In Reply to: Capitalism/Communism Synthesis posted by John Champagne on July 24, 1996 at 20:22:02:
> The current capitalist system allows theft of natural resources, (fresh air and water, fish in the sea, biodiversity, etc.), and generally those with capital are the ones most actively involved in exploiting this system of legalized theft. I call this taking of natural resources 'theft' because I do not consider the air and water and biodiversity to be owned by those who are making the decisions that result in the degredation and loss of these resources, but rather, if it can be said that the air and water and biodiversity are 'owned' by anyone, they are owned by everyone. But as of yet, the economic system does not recognize this fact.That's right.
> If those who use the air and water to take their pollution, and take fish from the sea, and destroy forests were made to pay a fee in some proportion to how much damage they do to these natural resources that belong to all, then they would have an incentive to reduce the amount of damage they do to the earth.This is the well-known 'green taxes' idea, which some countries have started to impose already, though fairly half-heartedly because of the influence of big business. The problems with it are
(a)If they had enough money, there wouldn't actually be anything to stop people destroying whatever part of the environment that they chose.
(b)Surely there is something morally wrong with putting financial values on things which are our shared heritage and indeed means of survival ? Would you say 'OK, if you pay us $100,000 per whale, you can kill as many as you like' ? Or 'If you pay us $1000 per acre, you can pollute aas much land as you want' ?
(c)It is in many cases almost impossible to predict what the effects of certain acts will be 20 or even 100 years down the road. How can you decide what financial value to put on the release of 'x' amount of a new chemical into the atmosphere when you simply don't have a clue whether in 100 years this chemical will have been completely harmless or caused the death of millions of people or animals, either directly or indirectly through food chains etc. The fact is, we don't really know what the effects of our 'high standard of living' will have.. Certainly, the polluters don't givee a damn.> If all the people of the earth received payments that were equal to their share of the fees collected for use of natural resources, and if they had the first and last word on what levels of pollution and of taking of other resources they would consider acceptible, then we would have a system of ownership and management of natural resources, the ULTIMATE means of production, in the hands of the people.
But I don't WANT to receive payments for pollution and wastage. I want them not to happen in the first place!
> If we preserve that part of the present system that allows free movement of capital, and introduce this scheme for managing the use of natural resources within sustainable limits through attaching fees, with fee proceeds distributed to, (and levels set by), all the people, we would have a synthesis of capitalism and communism, with the best of both worlds, and a real prospect that natural resources and biodiversity can be preserved for future generations.
None.