All living creations have to earn for themselves in order to live, no matter of the size, gender or race and that is what we can all agree on. These earnings are different some work, some prey, some steal and so on.....Similarly in every society there are difference among its inhabitants in the way of living and style and of course how they get their income and so on... In an Utopia and so called sustainable society the way of life is tried to be balanced among its population.... People are encouraged to earn from a balanced way so that all can be somewhat equally benefited. Now of course this is a dream society, desired by all and yet to be achieved.....

Now the main question is why are poor left poor and rich getting richer??? Or why there are many poor and fewer rich day by day.....So many good answers have been given here and all are in the context of a sustainable society. Each society defines poor by its own rules, such as one country's poor can be equal to a medium income family in another. All societies can not be brought under one definition but what can be brought is how to manage and control.... It is said that in a well balanced community rich contribute more to society other than they pay taxes. Why? Now many will disagree and justify their disagreement by saying that they have worked for it, yes they have but poor have worked much harder than what rich have worked for? You for example work for $30 for an hour in a chair with nice cloths on and on the other hand poor works for $8 for an hour in a much harsher environment.

The more we keep this difference the more poor will be brought in to the society. The more their is this difference the more troubles we will face. Yes to manage this a good governance is required and unfortunately we are washing our hands of such governments on daily bases. It has become a race of survival rather a race for a better future. We have lost track of humanity and sanity long time ago. There are good suggestions among all these posts but despite they being good they will all be suggestions. Governments need to be stronger to survive and in this game of survival there is no place for week or poor. They are being used as fuel to run the so called economist engines of the rich.....

And what do you think corporations are doing if not micromanaging people in a corporate system? — Bitter Crank

Not true. I'm able to develop other ways to make money. I'm not trapped by one job, nor am I stuck making the exact same amount as everyone else. I see this as very wrong.
I am not being micromanaged because I can leave at any point, it's just not the most strategic thing to do right now. They are destroying themselves with their dishonesty.

So your boss is a jerk, he doesn't pay you enough, and this is the government's fault?

Why don't you keep the blame where you laid it: on your boss's doorstep? He's the one deciding to underpay you and maybe harass you to boot.

For some odd reason unknown to me you would prefer to blame non-existent socialism for your problems instead of a harsh, capitalist system which doesn't give a shit about you. — Bitter Crank

No, this is not the government's fault that my boss is a jerk. It is the government's fault for increasing taxes on people who make more, which decreases my chances at making a profit through my own business and for making quality healthcare unaffordable because of extremely bad policy and laws regarding it.

You might argue with Marx's proposed solution to the woes of capitalism. You can certainly argue with practical communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism etc. But it's not so easy to disagree with his analysis. — Txastopher

His findings are unpractical and fantasy. The resulting attempts of such practice show increased death rates. If one cannot practice such ideology then it is a bad ideology.

Unwilling? Or unable?

Here is a recent interchange I had on Twitter:

Tweeter 1: The Tories said privatisation of the railways would give us "better, more efficient and cheaper trains". Today rail fares go up by 3.1% while punctuality is at a 12-year low. Meanwhile in Luxembourg they are making all public transport free from 2019.

Tweeter 2: Another leftie after free stuff.

Pattern-chaser: Free? We all pay. That's the point of socialism: from each according to their means, and to each (or all) according to their (our) needs. And we share the cost. It's not free, it's mutual care. Love thy neighbour?

This offers an alternative perspective to your own. I can't guarantee it's more accurate, although it seems so to me. — Pattern-chaser

I can't speak of the train system you've used as an example, but I can say that the US post office, which is a public service, shows itself to be an extremely bad example with lower quality service and non-competitive pricing. I can't think of a public service that I can speak highly of, it seems to be lower quality in general and significantly slower.

As for "mutual care" there is no care whatsoever involved. It's either pay or you go to jail or worse. If it was care, then we would have charities where people could donate according to their means. Love is not forced. If it truly shared the cost, then those in leadership would starve right along with the people in their unpractical plan, but indeed they do not. They merely create a larger gap between the classes causing almost everyone to submit to the depths of poverty and starvation while they prosper. They merely use "fairness" to gain an advantage in order to oppress the actual workers.

Scandinavian countries aren't socialist, they are capitalist. Period. — ssu

So when conservatives in the US characterize universal health care, free education, and other state run social programs as "socialism", this is just propaganda? These programs are completely compatible with capitalism as it is understood by US conservatives?

These programs are completely compatible with capitalism as it is understood by US conservatives? — boethius

Actually yes.

Apart from Norway, which could indeed finance it's welfare programs through oil revenue (which it actually doesn't, it basically only spends the interest on the oil revenue and hence sits on a vast sovereign wealth fund), no other country could have sustained the welfare state without a functioning private sector and a capitalist system. All of the countries have successful large corporations that have succeeded quite well in the global market. All the countries have their modest billionaires, who don't make a fuss about themselves (and especially don't run for political office). To say that they aren't capitalist somehow anymore is simply silly.

You see, one has to put these things into perspective and remember the narrative and the discourse when US politicians talk about the Scandinavian/Nordic states. The whole thing gets politicized when Bernie says anything good about the Nordic states. Hence the conservative politicians/commentators have to bash these countries, namely Sweden. As Trump said: "Remember Sweden? Sweden!" They can argue that the Nordic States have problems with their welfare state and public sector costs, which is partly true, yet you really have to understand that these aren't huge existential problems. The countries aren't on the verge of collapse as Venezuela is. The countries have gotten into debt, but so have other Western countries too. None of the countries have been as reckless as Greece has been with their public finances. And let's just remember that health care costs per citizen are a lot bigger in the US than in any Nordic country, even Norway. (So just what system is unsustainable?)

The objectives are basically domestic in the US debate, which should be clear to people. The bashing of especially Sweden is a perfect example. As crime is easier to understand than finance and economics, I'll give the following example. So the cherished right-wing argument goes that the city of Malmö has no-go zones and has increased violence thanks to an open door immigration policy. Yes, indeed Malmö has an uptick on violence and it's murder rate is about 3 (to 100 000 people annually). In Finland it's about 1,4, so Malmö is indeed more violent than my town. Yet the US has a murder rate above 5 to 100 000 people, and in Chicago the murder rate is at 23 or something. Hence the US is on average a far more dangerous place than Malmö.

Yet nobody talks about the actual no-go areas in Chicago and that in a short while the non-hispanic whites in the US will lose their majority status. It doesn't help anybody's agenda. Why? Naturally as Americans know quite well their surroundings they live in , they simply aren't horrified about these issues. You cannot instill panic in the same way. You really have to find a true white supremacist who is concerned about his own racial status. Otherwise even if you are a Trump supporter, it's just "meh".

Hence the argument has to be taken to a country that actually Americans don't know in order to create this idea that the Bernie type socialism is bad and that social welfare programs are incompatible with an economy based on free market capitalism. Yes, Europe is doomed.

These programs are completely compatible with capitalism as it is understood by US conservatives?
— boethius

Actually yes. — ssu

This is your starting point ...

And your end point is:

Hence the argument has to be taken to a country that actually Americans don't know in order to create this idea that the Bernie type socialism is bad and that social welfare programs are incompatible with an economy based on free market capitalism. Yes, Europe is doomed. — ssu

So ... in other words, Scandinavian social programs are incompatible with US conservatives understanding of the term capitalism (due to propaganda? if so, I agree) and are an example of socialism (from their point of view)?

And furthermore, what you call "Bernie type socialism" is actually correctly labeled capitalism?

I don't see how your argument functions.

To be clear, the point of my comments is to point out that US libertarian or conservative proponents can't in one context claim Scandinavia is an example of capitalism succeeding, and in another context argue that things like universal health care, free university, strong social net, large and powerful unions, that are features of Scandinavian government, are a path to socialist tyranny.

I wanted to be clear we agree on that before continuing the discussion, as if people disagree, I'd be interested to hear how that works.

If we do agree, then I'd move on to pointing out the word "socialism" also has many different meanings depending on context as does capitalism. With many definitions, Scandinavia has strong socialist component. Even in the Marxist sense: strong unions that de facto share in the ownership of the means of production, perhaps not equally but more than zero, government regulation of industry which is also de facto voter, whom are mostly workers, share of ownership of the means of production. In the sense that socialism is used to refer to strong social safety nets, again a strong socialist component with this definition. In the sense socialism is used to represent the idea that government should advance the "public interest" over "private interests, based on a moral system of property rights defined by those interests", again a strong component of this definition of socialism in Scandinavia.

Likewise, if socialism is used to mean tyrannical micro management by a centralized bureaucracy with zero democratic oversight, then Scandinavia has little of this socialism. If socialism is used to mean a complete absence of a market economy, this also doesn't describe Scandinavia.

His [Marx's] findings are unpractical and fantasy. The resulting attempts of such practice show increased death rates. If one cannot practice such ideology then it is a bad ideology. — Waya

Your comments, for all their confidence, reveal a near total ignorance of Marxism.

And furthermore, what you call "Bernie type socialism" is actually correctly labeled capitalism? — boethius

Basically Bernie Sanders is close to European style social-democracy, which accepts the capitalist system. This social democratic view limits the actions of the government to a confined space of taxation, welfare programs and some limited role of the government in the economy, but doesn't truly challenge the private ownership of capital.

to be clear, the point of my comments is to point out that US libertarian or conservative proponents can't in one context claim Scandinavia is an example of capitalism succeeding, and in another context argue that things like universal health care, free university, strong social net, large and powerful unions, that are features of Scandinavian government, are a path to socialist tyranny. — boethius

In the last sentence lies the crucial point: It's not a path to socialist tyranny. The welfare programs aren't a stepping stone to something larger. The Nordic model starts from the basic understanding that government programs are paid by tax revenue and because it's the private sector's job to create this tax revenue, the private sector and the capitalist system is basically left alone. This fight is about the level of taxation etc. with the right. True socialism (in my view) starts from the idea that government can and indeed it is it's role is to own the industries and services in the economy and hence make the revenues required by itself.

Nordic social democracy doesn't go to that. For example, the Swedish Social Democrat party has been the largest party in the country for a hundred years or so (if I remember correctly) and typically has been in the government, but this hasn't lead to de facto socialism.

In the last sentence lies the crucial point: It's not a path to socialist tyranny. The welfare programs aren't a stepping stone to something larger. The Nordic model starts from the basic understanding that government programs are paid by tax revenue and because it's the private sector's job to create this tax revenue, the private sector and the capitalist system is basically left alone. — ssu

Though we are in fairly good agreement, it would be misleading to say Scandinavia leaves private sector alone in the sense of deregulation. The government doesn't own (much) of the private sector, yes, but everything is very much regulated, so I wouldn't say it "leaves it alone".

True socialism (in my view) starts from the idea that government can and indeed it is it's role to own the industries and hence make the revenues required by itself. — ssu

I don't think the argument of what "the true definition" of something is, is productive. Words are conventions, conventions can change as well as be specified further by other language in a given context.

Marxist socialism essential feature is for the means of production to be owned by the workers; Marx does not specify much how this would be organized or accomplished. However, the world socialism and socialist both pre-date Marx as well as have evolved since. I would say it's not very historically accurate to equate socialism with Marxism.

Very few people today I would guess are using socialism to refer to all industries run by the state, or even just enough industries run by the state to generate the revenue the state needs. For instance, lot's of countries own industries and generate all or most of their revenue with them; some of them consider themselves and are considered to be socialist, some not.

I would argue that the broad usage of socialism in the US today is to refer to social programs; to which the conservatives would cry "that's socialism!", so after trying and failing to educate on the difference of social democracy and social programs and whatever "socialism" is loaded with, Bernie Sanders decided to just own the term, so now it's evolving to mean what Sanders is referring to (in many, certainly not all contexts), which we agree is basically the Scandinavian style social programs.

he government doesn't own (much) of the private sector, yes, but everything is very much regulated, so I wouldn't say it "leaves it alone". — boethius

Of course. There naturally is a political struggle between the right and the left in every Nordic country. But my emphasis is in that there are broad areas that are left alone also.

I would argue that the broad usage of socialism in the US today is to refer to social programs; to which the conservatives would cry "that's socialism!", so after trying and failing to educate on the difference of social democracy and social programs and whatever "socialism" is loaded with, Bernie Sanders decided to just own the term, so now it's evolving to mean what Sanders is referring to (in many, certainly not all contexts), which we agree is basically the Scandinavian style social programs. — boethius

I agree.

It is very important to understand the discourse and it's political environment, the context what is referred to when talking about "socialism" or the right and the left. One example is that I assume that many Trump supporters don't know that Angela Merkel is actually a conservative and a right-winger.

That capitalism ensures equality of opportunity is not true. It is a sleight of hand, often used to legitimize and deepen the roots of capitalism. John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" thought experiment is very useful to strengthen this claim. It essentially says, public policy or the choice of economic system should be made based on active empathy. What policy would you need if you belonged to the marginalized? What channels of opportunity would you prefer?

It seems like such a simple thing, but in praxis, it shows how so many pro-rich policies are made solely for the benefit of a tiny elite. In effect, therefore, capitalism is not even capable of satisfying majoritarian impulses, let alone ensure equality of opportunity to all. Moreover, capitalism and the free market have also not been able to ensure free/affordable healthcare or housing. Capitalism conquers by supply. An excess of supply eventually creates demand, which is really only resignation.

I think it is not possible to say what it is that capitalism really promised initially. The American Dream, perhaps? But that is too shallow an ideal. Capitalism, as has been argued, does not enable equality, but forces homogeneity instead (Source: The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time). Proactive governance is one tenable way to address this problem, which means holding governments accountable for failing to ensure basic quality of life and entitlements.

Of course. There naturally is a political struggle between the right and the left in every Nordic country. But my emphasis is in that there are broad areas that are left alone also. — ssu

I think we're in agreement on substance, but I think the term "left alone" can be misleading to people who have never been to Scandinavia.

I agree that plenty of things happen due to either market dynamics or personal freedoms, but I think, for our American friends here, it's important to point out that the justifications for these market relations and freedoms are not US style libertarian in nature and there is little belief in free market ideology.

What also can sometimes cause confusion is that Scandinavian's have often never been to the US and never interacted with US libertarian or free-market ideology. So, a Scandinavian may easily present free university, lot's of grants to startups, free retraining, state interventions in industry to make failing industries a less disruptive process as well as help capitalize new future growth industries, universal health care, internalizing environmental and social costs of products and services, strong unions, government monopoly on gambling, state funded news, lot's of public transportation, the very existence of Kela, regulations about everything, long maternity and paternity leaves, long vacations, high aggressively progressive taxes, the state just ordering the telecoms to cut their fees in half or double the bandwidth (since technology has improved, so prices or service much change), as all good ways to run a "free market" and view themselves very close to a "free market" country, relative for instance Stalinism (which is of course is pretty true).

In talking with my Finnish friends about US politics, they are often have a hard time making a clear concept of US libertarianism as well as believing that there are many people who hold this view.

But from afar, there are many similar words being used (market, freed, efficiency) that can be easily be misconstrued on each side as agreement. I.e. Scandinavians are generally surprised that there exists a philosophy that views the above mentioned regulations and programs as incompatible with a free market, or that "free market" and just "market" can mean very different things.

Scandinavians, in my experience, generally view welfare state as preferential based, you might prefer lower taxes in exchange for less of the above social programs. But it is generally outside their concept of politics that the government is not responsible to address those social issues with the power and the taxes it has (i.e. that the government should actually leave the poor alone, and interfering is an immoral act that deprives the poor of the character building exercise of becoming not-poor, and whatever terrible lives the poor might live in realizing why and how-not-to-be-poor is an essential part of their heroes journey).

Scandinavians will also obviously agree that taxes can't be 100% and too high taxes can be counter productive that there is an optimum in which the affects on markets such as private investment and attracting talent need to be considered, but likewise state investments in social programs as well as R&D, infrastructure and business may also need funding and contribute to a competitive economy.

So (usually) I find, Scandinavians believe US conservatives and Libertarians motivated by a preference to have lower taxes but then accepting less social welfare policies as a consequence (that it's a trade off other cultures may decide differently) or then that, on occasion, certain taxes may very well be counterproductive. However, Scandinavians are generally unaware that there is a belief that discussion of taxes can be other than efficiency or preference based, that some people view taxes as fundamentally immoral and that no social programs of the kind listed above would lead to a better society for most people and, even if the market didn't that it would be immoral to put in place those social programs via tax -- that if the market failed to deliver which it won't (if it was truly free) but if it didn't for whatever reason, charity would solve those social issues more effectively than government social programs.

Likewise, the very idea of freedom is only partially understood by Scandinavians in the US libertarian sense of non-interference by the state, the other sense in which freedom is understood is the right to participate in democracy and vote for what you believe in, which can include all the social programs above and more.

To make matter more confusing, even when Scandinavians discuss freedom in the libertarian sense, they may come to very different conclusions: "to ensure a free society we must tightly regulate privacy concerns and make sure business, much less the state, does not invade the privacy of citizens online or elsewhere" (leading to much tighter restrictions on what can be done with data, the right to download all one's data, the right to be deleted from a tech companies database, the right not to be tracked in a store etc. without any ability to get around those regulations with TOS), whereas US libertarians discussing the same issue may likely conclude "to ensure a free society we must not-regulate business and whatever TOS a business and a citizen agrees to is a private matter between the business and the user, and any complaining about being unable to avoid the business in question due to a de facto monopoly in their service area must be ignored because the investors and owners of that business are just exercising their freedom to try and make a monopoly -- and them succeeding is just them being awesome, go make your own business!".

I agree.

It is very important to understand the discourse and it's political environment, the context what is referred to when talking about "socialism" or the right and the left. One example is that I assume that many Trump supporters don't know that Angela Merkel is actually a conservative and a right-winger. — ssu

Well, Merkel would be far left in the US political spectrum, she even "let in the Muslims", so I think it's a valid conclusion when looking from the US perspective, that she is a leftist (maybe even to the left of Bernie Sanders) and that there are parties with significant support even farther left than her.

Ideologically, the extreme-right in Europe is only in step with the right in the US on topics like immigration and nationalism and maintaining or strengthening whatever racist institutions are around (which Europe certainly has). As far as I know, there is no right wing party with any significant support that has abolishing healthcare and public education and public transport as a core part of their platform. For instance, the True Finns make it a point to say they aren't against the principle of the welfare state; likewise the Front Nationale in France, just that only Finns/French should be benefiting. Even "corporate friendliness" is not an extreme right-wing thing (as EU corporations generally like the existence of the EU and don't like racism and getting tied to Neo-Nazism, directly or indirectly; so I don't see the extreme-right in Europe viewing the very wealthy or multinational corporations as natural or likely allies; which is to say the right in the EU and US style libertarians have very little ideological overlap, but of course there are neo-Nazis in the US too, which I wouldn't expect any US libertarian to be sympathetic with, though I maybe wrong and there could be some bizarre libertarian-neo-Nazi mix happening; basic point being, comparing the right in the EU and the right in the US is a complicated task).

What also can sometimes cause confusion is that Scandinavian's have often never been to the US and never interacted with US libertarian or free-market ideology. — boethius

This is so true. In fact it's great to talk about the issue with Finns who have moved or been in the US. Many fall in love with the libertarian side of the US. The simple fact is that individual rights, even if they basically do exist here too, aren't on the forefront of the political narrative. A lot of people would find the US far better than they now think if only they would have been there. As one Finn who had moved to Florida noted to me: it's absolutely great when you have a job and you don't get ill. I personally remember nearly 40 years ago as a little boy the huge contrast between Finland and Seattle. Now the Supermarkets and television in Finland are similar as they were already in the US back then, but 40 years ago Finland was quite different.

Ideologically, the extreme-right in Europe is only in step with the right in the US on topics like immigration and nationalism and maintaining or strengthening whatever racist institutions are around (which Europe certainly has). As far as I know, there is no right wing party with any significant support that has abolishing healthcare and public education and public transport as a core part of their platform. — boethius

100% true. The fact is that European conservatives and right-wingers would be surely labeled RINO's in the US. They would be basically right-wing democrats or centrist republicans.

For instance, the True Finns make it a point to say they aren't against the principle of the welfare state; likewise the Front Nationale in France, just that only Finns/French should be benefiting. Even "corporate friendliness" is not an extreme right-wing thing (as EU corporations generally like the existence of the EU and don't like racism and getting tied to Neo-Nazism, directly or indirectly; so I don't see the extreme-right in Europe viewing the very wealthy or multinational corporations as natural or likely allies; which is to say the right in the EU and US style libertarians have very little ideological overlap — boethius

This is one of the things people should understand especially when they hear about the "far right" in Europe.

I've become quite sceptical when the media says a party in some European country is fascist and their leader is a 'neonazi'. It's just similar as saying that Jeremy Corbyn is a marxist. Yeah right, the labour party in the UK surely promotes marxism. I really demand the real ideological quote that makes it evident. Many times it isn't the "far right" (or the far-left) at all. It is equivalent to thinking that every person that voted Trump in the US is a racist alt-right bigot, because they hated Obama. The obvious note is that yes, there are few who indeed are neo-nazis, but they are really a small minority. Yet the political tribalism makes it so that people cannot see this: they surely notice the absurdity when their own side is said to harbour extremist views, but when the focus is the side they oppose, they eagerly accept similar trash-talk.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. It may help the discussion to consider that term and have a little chuckle at this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hrn6vnOjRs

LOL then show me differently. A good deal of advocates for communism and socialism don't have a clue what it actually entails in a practical sense.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. It may help the discussion to consider that term and have a little chuckle at this: — I like sushi

Help the discussion how? Please elaborate.

The 19 million inhabitants of New York State alone consume more energy than the 900 million inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa. The difference in energy consumption between a subsistence pastoralist in the Sahel and an average Canadian may easily be larger than 1,000-fold — and that is an average Canadian, not the owner of five houses, three SUVs, and a private airplane.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/anthropocene-capitalism-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR1FJ9VcytY5vs0hgjC1EzqObkOZlBvKdCbQD6sdbVI0CilvwAIIm415iNc

Too much of a change, or moving the discussion on?

Too much of a change, or moving the discussion on? — unenlightened

Though of course a substantive answer from @I like sushi would be welcome, globalizing the debate is I think a natural step.

Some global capitalism issues, such as wage and environmental arbitrage, have been mentioned, but in discussing poverty in sub-Saharan Africa there are strong consequences of colonialism and neo-colonialism, both of which can be discussed in a framework of capitalism.

As for solutions, what's fortunate turn of events today is that renewable energy can be used independently of the global energy-transport infrastructure (of course you need to be connected enough to get the technology to where you are in the first place, but once there the efficiency of your connection does not determine what is economically viable), and, energy being the base of economic activity, I believe this can be truly revolutionary. The technology doesn't guarantee a political outcome, but my view it's a powerful tool in inclusive community based political action against poverty.

Of course, there are many other issues at play in comparing first world and sub-Saharan African energy usages. Do you find this disparity congruent with your expectations of capitalism as it is, incongruent, or do you find other factors more important?

I misread part of a post. I thought I saw someone guilty of this. Just an honest mistake nothing more :)

My biased expectation of this kind of fallacy is probably telling in and of itself. Nice to see a thread that doesn’t go off the deep end.

Of course, there are many other issues at play in comparing first world and sub-Saharan African energy usages. Do you find this disparity congruent with your expectations of capitalism as it is, incongruent, or do you find other factors more important? — boethius

The UK, where I live, is a relatively crowded place, and relatively wealthy place. But it is not an entirely pleasant place to live. The man-made environment is ugly, noisy, polluted, stressful, unhealthy, and inconvenient. It is the result four submission to the 'necessities of production', where the methods are those of slash and burn agriculture - clear the land, suck the nutrients out of the soil, abandon and move on. Such is industry - it does not need to clean up after itself, and so finds it uncompetitive to do so.

And so we live in each others' waste, and are only out of fear beginning to wonder if we need to. We have never much asked how we would like to live together. The necessities have always seemed inescapable, but this is only because they have happened without thought or plan, they are really just accidents. Capitalism is the rule of accident, of grabbing whatever has value, and dumping whatever has none. Socialism is making a plan, and making rules of behaviour to implement the plan. Or perhaps that is wrong entirely. I don't think it matters much whether it is those words or some other words i use to make a distinction that I think is more important than political convention.

What is important is, for sure, to have modern medicine and dentistry, to have good communications, to have food and shelter, security, and a pleasant environment. Now the problem at the moment is that production is not making itself responsible for cleaning its own mess plastic in the sea, fumes in the city, pesticides in the countryside, CO2 in the atmosphere ... and if a rule is made here, industry will go elsewhere where there is no rule, because if one doesn't a competitor will. This is the industrial tragedy of the commons.

But we manage, together, to regulate a water and sewage system according to rules, we manage to have a police and justice system, we regulate and limit ourselves in all sorts of ways to make our environment work, and with a little thought we can solve the problems we have not yet addressed. Perhaps you will not be able to pour petrol into your car, and fumes into the atmosphere any more, the way you are not allowed any more to pour waste chemicals into the rivers. And much will be made of a totalitarian nanny state infringing your God given liberties.

Some fuckwit builder has poured his waste concrete into the sewer. This is what we are doing to the planet. Let's stop being so fuckwitted as to think there is some issue of liberty in such behaviour; it is an act of tyranny.

The UK, where I live, is a relatively crowded place, and relatively wealthy place. But it is not an entirely pleasant place to live. The man-made environment is ugly, noisy, polluted, stressful, unhealthy, and inconvenient. — Unenlightened

That’s peculiar? I visited last year and found it to be quite magnificent, beautiful, quiet, efficient and clean.

That’s peculiar? I visited last year and found it to be quite magnificent, beautiful, quiet, efficient and clean. — I like sushi

These things are relative, and I'm a miserable old whinger. But it depends where you come from. It's very hard to get away from the drone of traffic, and in most of the cities the air pollution is bad. Public transport is poor, and to be a pedestrian or cyclist in the city is dangerous and unpleasant. When I were a lad, most children walked to school. Now hardly any do. I imagine a visitor heads for the beauty spots and historic attractions that are well maintained rather than the abandoned steelworks and docks and the mouldering terraced houses of the old industrial towns.

Where do you reside in blighty then?

One o' the best bits as it goes; N Wales, by the seaside. And today is bright sunshine and no wind, and the world and his brother are here for Easter, chips and ice cream. So it's not a personal thing at all.

Capitalism is probably inevitable in such negative communities that are on Earth, but when we see the development of the situation and in particular the emergence of an unconditional basic income, it seems that capitalism can last only one hundred years and turn in a natural way into communism.

Of course, there are many other issues at play in comparing first world and sub-Saharan African energy usages. Do you find this disparity congruent with your expectations of capitalism as it is, incongruent, or do you find other factors more important? — boethius

There's a lesson in these comparisons:

Do you know that the GDP of China was equivalent of the Netherlands in the 1990's? It actually was and earlier it was far lower as the Chinese really had to fight off the possibility of famine.

And now the GDP is second to the US. There is no possibility of famine in China. So what happened? Did Bob Geldof save the Chinese? No?

What is important is, for sure, to have modern medicine and dentistry, to have good communications, to have food and shelter, security, and a pleasant environment. — unenlightened

Ah yes, the nice things. Dental hygiene is often forgotten!

Now the problem at the moment is that production is not making itself responsible for cleaning its own mess plastic in the sea, fumes in the city, pesticides in the countryside, CO2 in the atmosphere ... and if a rule is made here, industry will go elsewhere where there is no rule, because if one doesn't a competitor will. This is the industrial tragedy of the commons. — unenlightened

Oh those irresponsible unethical wily capitalists!

So unenlightened, is that really what industry gives to the Third World? Environmental problems? Sweatshops? Nothing else? How do you add up these two parts of your commentary?

So unenlightened, is that really what industry gives to the Third World? Environmental problems? Sweatshops? Nothing else? How do you add up these two parts of your commentary? — ssu

I've said some stuff. You say some stuff, and then we'll compare. But try not to create a straw man argument based on the virtue of the poor. People without legs don't run in the corridors, but it is not a great virtue.

It's very hard to get away from the drone of traffic, and in most of the cities the air pollution is bad. Public transport is poor, and to be a pedestrian or cyclist in the city is dangerous and unpleasant. — Unenlightened

For the sake of perspective in the UK, and most of Europe, the traffic is not that bad, the pollution is relatively low, overcrowding is as good a non-existent, public transport is really good (Berlin is especially good in that area!), but I’ll grant that it does seem “unpleasant” if you’ve never been out of Europe for a prolonged period of time.