According to Hugo Chavez would not be surprising that there has been civilization on Mars, but maybe it was beyond capitalism, imperialism and eventually came to this planet. "Then, calls to follow a pattern "socialist" of consumption: more restrained and environmentally friendly.
But behind this alleged irony is that, assuming that doubts arise What is a socialist pattern of consumption and environmental restrained? Were the socialist project greener? Is green the socialist ideology?
If one looks at the origins of socialism, about the social changes Industrial Revolution generated in society, the environmental issue was an idea almost marginal. Strictly speaking, criticism of the capitalist mode of production is performed within the frames themselves rationalist enlightenment.
Even the original promoters of socialism, as Fourier and Robert Owen, they were not opposed to industrial development and production. Much less did Saint Simon. Neither Marx addresses the environmental problem as central in his theory ( although some say yes ). However, there was general awareness of the need to protect the environment.
Currently, most of the discussion on environmental issues seems to be based on idea that "socialism", by itself, is greener than "capitalism." But is there any truth in it?
There are several cases, illusory, arising from the above, for example, that the collective nature of a good is more effective-than private-when protecting the environment or the ecosystem, or that state enterprises are more responsible than private natural environment. Examples that contradict these assumptions are many, both in other countries such as Chile .
ideas are based on a fictitious and erroneous dichotomy that assumes that the corporate field agents are distinct from the state field agents, or the latter are more responsive to the environment than the first, especially when the State stands as only productive and industrial monopoly.
Some say that the difference lies in the vision with respect to production, capitalism gives priority to the accumulation, while the collective interest of socialism and human.
false dichotomy, because both what is usually called model industrial capitalist - crony capitalism or mercantilism - as the industrial model socialist planned economy and state-maintained or maintained as a centerpiece of its economic system, the expansion of production scale, at all costs, and whose background is the state as promoter-concealing. The best example of this is the production of arms, nuclear and space race during the Cold War that both powers developed to extreme levels. Not to mention the secrecy at the expense of the lives and safety of people.
Some would say that comparatively wealthy powers the West-not to mention China obviously, the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, have been more predatory and reckless with the environment over the centuries throughout the world. No one disputes that a reality. But that fact does not make greener socialist states or poor countries, fewer predators. And up there.
For more than a purely ideological assessment, one thing is the commitment to environmentalism, and another is that the economy of a depressed state, making the industrial production growth and stops or decreases along with its domestic consumption decreasing with them their pretensions to power.
That is not environmentalism and commitment to the environment, poverty. And there is evidence that an impoverished economy is not organic.
The only idea that could be greener while socialist, may be proposing Henry David Thoreau in Walden life forests.
Why then Chavez talks socialism and ecological restrained from state his position and power? What specifically?
0 comments:
Post a Comment