“Climate Change Is the Inevitable Consequence of Capitalist Privatization” Or Something

Who’s surprised that the Cult of Climastrology is against capitalism? James Delingpole refers to the extreme environmentalists as watermelons, meaning green on the outside, red on the inside, a reference to all the pro-Soviet Union nutters moving from their Communism support to the environmental movement when the USSR collapsed. Here’s Nathaniel Matthews-Trigg at the ultra left Common Dreams, which is able to post this garbage thanks to capitalist created Internet and all the protocols and hosting, and, oh, hey, makes money by engaging in capitalism by selling products

Climate Change Is the Inevitable Consequence of Capitalist Privatization

The notion of the commons refers to shared land, publicly available for all people to access for leisure and when times get tough, for survival. Publicly shared lands have existed since humans first walked the earth but have progressively been enclosed for individual sustenance or for profit. The most profound period of enclosures came with the introduction of European capitalism, and mass displacement of agricultural people to toil in industrial factories.

Throughout European and U.S. colonialism, the genocide, enslavement, and displacement of indigenous people from their lands was “justified” via the pseudo-science concept of Social Darwinism—the notion that humans inherently compete for resources and the most violent and coercive are rightfully in charge. Similarly, the pseudo-science tragedy of the commons was created to justify the privatization of public lands. This “tragedy” was based on the premise that shared resources will inherently be exploited and destroyed by the unruly public. That if left to their own volition people are inherently greedy, they don’t think in the long-term, they don’t communicate, and just like Social Darwinism, they must compete. Economist Elinor Ostrom debunked the tragedy of the commons and in doing so became the first woman to win a Nobel Peace Prize for Economics.

See? Private land ownership leads to genocide, enslavement, and displacement. And this is all linked to people who dare engage in capitalism

Our atmosphere, a publicly needed space containing many vital resources such as nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide—may seem to the untrained eye to be the tragedy of the commons playing out above our heads. But this is hardly the case, and one must only take their head out of the clouds and refocus on the social developments on-the-ground to see that climate change is really the tragedy of the enclosures, the inevitable consequence of capitalist privatization.

“Capitalism’s grow-or-die imperative stands radically at odds with ecology’s imperative of interdependence and limit. The two imperatives can no longer coexist with each other; nor can any society founded on the myth that they can be reconciled hope to survive. Either we will establish an ecological society or society will go under for everyone, irrespective of his or her status.” —Murray Bookchin

Capitalism is an economic system based on competition, and competition is a state of constant warfare. The competing corporation must always be in the process of growing, strengthening, improving in combat, and always ready to strike—or risk losing everything to someone or something that’s biggest, stronger, or more strategic. For corporations, success is based on profit, and profits are used to continue the cycle of growth, exploitation, and political influence.

And the obvious answer is to install some sort of Socialist/Communistic type of system

But there are other options to consider. A government or community could stop the corporations from being able to purchase the forest in the first place. The workers of the corporation could take over production from the CEO and run the corporation in a way that benefits the local community and local environment. Just as diverse as we humans are, so too are the creative ways we can organize ourselves to create a more sustainable future.

These people. Of course, they always want this for Other People, never themselves. They get mad when others restrict their own engagement in capitalism.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to ““Climate Change Is the Inevitable Consequence of Capitalist Privatization” Or Something”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    Hola Venezuela!

    Hola Cuba!

    https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  2. Jeffery says:

    And the obvious answer is to install some sort of Socialist/Communistic type of system

    No. The obvious answer is to limit environmental insults. We do it all the time, whether regulating what can be dumped into our waterways, poured onto the ground, or into the air. Is it socialist/communistic to limit the dumping of industrial pollutants into rivers?

    they always want this for other people, never themselves

    You type that line often. And how do the advocates avoid the policies they propose? If a rich person supports a more progressive income tax is it just for other people or also for her? If your answer is that the wealthy figure ways around the laws, the laws need to be changed, rather than designed to benefit the wealthy.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      environmental insults

      Oh jeez, such a moron.

      https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Hoss says:

      So, you think carbon is an industrial pollutant. Case closed.

    • formwiz says:

      In that case, Jeffery ought to move to the Third World Where 10 rivers account for most of the world’s pollution and show them the error of their ways.

      Anybody wanna foot the plane fare?

      If a rich person supports a more progressive income tax is it just for other people or also for her?

      It’s how upper New England became a Lefty paradise, kid. All those right-thinking people you love are the worst offenders.

      If your answer is that the wealthy figure ways around the laws, the laws need to be changed, rather than designed to benefit the wealthy.

      And whom do you think owns the people who write the laws?

      Is this kid out there or what?

      • Jeffery says:

        whiz,

        Actually the 3rd world is responsible for little of the carbon dioxide pollution. You’re likely referring to plastics being dumped in the ocean. Certainly bad, but not as serious a problem as global warming.

        Did regulations preventing companies from dumping pollutants into the air and water cripple the economy?

        Who owns the people who write the laws? The wealthy! Why do wealthy libs advocate raising their OWN taxes, while wealthy Cons want their taxes ever lower?

        • formwiz says:

          You think Red China and Inja don’t pollute?

          Get real.

          • Jeffery says:

            As a nation, China generates the most CO2 pollution, but is not “3rd World”. Their per capita CO2 emissions are half the US.

            The US is second overall, followed by the EU, India, Russia, Japan, accounting for nearly 70% of CO2 emissions. But China and India are late arrivals to the party, with their emissions not shooting up until the early 2000s.

            Never heard of Inja.

  3. Jl says:

    “If a rich person supports a more progressive income tax…” As I’m sure you know, we have one of the most progressive income tax systems in the world.

    • Jeffery says:

      we have one of the most progressive income tax systems in the world

      When payroll taxes and state/local taxes and sales taxes are factored in, we have a relatively flat tax system. And worse now with the recent tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.

      • formwiz says:

        The average working stiff is part of the rich? Whoda thunk, because the working class loves the tax cut.

        • Jeffery says:

          Why don’t the GOPhers running in Nov ever mention tax cuts? Tax cuts don’t mean much to a woman who lost her job in Poplar Bluff, MO because of Trump Tariffs. Or Harley-Davidson workers watching their jobs move to Europe.

          Local taxes go up, gas prices are climbing, the tariffs will start to increase prices… the Fed will raise interest rates to slow inflation/working stiff’s wage increases… Last hired, first laid off, is how it works.

  4. Hoss says:

    I thought the left showed their hand on how much disdain they have for private property ownership with the Kelo v. City of New London SCOTUS decision.

  5. MSG Grumpy says:

    Anyone who thinks that socialism/communism would be better for people or the environment or anything at all has NEVER looked at the disaster that has been left in the wake of socialism/communism EVERY TIME it has been tried. Look at the environmental damage that was wrought throughout eastern Europe and Russia thanks to the USSR. Look at the current environment within the workers paradise of China (Just try to breath the chunky air) while the air quality in the USA has actually improved over the last half century of evil capitalist dictatorship.

    Not to mention just how wonderful the “common spaces” are that are provided by the caring and loving socialist/communist as opposed to the evil capitalist who claim private ownership. Just think how awful the smell would be if those hundreds of millions of bodies killed by the socialists/communists didn’t have the mass graves provided by the loving “common spaces”???? Did the evil capitalist ever think about the need for mass graves? NO, selfish and short sighted capitalist never consider the greater good do they?

    And of course the socialist/communist KNOW that the greater good is served when they are in charge and able to tell others how they must live their lives, or more likely, where the bodies will be buried in another workers paradise.

    MSG Grumpy

    • david7134 says:

      Grumpy,
      Actually communism or socialism would achieve the result of the climate nuts as it would lower CO2 production as socialism is almost always associated with massive deaths, other directly by the government killing its citizens or indirect by government policies. Then the massive decrease in the economy would reduce fossil fuel use.

  6. Jl says:

    Sorry J, but “a more progressive income tax” were your words. So again, we still have one of the most progressive income tax systems in the world. And as you know, but keep trying to deflect, all income brakets that pay income tax received tax cuts, not just the wealthy. But nice try.

    • Jeffery says:

      Sorry j, but a more progressive income tax was what we meant. It should be MORE progressive.

      Yes all brackets were cut. We received over a $10,000 cut. Most received a few hundred or so. If you make $25,000 you got about $60.

      Corporations got an even better deal – with their rates slashed down to 21% from 35%. They took that extra money and hired workers bought equipment built factories bought their own stock, pumping up their stock price making the corporation, execs and shareholders even more money!! Workers wages are still flat.

      The deficit is increasing too! Is that now a conservative value?

      Why are the middle class tax cuts set to expire but the massive corporate rate cut is permanent?

Bad Behavior has blocked 6037 access attempts in the last 7 days.