We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.
Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.
Poor quality Audio. Hickel needstoearn to speak more slowly
Can’t slow him down now … sorry!
@Editor, is there a comment size limit? Is 3,500 characters too much? Or are other filters at work?
OK, did some testing. Submissions were rejected that contained the first name of the panellist whose initials are ‘YV’. Length did not seem relevant.
Turn on the closed captions and all will become clear.
I agree with much of this, but:
There is a confusion between democracy (a will-expressing, means-prioritising political system) and a constitutionally health-prioritising political system (like biocracy). The brief digression on war was helpful, but there are no reasons to suppose democracies would be less belligerent than consumer-capitalist societies with only superficial democracy. In fact, democratic ancient Athens (both more and less democratic than universal suffrage models) was apparently highly belligerent and spoils/glory-oriented. We *should* decommoditise the core economy to build *health*, but what if a majority don’t *want* to?
This all humanism, and the worse for non-humans (and actually for future human generations and the currently-disenfranchised, like children and foreigners).
We don’t live under anything like a pure capitalist system (and capitalism is primarily an economic system, like communism, not a political one) in Scotland or elsewhere. Such extremes may be unlivable (see how the system crushes and kills people in more extreme examples like South Korea). So when talking about communism as an alternative, it is folly to ignore how various forms of communism, including the great idea communisms that underpin global human society, work and even thrive in our hybrid polities. Including the dangers associated (idea communism is dangerous *because* it is so efficient). Capitalism, itself dangerous in many ways (environmentally, in terms of animal cruelty, exploitation of human, war-mongering etc) today exists parasitically off state funded research, human goodwill, religious indoctrination, exploitation of natural world, and idea communism.
I disagree that profit is the only motive for elites. Psychological modelling and testing is needed here, but culturally there are many predecessor indicators that various forms of megalomania, hubris and self-gratification are common among elites. Sometimes dynastic ambitions. Sometimes sadism. Sometimes the chance to use the world as a boardgame (see the British imperial Great Game). Sometimes snobbery.
Money alone will not keep elites in power. One fundamental reason fossil fuel exploitation is funded is to support mechanised armed forces, which also applies to nuclear materials in more restricted roles. Public use of fossil fuel subsidises military use. The surest way to get the USA to divest from fossil fuels would be to beat its mechanised armed forces with non-fossil forces (as the Vietnamese did) on home soil. Hopefully not nuclear, but renewably-powered drones and cyberattacks should make the point.
So the question around the 43′ mark is a good one. Rogue states may be democratic. But again you can have hybrid reasons for warmongering, where capitalists take one side or other (or both), with a public mobilised by Jingoism or religious fervour. Wars test and showcase products now, not so much over colonial history. I agree that crushing good examples (say, successful socialist polities) is a common reason now, although European powers have long crushed ‘heretical’ movements for the same reasons.
How exactly can you justify saying it is worse being poor in the USA and the North of England than in India or Bangladesh? I don’t think YV understands feudalism in the UK. Plus there was no discussion of women, castes, religious ideologies (think of Christian views on poverty and suffering), non-humans, cultural veneration of ancient empires (Brits as heirs to Romans) etc.
This is brilliant – thanks for posting. Makes the general discourse around the election smell like pish