I agree with Louis' post in all respects except one: Louis suggests that Commoner would resist swallowing the "big pill" that the profit motive must go. I think that Commoner would thoroughly accept that idea [an has in the past] unless he has changed his mind in recent years. I should confess that I am a great admirer of Commoner's work. I even had him write the introduction to my first book back in the 1970s. Louis Proyect wrote: > Last night I heard Barry Commoner speak on "The Economic Origins of the > Environmental Crisis" at NYC's Brecht Forum. Although I suspect that much > of the talk was a rehash of "The Closing Circle," it was useful to be > reminded of his arguments, since nothing has changed basically since the > book was written more than 25 years ago. > > For Commoner, WWII represents some kind of watershed. Before the war, there > was no environmental crisis. Afterwards, there was. The explanation is that > new technologies were introduced into the means of production that caused > an imbalance between nature and society. The new technologies were > introduced because they heightened the profit margin. Corporate greed, > therefore, is the main explanation for the environmental crisis. > > He produced a number of examples, first and foremost among which was the > automobile. He said that before WWII, smog was largely unknown but that in > the 1950s it became a problem almost everywhere, the most notable example > being Los Angeles. Smog is the result of the interaction between nitrogen > oxide and waste gasoline products in sunlight. It produces ozone, which is > hazardous to our health. The explanation for the increase in nitrogen oxide > is that Detroit began making higher compression automobiles, which were > necessary to power the larger automobiles that became common after WWII. > The extra heat that these engines create cause nitrogen and oxygen in the > atmosphere to react with each other. > > And why did Detroit decide to start making larger cars? Commoner cites John > Delorean's "On a Clear Day You Can See Detroit" for the answer. Delorean > says that when he was at General Motors, top management learned that while > it only cost $300 more to make a larger car, that they could produce an > additional $2000 in profit. So the thirst for profit had the unintended > effect of producing smog. > > When a grass-roots movement emerged to fight against pollution in the > 1970s, the corporations decided not to change their technology for the most > part, but to utilize control devices. Such devices have failed to produce > clean air or water, even though they do actually eliminate from 80% to 90% > of the pollutants at the source. In the case of automobiles, smog continues > to be a problem. Why haven't pollution control devices worked to clean up > the air? > > The answer is that increased economic activity outweighs any improvements > to the environment that such devices can produce. Since the 1950s, the huge > increase in automobile ownership has meant that air pollution has continued > no matter the degree to which antipollution devices have been introduced. > The other important factor is that commercial transportation has become > heavily dependent on trucks, rather than the more ecological railroads. The > only genuine gains that have taken place is when the technology itself has > been modified. For example, when the government banned lead in gasoline, > the amount of lead pollution practically disappeared. The same is true of > DDT. In general, however, corporate greed has acted to prevent further > improvements. > > The case of soap versus detergents illustrates the problem. Soap does not > cause water pollution, since it is based on a natural substance, animal or > vegetable fats. The problem for corporations, however, is that agricultural > products are subject to the ups and downs of any growing cycle, such as > those involved with rainfall, temperature, crop or livestock disease, etc. > With detergents, which are based on synthetics, no such problems exist. > Hence, the bottom lines of companies such as Proctor and Gamble are easier > to safeguard with detergent production. > > In his concluding remarks, Commoner raised the possibility that such > problems can be eliminated if society gained *control* of the corporations, > even though ownership remained in private hands. He thought that social > ownership was no guarantee of ecologically sound production. He said that > the former Soviet Union illustrates that perfectly. After Krushchev saw the > impressive corn and wheat yields in the Midwest during his first trip to > the United States, he decided that the USSR would have to produce crops in > the same manner, that is, with pesticides, herbicides and chemical > fertilizers. > > Commoner thinks that the dimensions of the crisis can very possibly force > the powers-that-be in the USA to wake up and bring the corporations under > control. A positive sign, in his opinion, was Clinton taking action against > Microsoft. Why couldn't the same thing happen with polluters such as Exxon > or Kodak? > > The problem is that US corporations are in an "intramural" fight over > software standards and the government is coming to the aid of one faction > against the other. Large corporations are wary of Bill Gates's growing > power and want to be protected. On the other hand, the corporations as a > whole have decided that radical changes in the means of production to > overcome the environmental crisis must be resisted. This is the > significance of the Clinton-Gore team being worse on environmental > questions overall than the Bush administration that preceded it. The agenda > of the American capitalist class since the onset of "globalization" has > been to fight for the bottom-line of their corporations against competition > world-wide. In this context, it is utopian to think that Proctor and Gamble > will switch back to soap because detergents are fouling the water. > > Commoner reminded me a bit of Michael Moore in his new movie "The Big One," > who kept asking corporate spokesmen why they had to be so greedy. "Look, > you guys made 30 billion dollars in profit over the past five years, so why > are you closing down your American factories and moving to Mexico? Why > don't you do the right thing and keep Americans employed?" The answer > inevitably was that they had to remain competitive. They, of course, are > right. If an American corporation can not produce a more favorable > quarterly earnings report than their competition, then the value of their > stock will go down and they risk a downward spiral into bankruptcy. It is > not a question of greed, it is a question of the underlying behavior of a > system based on profit. The profit motive has to be eliminated completely > if we are to survive. That is a big pill for people like Moore or Commoner > to swallow. But it must be swallowed. > > Louis Proyect > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
