CertainesIdées, you write :
I have the impression that you do not believe in a state solution to environmental problems but only in a sum of personal changes.
Then:
I am wrong ?
Is it humor?
On the first point, you are right, we do not believe that the solution will come from above. Not only because European governments (and not only them!) Swear by growth and jobs (whatever the content!), But also because there is no political force that goes in the direction ambiguous measures that you advocate: it is the desert.
Despite these objections of size and largely sufficient to overwhelm your good intentions, the main thing is elsewhere.
It goes without saying that the development of alternative energies would no longer be hampered when its profitability was attractive enough to generate the maximum amount of waste required for the proper functioning of the system ...
The question is therefore the following: in a framework dedicated to the accumulation of abstract value, how would it be possible to envisage
seriously an orientation that would go against it?
Talking about sobriety is downright blasphemous!
As for the oligarchies, what is their credibility when they address themselves to the "people *", as you do, with the condescension that goes with it, to explain to them (it's nice to them!) That we must hug the belt, work more to earn less?
On the second point, I do not believe in a sum of individual changes, but in an organization of individuals (which is very different) to drive radical changes vis-à-vis current objectives and meet real needs in the balance with the rest of the living.
There is no evidence that it can work and that the system will not continue unabated, but that is the only possibility.
Will the "brainwashing" which has explained for so many decades that the salvation lies in the technological headlong rush prevail, or the awareness that old recipes are no longer the solution but the problem will arise. she ?
Further on, you speak of participation and cooperatives, two forms which aim to falsely reconcile oppositions of interest between social categories: by making the system more acceptable, we hide its faults and prolong our influence.
Participation does not change anything in the social relations of work, in its alienation, or in its content: it only maintains dependence on money.
Cooperatives can appear as havens of freedom, whereas, subject to the laws of the market, they have only the freedom to submit to them.
Janic, you write :
... the destruction / construction balance sheet is against the second currently ...
Indeed, if as Sen-no-sen says, capitalism has not been misleading, measured in terms of the transformation of the world and the accumulation of material goods, the process of
constructive destruction, dear to
Schumpeter, now appears to many as a fool's bargain and the hopes it aroused are no longer relevant. The extent of the damage and the impossibility of remedying it appear for what they are: not operating errors that a few clever regulations could correct, but forming part of its most intimate essence.
Just as the cells of a body accumulate errors over time and go towards the death of the whole, this system doomed to accumulation will perish of its contradictions. The difference, and it is not small, is that he will take us with him if we are not able to perceive the danger and to emancipate ourselves from him before it is too late.
* I would not use this term, for my part, and this for two reasons: the first is that it is inappropriate to designate a diverse reality under one name, the second, that being part of the people, I do not wish adopt this distance which is anything but neutral.
