Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kinn
basically the next ultimate test of capitalism comes when the oil runs out. does this "naturally" cause the market to switch to alternatives or not? this is the issue i am waiting to see about. if it is capitalism that makes the transition to other mostly renewable sources of energy/nuclear then that's me officially switching my allegiance to capitalism. you heard it here first lol. if the market can do this, then i do not care about messy and difficult socialist modernisation movements. i will just associate them with stalinist purges and ineffectual failed states.
|
I think this is part of the helplessness of the situation of resisting capitalism
in toto. We already have, as a late capitalist development, plenty of absurd developments. I'm thinking of things like CERN, a technological research group that's absorbed absolutely astonishing costs for a minimum of direct financial gain -which, in the context of a British society that's moving towards an education system governed by the market, is wildly perverse. I'm not saying CERN is un-profitable, it's just odd that thousands of people, including governments, have seen fit to throw billions at it.
In that context, I think much of the development of non-oil-based technologies is coming from high capitalism. The last 30-40 years have seen silicon (which I think is our most stocked resource) grow to be a huge player. I think it's a research group of Ford's which is heading up 'renewable' alternatives to oil. In this case, it's a question of their looking 20, 30 years in the future and their still wanting market dominance. Do the alternatives to oil come from some agrarian return or from Ford? I suspect the answer is both, and neither. We already know that capitalism will change its shape to suit its owners - it's done this countless times already. The question of whether it retains that name is an interesting one, but only because it's failed to change its name since early industrialism.
I've thought for a while that a form of fascism is necessary in the face of climate change - I don't really trust people to give up their oil-based lifestyles in the face of impending catastrophe without statist intervention. Simple cases of that being places like Athens' approach to pollution (which had minimal effect) or Switzerland (I think?) making idling illegal. Small examples, but definite examples of the state confronting 'climate' issues (both in the name of vanity). But that fascism, as with many state fascisms, will take place under capitalism's gaze and name. Not that of the free market though.