1/06/98, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
>We should be argue that the
>main policy initiative for preserving ecosystems is the destruction of
>capitalism.
True enough, but there are several paradigm shifts involved which need to
be considered separately:
(1) end of capitalist hegemony
(2) awareness that prosperity and growth are not synonyms
(3) awareness that capitalism and free enterprise are not synonyms
(4) awareness that there are many other alternatives to capitalism
besides marxism
Generations of people have been persuaded to believe that their prosperity
has been due to capitalism, and this myth must be dispelled; it is not
enough to point out the side-effect drawbacks of capitalism. If people
think that ending capitalism means reduced prosperity, an end to enterprise
and innovation, or the installation of some doctrinaire ideology, then they
are likely to decide "better the devil we know than the one we don't".
The _economic_ waste of capitalism needs to be explained: even if one cares
not about ecology, capitalism just isn't the most efficient way to use
resources, if all factors are considered.
The radical difference between "running a business" and "investing capital"
needs to be understood, and between "producing a profit" and "growing
capital".
The myth that says "prosperity = GDP-growth" must be dispelled: prosperity
must be redefined in terms of human well-being, and GDP must be exposed for
what it is, an index of corporate theft or something close to that.
A pluralistic discussion of economic paradigms -- an exploration of
alternatives -- is necessary before a replacement for capitalism can be
selected, and with no alternative in mind it is unlikely that a consensus
for ending capitalism can be achieved, and rightly so.
The belief that marxism is THE alternative to capitalism is probably one of
the strongest factors keeping capitalism in power.
rkm