The United Nations Climate Change Conference is being held in Montreal from the 28th Nov to 9th Dec. I also joined the march…it was great to see a few communists around waving the red flag…
Present also were people from:
And more…
It was fun to meet people greener than me, I was impressed…
It was also providencial that the same day, in Venice, St Mark’s square was covered by 20cm of water.
It reminded me of a military Christian housewife making a fool of herselef about Climate change.
Climate change is one of the problems that Capitalism cannot deal with.
While I will not attempt to accuse Capitalism of being responsible for climate change it is nonetheless clear that the profit aspect of Capitalism hinders our society to look for better alternatives for the planet.
Enviroment falls behind profit and while there have been genuine attemps to solve enviromental problems, it has not lead to anywhere offering future generations a secure life.
Only an alternative such as Communism can put enviroment and ourselves before profit.
The Interloper (playing the devil’s advocate):
“…the profit aspect of Capitalism hinders our society to look for better alternatives for the planet.”
What could be worse for profit than a day when no profit can be had, having fried the planet and all.
comment by The Interloper — December 5, 2005 @ 5:48 pm
Capitalism can make profit of anything.
Whether it is enviroment, humans… even your self esteem…
Official comment by Zoroxstar — December 6, 2005 @ 5:21 pm
I think we should remain critical of the type of communism so centred on people that it becomes extremely environmentally aggressive (like the Soviet Bloc countries for example).
Both capitalism and communism have perfectly good reasons to destroy our environment. One for profit, the other to improve the plight of people. And each has its reason and method of protecting the enviroment. For capitalism, obviously the environment must be sustained to keep a steady profit, and today’s capitalists argue they can protectthe environment by letting SOMEBODY OWN EVERYTHING…The logic being that when somebody owns every river, field, and park, it won’t be destroyed. But this is actually pretty retarded. Land sitting alone, growing trees, letting animals run around, doesn’t create any wealth… On the other hand, if you develop it you can create profit for years to come. So the pro-capitalist argument fails here.
The “new” communist or socialist argument makes more sense, and even some of today’s large corporations and businesses agree. Our development must be sustainable, and our environment belongs to everybody and hence nobody. Companies that don’t recognize this will eventually become rare because they will destroy their own source of wealth. I say “new” socialist argument because old communists were so centred on rapid industrialisation that they were willing to destroy the environment to achieve their goals.
I guess what I’m getting at is eventually - and hopefully not too late - we’ll HAVE to change.
comment by Mercuda — December 7, 2005 @ 3:41 pm
Mercuda, yes the old communist behavior can be explained also through the competition that was being lead against the capitalist countries.
But wit a 0 capitalist world, I think that communism would be quite fit to work in the interest of the enviroment and the ones using it.
PS: Nice to hear the good news …
Official comment by Zoroxstar — December 7, 2005 @ 7:26 pm
If you are willing to buy a house, you will have to get the business loans. Moreover, my sister always takes a college loan, which occurs to be the most useful.
comment by JUDITHWest21 — July 12, 2010 @ 9:12 am