The plastics revolution... and consequences

[K. A. Pital]

Totally a good thing for global prosperity and genuis of capitalist visionaries... or not.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... stic-trash

The vast patch of garbage floating in the Pacific Ocean is far worse than previously thought, with an aerial survey finding a much larger mass of fishing nets, plastic containers and other discarded items than imagined.

A reconnaissance flight taken in a modified C-130 Hercules aircraft found a vast clump of mainly plastic waste at the northern edge of what is known as the “great Pacific garbage patch”, located between Hawaii and California.

The density of rubbish was several times higher than the Ocean Cleanup, a foundation part-funded by the Dutch government to rid the oceans of plastics, expected to find even at the heart of the patch, where most of the waste is concentrated.

“Normally when you do an aerial survey of dolphins or whales, you make a sighting and record it,” said Boyan Slat, the founder of the Ocean Cleanup.

“That was the plan for this survey. But then we opened the door and we saw the debris everywhere. Every half second you see something. So we had to take snapshots – it was impossible to record everything. It was bizarre to see that much garbage in what should be pristine ocean.”

Boyan Slat, founder of the Ocean Cleanup.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Boyan Slat, founder of the Ocean Cleanup. Photograph: The Ocean Cleanup
The heart of the garbage patch is thought to be around 1m sq km (386,000 sq miles), with the periphery spanning a further 3.5m sq km (1,351,000 sq miles). The dimensions of this morass of waste are continually morphing, caught in one of the ocean’s huge rotating currents. The north Pacific gyre has accumulated a soup of plastic waste, including large items and smaller broken-down micro plastics that can be eaten by fish and enter the food chain.

According to the UN environmental programme, the great Pacific garbage patch is growing so fast that it, like the Great Wall of China, is becoming visible from space.

Last year, the Ocean Cleanup sent 30 vessels to cross the patch to scoop up micro plastics in fine nets to estimate the extent of the problem. However, the new reconnaissance flights from California have found that large items of more than half a meter in size have been “heavily underestimated”.

Slat said: “Most of the debris was large stuff. It’s a ticking time bomb because the big stuff will crumble down to micro plastics over the next few decades if we don’t act.”

Following a further aerial survey through the heart of the patch on Sunday, the Ocean Cleanup aims to tackle the problem through a gigantic V-shaped boom, which would use sea currents to funnel floating rubbish into a cone. A prototype of the vulcanized rubber barrier will be tested next year, with a full-sized 100km (62-mile) barrier deployed by 2020 if trials go well.

The boom will not be able to suck up all of the strewn rubbish, however, with Slat warning that plastic is “quite persistent. We need to clean it up, but we also need to prevent so much entering the oceans. Better recycling, better product design and some legislation is all part of that. We need a combination of things.”

The full scale of plastic pollution was revealed in 2014, when a study found there were more than 5tn pieces of plastic floating in our oceans. In 2014, 311m tonnes of plastic were produced around the world, a 20-fold increase since 1964. It is expected to quadruple again by mid-century.

A report by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation earlier this year predicted there would be more plastic than fish in the oceans by 2050 unless urgent action was taken.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Obviously, the Pacific garbage patch is a terrible situation, as are all the other pollutant related problems we face world-wide.

But is there any real reason to blame pollution, specifically, on capitalism? I mean, it's not like China has, or the Soviet Union had, some enlightened view of environmental sustainability. Pollution in GENERAL is more a problem of industrialization, which is not unique to any one economic structure. Further, it seems that most of the plastic pollutants in the world's oceans are discarded fishing equipment. Which, again, is not in and of itself a capitalist enterprise. I mean, there are plenty of problems with capitalism, but I don't see this as one you can logically attribute to capitalism, or one you can logically conclude would not have occurred if all the Pacific rim countries were socialist instead.

[K. A. Pital]

Socialism is a competing order; industrial socialism could be seen as a poor country's version of state capitalism which they use to create a sizeable common stock of means of production.

The key feature of capitalism is the constant and rapid overturning of the entire production order through technological revolution. The garbage patch is a direct result of the plastics revolution.

A swift and direct replacement of glass containers by plastic containers for consumable liquids and then metal containers with plastics for industrial liquids, and the replacement of a huge share of metal parts with plastic parts, is a process that could have happened under industrial socialism, too.

However, if the introduction of plastics was not a matter of economic survival as it happens to be, it is at least theoretically feasible that it would happen slower (or, in the best case, would be tightly controlled as it happened, in the end, with such materials as asbestos). Then such severe consequences could have been prevented.

[Broomstick]

Given that we know the Japan Tsunami of 2011 swept a LOT of debris into the ocean, some of which have been washing up on the west coast of North America for a couple years now, is it possible that the sudden increase in the size of the Pacific Garbage Patch is due at least in part to debris from the 2011 earthquake/tsunami combination?

[Tribble]

Given that we know the Japan Tsunami of 2011 swept a LOT of debris into the ocean, some of which have been washing up on the west coast of North America for a couple years now, is it possible that the sudden increase in the size of the Pacific Garbage Patch is due at least in part to debris from the 2011 earthquake/tsunami combination?

Even if true, the only reason why all that material exists in the first place is because Japan is capitalist and produced said goods for capitalist consumption.

[Simon_Jester]

However, if the introduction of plastics was not a matter of economic survival as it happens to be, it is at least theoretically feasible that it would happen slower (or, in the best case, would be tightly controlled as it happened, in the end, with such materials as asbestos). Then such severe consequences could have been prevented.

Can you provide examples of socialist countries which refrained from early adoption of plastics in order to avoid environmental consequences like the Pacific garbage patch?

The overall environmental records of socialist countries even in their own territory hasn't been that good; I see no reason to assume socialist governments are better at dealing with global problems than they are at the problems in their own back yard.

The fact of the matter is that the Pacific garbage patch is a problem not because of plastic, but because people are dumping non-biodegradable waste in the ocean. That is a specific practice which is NOT directly caused by capitalism or by socialism or by anything else, and which used to be fairly common. It is now less widely approved of, but as the world develops the sheer volume of trash to be discarded has spiraled out of control, which would have happened under any possible economic order unless it involved dropping back to pre-industrial standards of living.

Moreover, plastics are often replacements for other products such as paper or metal, the production of which presents its own environmental difficulties such as deforestation and pollution by mine tailings.

Given that we know the Japan Tsunami of 2011 swept a LOT of debris into the ocean, some of which have been washing up on the west coast of North America for a couple years now, is it possible that the sudden increase in the size of the Pacific Garbage Patch is due at least in part to debris from the 2011 earthquake/tsunami combination?

Even if true, the only reason why all that material exists in the first place is because Japan is capitalist and produced said goods for capitalist consumption.

If Japan were a comparably successful socialist country, Japanese people would still have broadly comparable amounts of stuff, and the giant tidal wave would still sweep it out into the ocean.

Now, if Japan were much poorer, they'd have less stuff for the wave to sweep out into the ocean overall. But that would then have other negative costs. And certainly any socialist government of Japan would aspire to ensure its people have a high standard of living and plentiful belongings.

It sounds like you're not saying you wish Japan were socialist. It sounds like you're saying you wish Japan were poor.

[K. A. Pital]

Can you provide examples of socialist countries which refrained from early adoption of plastics in order to avoid environmental consequences like the Pacific garbage patch?

No; that is why I only referred to this as a theoretic possibility. I know the USSR had not introduced plastic bags or plastic bottles until its dissolution - bags were purely cloth, bottles were glass, but this may have been a pure coincidence. Socialist nations never had an epidemic of bottled water production, for example. Even soft drinks had mostly reusable glass bottles. But this could have been likewise a concidence (no PET-bottle plants) and not a result of conscious policy.

The overall environmental records of socialist countries even in their own territory hasn't been that good; I see no reason to assume socialist governments are better at dealing with global problems than they are at the problems in their own back yard.

The overall record of socialist nations is one thing; unique products that only make sense in a globalized capitalist production network and end up in the ocean are another:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_p ... _pollution
Nurdles, for example, or plastic water bottles hardly make much sense outside the current global order.

The fact of the matter is that the Pacific garbage patch is a problem not because of plastic, but because people are dumping non-biodegradable waste in the ocean. That is a specific practice which is NOT directly caused by capitalism or by socialism or by anything else, and which used to be fairly common.

Until the creation of plastic, this practice in and of itself, was a cause for concern, but now it is a much greater cause for concern because unlike other types of waste, the volume of plastic is huge and it breaks down and enters the food chain.

It is now less widely approved of, but as the world develops the sheer volume of trash to be discarded has spiraled out of control, which would have happened under any possible economic order unless it involved dropping back to pre-industrial standards of living.

See above. Not using plastic bottles and nurdles would have already decreased this volume of waste massively. But apparently it is too hard for capitalist nations to ban such products.

Moreover, plastics are often replacements for other products such as paper or metal, the production of which presents its own environmental difficulties such as deforestation and pollution by mine tailings.

Yes. But while reforestation is at least a viable tactic to combat desertification, oncee plastic has entered the food chain, you can't "get it out".

If Japan were a comparably successful socialist country, Japanese people would still have broadly comparable amounts of stuff, and the giant tidal wave would still sweep it out into the ocean.

If Japan would be like the USSR around early 90s, the stuff would quite likely at least not contain nurdles, plastic bottles, and plastic bags. It would most likely mean a poorer country, yes.

[Simon_Jester]

The overall record of socialist nations is one thing; unique products that only make sense in a globalized capitalist production network and end up in the ocean are another:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_p ... _pollution
Nurdles, for example, or plastic water bottles hardly make much sense outside the current global order.

Nurdles are pellets of raw plastic, Stas; any society that made use of large-scale manufactured plastic would have them, manufacture them, transport them, and occasionally spill them by accident.

Plastic water bottles are a different story- I can easily imagine a society that didn't make use of them and insisted that people use their own bottles and fill them with tap water, rather than marketing drinking water in prepackaged bottles.

But at the same time, if we removed plastic water bottles and a handful of other highly specific items that exist purely because someone makes a profit selling them... We would not remove the plastic items we can reasonably expect them to be wanted in any developed society. And there would still be vast amounts of plastic garbage.

The fact of the matter is that the Pacific garbage patch is a problem not because of plastic, but because people are dumping non-biodegradable waste in the ocean. That is a specific practice which is NOT directly caused by capitalism or by socialism or by anything else, and which used to be fairly common.

Until the creation of plastic, this practice in and of itself, was a cause for concern, but now it is a much greater cause for concern because unlike other types of waste, the volume of plastic is huge and it breaks down and enters the food chain.

I don't disagree.

My point is not to claim plastic garbage isn't a problem. My point is that only a tiny fraction of the overall scope of the problem is specifically due to capitalism, as opposed to being due to the convenience of plastic as a manufacturing material in highly developed economies. Time and labor are valuable in such economies; disposable items are valued for convenience, and plastic's versatility allows it to meet many demands for diverse goods. Those realities would be in play in a socialist economy, too. And unless a rich socialist country willfully neglected the needs and desires of its people, it would probably start using plastic extensively just as rich capitalist countries do.

See above. Not using plastic bottles and nurdles would have already decreased this volume of waste massively. But apparently it is too hard for capitalist nations to ban such products.

Again, nurdles are pellets of raw plastic used in manufacturing. Why would a socialist economy ban such things, until and unless it became clear that they were causing so much environmental damage that the problem could not be ignored? And again, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that socialist countries would be quicker to implement such bans than capitalist ones.

If Japan were a comparably successful socialist country, Japanese people would still have broadly comparable amounts of stuff, and the giant tidal wave would still sweep it out into the ocean.

If Japan would be like the USSR around early 90s, the stuff would quite likely at least not contain nurdles, plastic bottles, and plastic bags. It would most likely mean a poorer country, yes.

Yes. If 2011 Japan had the same standard of living as 1989-era USSR, then we wouldn't have this problem. We'd have other problems.

Remember how you keep saying it's unfair to say that socialism doesn't work just because the USSR's per capita GDP was drastically lower than that of Western countries during the late twentieth century? You're doing the same thing that other people try to do to you. You're treating fundamentally different economies, with drastically different pressures driving their choices of materials, their lifestyle, and the resources available to them, as if they were the same.

I don't think it's an intellectually honest thing to do.

[K. A. Pital]

Nurdles near the sea (which is how they get into the ocean) make sense in a globalized economy where semi-finished goods are routinely transported in this type of packaging in large containers. It does not make much sense in autarkic economies and it hardly makes any if semi-finished consumer goods are not transported en masse overseas. This is a unique feature of the current globalized economy. The nurdle threat could even be lessened if maritime trade took a big hit and nations utilized more localized manufacturing.

Plastic bottles can be replaced with glass bottles, which are a lot less threatening to the environment and are reusable. And plastic bags are... plastic bags.

Even removing a fraction of the nurdles would do a lot, as I think those account for 10% of the pollution alone.

Convenience of plastic is likewise a feature of capitalism. Here, materials are chosen out of convenience for production and sales purposes. Other considerations are inapplicable. Industrial socialism cannot hep much here, because it mostly takes the same methods of production as the capitalists. But it is undeniable that the original logic behind the introduction of every harmful consumer good or production technology is the fault of the capitalists or the market in general.

"Needs and demands of the people"? Did people demand a switch from glass bottles to plastic? Or nurdles? Once the technology arrived and happened to be efficient in terms of improving companies' production or sales, there was no way to stop it. And people would buy what's offered on the market even if it kills them. Proven by asbestos.

There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting that countries which lean towards the left would implement such regulations faster. The European nations have plastic bag levies, or outright bans. A ban on microplastics in cosmetics could be underway. In the US there is no levy on plastic bags and no ban. You could, of course, say that this is a product of "regulation-heavy environment", but that is the point. Socialism is the extreme form of regulation-heavy environment where products are trivially easy to ban. Whether this could be implemented or not hinges on the success of green movements in power (if democracy, then via elections; if authoritarian, then the success of environmental ministries).

Note that most green movements are decidedly anti-capitalistic. This is not for nothing. They understand that under socialism, they will have more power to ban harmful things.

The comment about Japan and USSR was related to the fact that it is a false dilemma: either absolute capitalistic paradise with unchecked use of industrial plastics and other technology, or extreme poverty. I have demonstrated that one could have a society which was not under severe poverty, and yet did not produce vast amounts of plastic waste. This means it is possible for industrial societies to avoid vast volumes of plastic waste.

The question is then, are people ready to accept inconveniences (heavier bottles, no nurdles) for a greater good? Seeing as market economies could hardly persuade private companies to stop using conflict materials, in this case my hopes are not high.

The fundamental problem with capitalism is that it operates in an incredibly short-sighted mode, and the future of Earth and mankind itself could be sacrificed for minor conveniences today.

[His Divine Shadow]

Since the damage is done and is being done all the time. What's the most realistic cure? Something in the back of my head says bio-engineered bacteria that eat plastics.

[Crazedwraith]

Since the damage is done and is being done all the time. What's the most realistic cure? Something in the back of my head says bio-engineered bacteria that eat plastics.

That sounds like the start of a sci-fi apocalypse story plot to be honest. As in how do you make sure it only eats the right plastic.

[His Divine Shadow]

If you google plastic eating bacteria it's already a reality in the sense that they exist, and we're already using genetic engineering elsewhere in the world today for things like combating insects that carry disease. I cant think of any other realistic way to clean up such huge places but if you have a more realistic idea...

[Beowulf]

Nurdles near the sea (which is how they get into the ocean) make sense in a globalized economy where semi-finished goods are routinely transported in this type of packaging in large containers. It does not make much sense in autarkic economies and it hardly makes any if semi-finished consumer goods are not transported en masse overseas. This is a unique feature of the current globalized economy. The nurdle threat could even be lessened if maritime trade took a big hit and nations utilized more localized manufacturing.

Nurdles aren't a type of packaging. They're a raw material. Even if a nation was autarkic, if internally the production of raw plastic was not in the very near vicinity of the point of use of the raw plastic into products, you'd still have nurdles, because they are the best way to transport raw plastic for later use.

[K. A. Pital]

Those pellets which are precursors to finished plastic goods should not be transported by sea, at the very least. In an autarky, the need for sea transport of plastic nurdles would still be seriously diminished, and if production was concentrated, the need to transport them over great distances would not exist at all.

What kind of products are created from these nurdles? If this is mostly a precursor for plastic bottles or packaging film (in bag form or otherwise), then this can very well be banned by decree - and it actually should be banned, with good reason.

[K. A. Pital]

I am also not sure that something like this would be possible in a non-capitalist society:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... r-went-mad

Simply because under socialism, advertising is almost nonexistent, and "craze" because some lunatic capitalist or supermodel started selling/promoting something is impossible.

Bottled water was a non-thing in socialist nations.

[Simon_Jester]

Nurdles near the sea (which is how they get into the ocean) make sense in a globalized economy where semi-finished goods are routinely transported in this type of packaging in large containers. It does not make much sense in autarkic economies and it hardly makes any if semi-finished consumer goods are not transported en masse overseas. This is a unique feature of the current globalized economy. The nurdle threat could even be lessened if maritime trade took a big hit and nations utilized more localized manufacturing.

Socialist countries in real life were autarkic because they were a small minority of nations struggling against a larger capitalist world order. The more successful socialism became, the less true this would become.

If all nations were socialist, and if socialism were a benevolent order, then one would expect there to be routine trade (not for profit, simply for the common interests of the people). Plastics are most efficiently produced in places that have oil, or places that have the infrastructure to refine it. Other places (such as Japan) simply have NO oil. To enjoy the benefits of a 20th century economy, they are dependent on shipping.

If you think global trade in petrochemicals is a factor only because of capitalism, your perceptions are greatly distorted by having grown up in a socialist country that was already a major oil producer.

Plastic bottles can be replaced with glass bottles, which are a lot less threatening to the environment and are reusable. And plastic bags are... plastic bags.

Even removing a fraction of the nurdles would do a lot, as I think those account for 10% of the pollution alone.

Removing half the nurdles would reduce the pollution by 5%. A noticeable change, but not a highly significant one. Also, from the point of view of the original user glass bottles may well be actively less safe and convenient, because they are heavier and they shatter.

Convenience of plastic is likewise a feature of capitalism. Here, materials are chosen out of convenience for production and sales purposes. Other considerations are inapplicable. Industrial socialism cannot hep much here, because it mostly takes the same methods of production as the capitalists. But it is undeniable that the original logic behind the introduction of every harmful consumer good or production technology is the fault of the capitalists or the market in general.

If you live in a capitalist society, every thing that goes wrong is the result of a decision made by the leaders of a capitalist society. But if the exact same thing would have gone wrong in a socialist society that had the opportunity to make the same mistake, the error cannot be blamed on capitalism.

It would be like blaming socialism for hurricanes and earthquakes. Sure, you can say "this earthquake happened to a bunch of capitalists," but the earthquake did not care about social organization.

"Needs and demands of the people"? Did people demand a switch from glass bottles to plastic? Or nurdles? Once the technology arrived and happened to be efficient in terms of improving companies' production or sales, there was no way to stop it. And people would buy what's offered on the market even if it kills them. Proven by asbestos.

People wanted goods that were cheap to them. Industrial use of plastic makes this possible; other things do not make it so possible.

Even under socialism, goods have costs. These costs have to be reflected in terms of the availability of the goods to the people somehow, unless you have Star Trek technology or magic nanites to produce every thing a person desires for free.

There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting that countries which lean towards the left would implement such regulations faster. The European nations have plastic bag levies, or outright bans. A ban on microplastics in cosmetics could be underway. In the US there is no levy on plastic bags and no ban. You could, of course, say that this is a product of "regulation-heavy environment", but that is the point. Socialism is the extreme form of regulation-heavy environment where products are trivially easy to ban. Whether this could be implemented or not hinges on the success of green movements in power (if democracy, then via elections; if authoritarian, then the success of environmental ministries).

There are areas in the US where taxes on plastic bags are being instituted and where there is a gradual shift away from such bags. My point is mainly that this is a new phenomenon; ten years ago there was much less of this. Plastic bags have enjoyed a period of popularity, and not without reason. And they serve other quite useful functions (such as garbage containers, because they are lightweight and you WANT a disposable thing to contain your garbage).

The comment about Japan and USSR was related to the fact that it is a false dilemma: either absolute capitalistic paradise with unchecked use of industrial plastics and other technology, or extreme poverty. I have demonstrated that one could have a society which was not under severe poverty, and yet did not produce vast amounts of plastic waste. This means it is possible for industrial societies to avoid vast volumes of plastic waste.

It is possible but far from certain that socialist industrial economies would refrain from the heavy use of plastic. Our only data point (the pre-1990 USSR) is not a very good example for some reasons, and provides limited information to extrapolate from for other reasons.

The fundamental problem with capitalism is that it operates in an incredibly short-sighted mode, and the future of Earth and mankind itself could be sacrificed for minor conveniences today.

This is entirely true- my point is simply that we should be accurate and rigorous in our analysis. If you want to keep arguing "socialism would be a superior alternative," you should be supporting that argument with things that are actually true, not with spurious claims and poorly reasoned criticisms.

Is this somehow unreasonable of me?

[K. A. Pital]

You are not being unreasonable: but I think I have explained my position well enough.

Socialism, theoretically, can limit these harmful effects more efficiently (whether it will or not is a different matter). That is only a possibility - not an automatic superiority.

Comparing the rise of plastics to hurricane is... weird. Hurricane is a natural event. Industrial production chains are not natural. They depend on human decisions and human action.

From the point of view of the user glass bottles and reusable bags may very well be less convenient. You cannot throw them away and glass shatters, and is heavy. But by the same logic, the original users of asbestos, the construction companies, used it with good reason as it was cheap, a good construction material and other options carried greater costs, at least at the time.

That is exactly the problem. Under socialism, the planners decide and may, if environmentally conscious, ban products, but their decisions are not related only to the market value of a product, or at least they should not be. Under capitalism, products enter the market and are rarely banned post facto when the harm is already done. There is rarelt prior evaluation of consequences and if a product sells well, it is likely that it will displace safer, but more expensive or inconvenient alternatives.

[Broomstick]

What kind of products are created from these nurdles?

Nurdles are raw feedstock for virtually any production of plastic, so not just bottles and bags but almost anything made of plastic these days.

Glass bottles being heavier than plastic, and more fragile, means there are weight and safety considerations involved in their use. It costs more money to transport glass any distance. Glass poses a risk of injury plastic doesn't. For storing/transporting certain caustic substances, such as drain cleaner, the resistance of plastic to breakage makes it much preferable to glass. But yeah, for beverages and foods glass is an option, and less likely to leach chemicals into the food, especially acidic foods.

Some of the issue with plastic is the intent to use it and throw it away - disposable items. If you make something of plastic intending it to last 50 years that's one thing, intending to use it to hold your coffee for 5 minutes then get tossed is another because that tossed cup will also last 50 years (or longer).

[Simon_Jester]

Comparing the rise of plastics to hurricane is... weird. Hurricane is a natural event. Industrial production chains are not natural. They depend on human decisions and human action.

The point is that both things are governed in large part by forces that are not directly a function of how we organize control of the means of production. In the case of hurricanes or earthquakes,

From the point of view of the user glass bottles and reusable bags may very well be less convenient. You cannot throw them away and glass shatters, and is heavy. But by the same logic, the original users of asbestos, the construction companies, used it with good reason as it was cheap, a good construction material and other options carried greater costs, at least at the time.

Asbestos is also fireproof, durable, and so on. It possesses qualities which few or no other 20th century materials possessed, which is a tremendous advantage.

Many people specifically were happy to have asbestos used in their homes or in the buildings where they worked, back before it became common knowledge that asbestos fibers could be toxic. And this knowledge did not begin to spread widely until the last few decades of the 20th century.

The Soviets used asbestos too, for the same reasons capitalist nations did. Perhaps they would have gotten around to banning it in the 1990s, as many capitalist nations did, but they didn't do so (or close down dedicated asbestos mining towns) prior to the collapse of the Soviet government.

This is an example of why I compared polluting industries to earthquakes. While the forces that govern whether humans use asbestos are theoretically under human control, they are often the results of underlying logic that has nothing to do with the organization of human society as such. Communists and capitalists both use plastic and asbestos, for the same reason they use internal combustion engine and nitrate fertilizer.

That is exactly the problem. Under socialism, the planners decide and may, if environmentally conscious, ban products, but their decisions are not related only to the market value of a product, or at least they should not be. Under capitalism, products enter the market and are rarely banned post facto when the harm is already done. There is rarelt prior evaluation of consequences and if a product sells well, it is likely that it will displace safer, but more expensive or inconvenient alternatives.

It is extremely rare for the environmental problems associated with a product to become known well before that product is in widespread use. CFCs, leaded gasoline, plastic trash, asbestos, and so on all became known to cause problems only AFTER extensive use in industry.

[K. A. Pital]

It still relevant to the organization of society. And its mode of production.

If production is organized in such a way that impersonal market forces decide that some technology has to be developed and sold, and this will happen (save a timely ban from the authorities, like with what happened with thalidomide), this is quite relevant to all the consequences that occur.

The market brings everything that can be sold to extremes of competition. Alternatives to plastic packaging were essentially wiped out in the competition, so it became harder to argue for curtailing plastics production - now that it is essential to many products which people would not want to go without. But at the same time doing nothing worsens the situation.

Much like with global warming, the resposibility is spread over a vast number of agents locked in competiton with each other in the market, who are unwilling to stop harmful activity because they would go under. But they themselves are to blame for letting the situation develop to this point.

You cannot say people and the way human society is organized are blameless in this.

[Simon_Jester]

The way society is organized is blameless in cases where the nature of the problem does not become known in a timely fashion.

By the time global warming became widely known and accepted, socialist as well as capitalist nations had transitioned to a way of life dependent on fossil fuels. All that could be done was to try and wean ourselves off fossil fuels, and socialism never got a chance to demonstrate whether or not it would have done a good job of that. The results from China are promising but may or may not be a good example.

By the time it became widely accepted that asbestos causes lung damage, socialist as well as capitalist nations had been using it in construction for many decades. The damage was in large part done. Socialist nations might have outlawed asbestos a few years earlier than capitalist ones in theory, but the difference would not be large.

By contrast, the way society is organized is very much blameworthy in cases where the nature of the problem was widely known and yet nothing was done. The problem is that such instances of blameworthy action have occurred in both socialist and capitalist economies in different forms, to the point where it is hard to make an informed claim as to which choice is the better.

[Elheru Aran]

I would argue that China is a mixed bag when it comes to being an example of 'socialism' anyway. The government is nominally socialist/Communist, but its economy is rapidly becoming essentially capitalist.

[Simon_Jester]

That's why I said it may or may not be a good example.

If the Chinese government decides that it wants China to be powered by nuclear reactors by the year 2060, it will construct enough nuclear reactors to power 2060-era China, and if the market objects the Chinese government can tell it to go play hopscotch in a minefield... up to a point. If China wants to expand its cities to make room for another hundred million peasants to move to the cities, before those peasants actually arrive, it can construct the necessary number of 'ghost towns...' up to a point.

But at the same time, many of China's collective economic decisions about the goods they do and do not produce and consume are driven by China's ties to the global market.

[K. A. Pital]

The way society is organized is blameless in cases where the nature of the problem does not become known in a timely fashion.

Sorry, I simply don't see it that way. That's all I can say.

But at the same time, many of China's collective economic decisions about the goods they do and do not produce and consume are driven by China's ties to the global market.

Same applies to all industrial socialist nations. Because they are locked in economic competition with the capitalist ones, they inevitably have to take their production techniques. This makes production look identical. In theory, without ruthless competition, people might pause for a second before doing something. But that's only theory.

[Simon_Jester]

The way society is organized is blameless in cases where the nature of the problem does not become known in a timely fashion.

Sorry, I simply don't see it that way. That's all I can say.

So, is the Soviet use of asbestos in buildings a flaw in socialism, then?

But at the same time, many of China's collective economic decisions about the goods they do and do not produce and consume are driven by China's ties to the global market.

Same applies to all industrial socialist nations. Because they are locked in economic competition with the capitalist ones, they inevitably have to take their production techniques. This makes production look identical. In theory, without ruthless competition, people might pause for a second before doing something. But that's only theory.

Even this theory is invalidated if the consequence of producing a good is not foreseeable. If it is not generally known that asbestos exposure causes lung problems even in low doses, no socialist industrial planner, even in a fully socialist world, would say "let's not use asbestos, it might not be safe." No socialist industrial planner would say "let's not ship raw plastic around our country in tiny pellets (because that is the only effective way to make it practical to mold it into the desired shapes), because a giant patch of floating plastic fragment soup might form in the South Pacific if we do that."

These are not realistically foreseeable consequences unless, IN ADDITION to specifying state control of the means of production (socialism), we ALSO specify that the state is extremely economically conservative and reluctant to implement any new program or technology or product without massive, extremely detailed studies of the environmental impact.

This kind of "ultra-green" socialism does not match up well with any form of politically successful socialism I'm familiar with.