I have often accused Louis Proyect of being pro-poverty (e.g., here, here, and here).
I did expect pushback at some point--how can a Marxist be in favor of poverty? Surely, I thought, Mr. Proyect would deny my charge and argue that he was indeed for human well-being.
What I didn't expect was a confession--Mr. Proyect explicitly admits to being pro-poverty! He concedes as much in an article entitled A reply to John Molyneux and Michael Lowy on degrowth. (Molyneux's paper is here; Lowy's can be found here.) "Degrowth" is a synonym for "we all need to take a big cut in our standard of living." He offers a succinct definition here:
Degrowth is completely focused on the question of how humanity can not only survive into the 22nd century but how can civilization continue until the planet dies due to astrophysical realities. It poses solutions based on the needs of a modest life-style that while giving up on SUV’s and all the other crap can allow the full development of the human being, who might have to work 10 hours a week while painting landscapes or growing orchids the rest of the time. That means addressing the population question that people like Molyneux recoils from.
The argument is that Joe, by not driving an SUV today, will measurably enhance the well-being of whatever civilization exists a billion years from now. This is ridiculous on its face!
At bottom, Mr. Proyect's philosophy is a death cult.
He makes two assumptions: first, he fails to discount the future--i.e., the comforts of his great-great-great grandchildren two hundred years from now are as, or even more important than our comforts today. This is ironic because I don't believe that Mr. Proyect even has any grandchildren, which renders the whole issue hypothetical. Since part of the proposed solution is reducing the birth rate, putative future generations won't exist at all. How's that for a wonderful life?
Second, he supposes he can predict the future. He knows with unseemly confidence that Joe's SUV is gonna ruin the climate--not just now, but literally for all time! I think he's almost certainly (99.999%) wrong about climate change--whatever that is, it isn't an existential threat, and future generations (much less distant civilizations) will not remember us for our carbon profligacy.
I can't possibly go through all the bullshit in his correspondents' two papers. Lowy's piece is so far detached from reality that it establishes him firmly among the 99% of academics that give the remaining 1% a bad name.
Our authors completely ignore capitalism's benefit to consumers. Capitalism produces the goods and services that we want to buy and which greatly prolong and enhance our lives. Claiming that capitalism's sole benefit is profit for the capitalist is simply not true.
They all maintain that democratic decision making will make for a better environment, arguing that somehow the majority will elevate the interests of future civilizations billions of years from now over those of their own children (or themselves) today. There is no evidence for that. Joe with his SUV gets to vote just as much as Mr. Proyect.
Their claim that capitalism wastes resources is not true. A capitalist wants to cut costs, which means using as few resources as possible. Now there are issues that arise from "the tragedy of the commons," i.e., people passing environmental costs on to their neighbors. This is where government has to step in and why we need an EPA (the purpose of which is not to preserve the environment for the next billion years). But for the most part, capitalism wastes as little as possible, and is therefore much cleaner than rival societies, such as socialist ones.
Most regrettably, our friends want to limit people to working 10 hours per week--they can spend the rest of their time "painting landscapes or growing orchids." But they're not allowed to earn any extra money! They can't start a business--not even a lemonade stand--because somebody a billion years from now might object.
Trading goods and services is a uniquely human trait--no other animal does that. Mr. Proyect calls it "working," and we're now supposed to be forbidden from doing it. This is like being in prison--where they sit around all day painting landscapes.
Somehow Mr. Proyect concocts a wood shortage--mysteriously there is now a dearth of trees. Capitalism is "[s]o efficient at reducing forests to toothpicks." He writes,
Molyneux proceeds to define some of the norms we can expect under world ecosocialism. This one stuck out for me: “The extensive retrofitting of homes”. I am not sure what this means exactly but it would point to the banning of any house or apartment over 3,000 square feet for a family of four. I’m definitely for that but within such an advanced new way of sheltering, how do we create the furniture that people need for a modicum of comfort? We certainly need chairs, tables, beds, desks, and bookshelves, don’t we? Can we have a socialist Ikea that supplies such basics?
In this new ecosocialist utopia, some bureaucrat is gonna tell you "you can't have that end table. We need to save the wood for the folks living a billion years from now."
Some people would prefer to have fine furniture to painting landscapes. Who are these ecosocialist creeps to tell them they can't do that?
One thing I really don't understand about ecosocialists is their fixation on "mass transit." Somehow they imagine that a technology from the early 1900s is the ultimate solution to problems faced by civilizations a billion years from now. I don't get it.
So how do people get to work? In 2019 (before the pandemic), 1.4% of American commuters took mass transit, while 5.3% worked from home. (These are median numbers from a list of 110 US metropolitan areas.) Since then transit's share has collapsed. Ridership in the New York metro is down as much as 90%, while the work from home share has skyrocketed. As of September, 2020, 33% of all employees worked exclusively from home, while another 25% worked from home for part of the week. Only 42% of American workers still go to the office or factory every day.
This trend may partially reverse post-pandemic, but it will never go back to where it was. The number of people working in Lower Manhattan or Chicago's Loop is now permanently reduced.
Please, Mr. Proyect--tell us why you think we need more buses and subways? (And let's forget about streetcars, which average speed is only 19 mph!)
The whole mass transit thing is an anachronism. And the whole ecosocialism thing is a vile religious movement that is very bad for children and other living men and women.
Further Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment