BVG), which by themselves presuppose that the economy grows, it doesn’t work otherwise. I guess you are right that we have different assumptions on what capitalism even is, you link it a lot to free trade but not to the fact that it is about investment and accumulation (letting the money ‘work for itself’), which is kinda the core principle of it. Trade and money has existed before capitalism, exchanging commodities and services is not what makes a system capitalist in itself. I am also not necessarily arguing in favor of socialism, I don’t know why you keep bringing that up. Economic systems are more complex than a dichotomy of capitalism/socialism. What I want to convey is that there can be no ecological sustainability withing the capitalist growth imperative. It can be your opinion that capitalism works without growth, but I’d like to see how that works and how we get there. If we can get there, I’d argue that such a system is no longer capitalist.
So you brought up a part of the current system with it failing?
Capitalisms faiilures on multiple cornerstones, in addition to ecology, are broadly documented. You’re allowed to update a belief with knowledge
I think our ecological failures are often misattributed to economic philosophy. Collectivist societies have also caused irreparable ecological harm in the past, so the issue can’t be capitalism exclusive.
It’s not exclusive and no one said it was. Just that capitalism as we have it now has no room for ecological considerations.