Pearls and Irritations

As Andrew Taylor and Supriya Mathew point out in a recent article in P&I, the current indications regarding population growth are that it will shortly begin to decline in the majority of countries during this century and has already done so in the wealthier (first world) countries. This forcefully raises the question of whether this automatically presages improvements for the environment.

It also raises a more pressing issue and that is the need to grasp the opportunity to fundamentally reassess the basic characteristics of the societies within which we live. This is particularly relevant to decisions made about where production, consumption and wealth distribution should/can be focussed and effectively managed to ensure the best possible outcome for the people in general including the environmental issues.

The article by Mark Beeson in P&I, “There are alternatives to Anglo-American capitalism, however unlikely they may sound,” provides a very good overview of how difficult it is to achieve this given the vested interests currently directing policy within a world dominated by capitalism and imperialism that embraces a massive military/industrial complex.

The existing problems are huge. The current estimated world debt is in the order of 10 times current GDP and existing ways of addressing this are reflected in this country. Wages are stagnant, social services and public spending is being curtailed while investment in non-renewable energy projects continues and billions are being made available for the military and war preparations (e.g., AUKUS).

These solutions reflect policies that are the outcome of the relationship between the state and the political and economic system it is there to protect. An important aspect of reversing this situation is coming to terms with what a planned economy based on equity in opportunity and wealth distribution might look like and the nature of a truly representative and democratic state that supports this.

Discussion around issues to do with population and the environment cannot provide a way forward if they are predicated on accepting the status quo and then assessing the resultant scenarios and likely outcomes.

To digress and state the obvious, whenever we read and analyse something from the past, there are basic analytical requirements if we are to comprehensively grasp the concepts we encounter.

The first of these, while not necessarily in the right order, is to understand the sociohistorical context within which the material is produced. For example, to understand Aristotle, Hegel and Marx, it is essential to appreciate the limitations places on their thinking by the environment within which they existed. That is not to ignore the fact that there are basic concepts that relate to what it means to be human and hence provide some initial level of commonality, however even this needs some reflection.

For example, you cannot comprehend Hegel’s writing unless you appreciate the relative position of Germany at that time in history and the impact of industrialisation and radical changes taking place in the more “advanced” countries such as France.

Germany had been instrumental in the Reformation and had certainly experienced and adopted much of the thinking associated with the Enlightenment. This resulted in the emphasis on the freedom of the individual and such freedom being centred in philosophy, the arts and religion. This was due to the relatively “backward”, feudal-based nature of Germany’s economic system. Hegel had to reconcile his sociohistorical context and understanding with his awareness of what was taking place in the more advanced countries where the relationship between the state, civil society, ideology (religion and the arts for example) was evolving to enable a more stable industrialised capitalist society. (Capitalism was not a better form of feudalism).

These sociohistorical limitations on Hegel are particularly apparent when he tries to reconcile his philosophical concepts such as the rational individual, the principle of reason and the universal mind with the final form of the state.

The second and equally import form of reflection and understanding is to appreciate the sociohistorical context from within which your analysis is taking place. For many, this is from within a system of capitalism predicated on the right of individuals to appropriate socially produced wealth through private ownership. In Australia, this includes growing up in an environment that has a relatively stable and consistent relationship between the state (exercise though Parliamentary Democracy), civil society, the judicial system and ideology.

This basic understanding must be applied in a critical appraisal of what is happening in our world. This includes discussions about the nature of the state as we move forward. There is a constant contrast between democracy (meaning how it is commonly defined in a developed capitalist country) and authoritarian rule. Why is it assumed that a planned economy must have an authoritarian state? Why do we tie to the idea of entrepreneur to the generating of personal wealth.
The recent articles by Percy Allen on the relationship between the economy and the state in China over the last five decades, including the planned relationship between Hong Kong as a gateway to the capitalist world and mainland China’s pressing need to improve the standard of living, addresses some of the contradictions between a free-market economy and an authoritarian state. However, there is a very significant question that must be resolved. Is it possible to have a planned economy and a truly representative and inclusive democratic political system?

With the development of information technology and the associated AI possibilities, we are in the most favourable position ever historically in terms of understanding and managing production and distribution. The information we have on geography, demographics, meteorology, environmental impacts and so on means we have the capacity to plan and forecast in a manner that enables us to address the critical issues of growth, the environment and general well-being.
With regard to the issue of the environment and population growth, there is no reason for limiting the discussion to a system based on private ownership and the market driven associated drivers determining where and what type of production takes place and the resultant distribution of wealth.

This cannot happen unless we can conceptualise what a far more inclusive form of democracy might look like. And what would the nature of the economy be and how would this form of democracy operate in terms of the state.

That is not to ignore the blocks to such thinking and development in Mark Beeson’s article. It also must take into account the uneven developments within countries and between countries and the substantial obstacles, in some cases deliberately placed in the way of meaningful progress. (e.g.the energy companies and the environment). However, if these critical issues are the be addressed it is essential that the existing ways of thinking about the environment are challenged and a more objective understanding takes place.

Hegel, with the historical limitation placed on him, recognised but couldn’t reconcile the contradiction between the free, rational individual in civil society focused on private acquisition and a truly rational, cohesive, democratic state. We no longer have those limitations.

What we do have is a form of the state in countries like Australia that prioritises private acquisition over the interest of people in general and this is reflected in the existing form of “democracy”. It is precisely this contradiction between the ideological representation of the state and the way that it actually functions that prevents meaningful planning and resolution to issues such as the environment and population growth. It is essential to break out of this way of thinking.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT