critical-mass.net

On Public versus Private Enterprise.

Since the 2008 financial crash, there has been a marathon public bailout of private financial institutions and industrial enterprises. Bankruptcies of profit-charging institutions classed as ‘too big to fail’ at the time were avoided in two ways. First, they were granted huge loan guarantees and injections of public cash. Second, many were taken over by the state, their solvency guaranteed by the resources of a whole country. Then central banks in Europe and America created continuous ‘quantitative easing’.

Large quantities of cash and credit were supplied to banks from government sources. It was (and is) available at low interest rates to businesses deemed important enough to be ‘eased’ through the decade long crisis. Other, businesses, we’re allowed to fail. The organisations kept alive by regular injections of public money are often classified as zombie institutions or businesses.

That is to say such capitalist companies resemble the fictional human beings of horror films and novels who, technically dead are kept functioning by regular acquisitions of blood or flesh from healthy human beings. The stupidity of keeping technically failed banks and other businesses operating by this ‘intravenous’ monetary strategy has been debated, in economic and financial circles, but these discussions have typically failed to analyse the symptom beyond its surface phenomena.

Capitalism continues to fail – everywhere!

When a capitalist enterprise no longer takes in enough money to cover it’s costs and pay loans, interest and profits it’s life has ended as a capitalist endeavour. If it is kept afloat by public money because it’s operations are judged to be socially necessary or desirable, then it is in fact – not a capitalist zombie – but a social (or public) institution. From then on it rests on a different socio-economic basis. In fact in the 20th century, it became so obvious that capitalist forms of economic organisation could not answer most social needs that non-profit public services were expanded in the following areas; government, policing, defence, education and communications.

Moreover, after the Second World War (1939-45), in the UK for example, more non-profit forms of productive services were created, such as doctors/surgeries/hospitals, further education, transport, gas, electricity, water, telephones and national insurance schemes. In the UK, (and other countries) these important elements of modern 20th century life were deliberately formed on this alternative economic basis! Why? Because it was overwhelmingly recognised that capitalist economic models could not provide the stability, reliability and universality required for future societies. Non-profit, public services were the inauguration of more advanced forms of productive activity.

Furthermore, in the 21st century, humanity was reminded that the remaining greed-funded private sector had also become cancerous. Even the the richest and most monopoly-advantaged capitalist institutions, such as former Merchant banks plus huge, money-bloated insurance and mortgage companies were so internally diseased they collapsed. If we add to all the public services, all the publicly supported businesses in the aftermath of the 2008 crash, it would undoubtedly reveal that, in the UK and Europe – most of us were already living in a predominantly post-capitalist mode of economic activity.

If we factor in all the other negative outcomes of the remaining capitalist forms of enterprise such as ecological destruction, air, water, soil and sea pollution, vital species extinction, climate change, war and poverty, then the conclusion should be obvious. Replacing Dickensian private profit-making models with modern public service sustainable, eco-friendly provision, needs to go further. Some countries have already achieved more than a two thirds transition from capitalist forms to post-capitalist forms. The 20th century journey of humanity ‘beyond capital’ simply needs to be continued. In view of profit-driven extinction probabilities that transition needs to be completed.

To go beyond.

The ideology spun around the capitalist mode of production has perpetuated a myth of private-enterprise superiority despite the reality of successful public institutions and the continuing cascade of failed and failing private enterprises. The mismatch between the ideology of capitalism and the stark reality of its incurable self-harming and ecologically destructive habits is perpetuated by a class of people who benefit from keeping bits of it artificially alive. Education, media, government, law and science are staffed by publicly trained people who dominate intellectual discourse and are not accustomed to being critical or self-critical. Long-term future effects, or how the capitalist economy works – as a whole – is not their concern – just their investments on the side.

Apart from a few, that class live in an entitlement-now mode of existence. In the long run they know they are dead so they know they won’t have to face what lies ahead. Denial, pretence, hope and enhanced enjoyment currently offer a more rewarding life-style than accepting that the system they have long upheld is undermining the basic prerequisites for most forms of planetary life. It apparently matters not that sustainable, non-profit, non-polluting production for need under community-wide control is the only model which can enable humanity to have a balanced existence in the future.

Pro-capitalist bias will point to examples of countries where authoritarian politicians have also controlled more than 2/3 of economic activity and corruption, nepotism and oppression have been rife. However, those were not (and are not) post-capitalist forms. They are analogous to the Greek and Roman periods of political rule by dictators and oligarchs but now armed with modern weapons. State controlled capital relations, merely replaced privately controlled ones. They are also Zombie-type elites for they would not exist if the advanced countries did not continually supply them with the means to suppress their citizens (soldiers and weapons) in exchange for oil and other crucial mineral supplies.

A species which organised teams that devised the means to land on the moon, whilst being applauded globally by an audience who knew what, how and why this was happening, can certainly do other complicated things – when they wish to. I suggest creating ways to produce sustainably and with genuine community control is no more difficult for humanity than building space stations and calculating complex parabolic paths to distant planets.

Roy Ratcliffe (February 2020)

On Neo-Liberalism.

The capitalist mode of production began its career in the hands of merchant traders and capital took the form of Commercial Capital. Money was used to commission, purchase, transport and sell commodities from wherever they were produced to wherever they could be sold. Warehousing, market stalls and shipping were the most visible indicators. Merchant traders became rich and socially influential.

Later an industrial revolution occurred and capital began to be used to manufacture commodities on a large scale and on a continuous basis. Industrial Capital began to dominate socio-economic activity, it’s owners became the wealthiest and most influential. Factories, mines and large-scale farms were the most visible indicators.

The accumulated profits generated during those two stages accelerated a third stage in which loan or finance-capital became the most dominant form. Accumulated money was loaned at interest, to other capitalists, (merchants, industrialists, speculators) and governments. Banks, finance-houses and stock-exchanges, became the most visible manifestations of this particular stage.

Economic strategies.

Each of these stages had its own internal evolution and had different effects upon the general social and international relations within which they operated, but all grew absolutely, whilst their relative dominance shifted. The intellectual strategies of these interconnected stages appeared within economic theory. Mercantile, protectionism dominated early economic discourse and was replaced by liberal ‘free-market’ thinking when industry dominated governments.

The period of ‘free-trade’ capitalism led to freedom for the strongest capitalists (and capitalist countries) to dominate the weakest. Results! ‘Enclosures’, ‘Colonialism’ and ‘Imperialism’. Wars over access to essential raw materials and markets were triggered – including two world wars. Furthermore, technical advances in capitalist production techniques led to large-scale unemployment and potential (as well as actual) uprisings and revolutions. So after the Second World War a modification of free-market economics was proposed by John Maynard Keynes and was accepted by most European and Western governments.

This Keynesian economic strategy involved governments playing an active and leading role in economic and social affairs by regulating, stimulating and directing economic activity along with promoting social welfare programmes. Governments began to control capitalists. This welfare-capitalism model of economic theory and practice appeared to solve some of the problems associated with ‘free-for-all’ capitalism, but it hadn’t really.

A new phenomena occurred in which taxes on capital, profits and wages were increased to pay for this governmental activity. However, competition continued and in the leading capitalist countries, profits slumped, capital was increasingly exported and large-scale unemployment returned.

Financial de-regulation.

The drain on profits led to some economists and politicians resurrecting free-market liberal ideas – but in a new form – hence a new ‘liberalism’ or neo-liberalism. This involved free-market capitalism with new (ie neo) twists. The continued domination of finance-capital meant that that particular sector was able to persuade politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (et al) to introduce de-regulation of banking and financial transactions; to hold down wages and salaries by limiting trade union bargaining; and by allowing finance-capitalists to purchase public utilities, (eg, gas, electricity, water, telephones, postal services etc.,) at bargain prices.

Consequently wealth for the rich upper and middle-classes soared, particularly in Europe and North America whilst many working people living there sank into relative and absolute poverty. However, the advocates of neo-liberal capitalism were not fully satisfied by this mega re-distribution of social wealth upward to the elite. They wanted to secure it. Working people might get sufficiently upset by poverty and precarious conditions, to elect governments pledged to end this neo economic/financial theft. So in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, some elites invented a means to prevent this.

The T.T.I.P. Of a bureaucratic iceberg.

Neo-liberal theorists, financiers, economists and politicians collaborated in writing trade agreement documents, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, (TTIP) which would allow, private companies to prevent governments from taking any action which damaged or diminished their profitability. A future of capitalists controlling Governments.

Governments will be compelled to pay taxpayers money to compensate for losses incurred to capitalists by local or national government actions. Revealingly, these trade agreements are not available for public scrutiny. Nor are the special courts of arbitration open to the public. Secrecy and elite-only access to these machinations of the capitalist and pro-capitalist elite are strictly enforced.

Financial, economic, political and social power already resides in the hands of the capitalist elite and further bureaucratic forms are being used against the ordinary people and their representatives. The capitalist real-world god is still profit, but their New Testament is now neo-liberalism and the Cardinals and Pontiffs of capital are now the owners/controllers of ‘too-big-to-fail’ corporations. Consequently, neo-liberalism has transformed ordinary people’s rights into the modern equivalent of dependent serfs and peasants. That may seem bad enough, but ecologically, there is more.

Profit-based production and consumption, increases commodity volumes and reduces labour costs. The manufacturing processes of commodities, also produces an increase in pollution, ecological damage and climate-change crisis. It also – via neo-liberal financed automation and artificial intelligence – reduces the numbers and pay of people employed who are then unable to purchase this increased production.

Over-production, stagnation and social strife.

Existing capitalist relative-overproduction is now increasing toward a 21st century generalised over-production crisis, leading to further economic stagnation before economic collapse and social strife. Yet a mixture of ignorance and self-interest means practically all pro-capitalists are blind to such unresolvable contradictions waiting to explode among their countries citizens.

Since these elites, dominate, economics, finance, education, science, politics, media and law, and are blind to the contradictions at play, ordinary citizens are not aware of them either. So those who suffer most are left struggling to understanding why. Thus leaving them open to being persuaded to blame other victims of the same socio-economic system. Divide and rule is daily being promoted in the hope of diverting attention away from the economic system capitalists promote and defend.

Applying neo-liberal theory and practice to 20th century capitalism has enabled a further enrichment of the elite by a further impoverishing the non-elite.

Roy Ratcliffe (January 2020.)

Superficially, it seems that the recent targeted assassination of Iran’s Qassem Suleimani, authorised by the American President, is just another example of Donalds’ schizophrenic type mentality. However, his role in this act of killing as well as his presence in office is a symptom of a much larger crisis. One which reaches deep into the history of the capitalist mode of production. It is a history that orbits around oil precisely because capitalisms cycle of production, distribution and consumption completely depends upon it. The Iranian missiles fired in retaliation and the one bringing down a civilian aircraft demonstrate how quickly tensions can escalate.

But it should not be forgotten that interference by the elites of dominant capitalist countries in the affairs of oil-rich countries has been continuous since industrialised production and transport switched from coal and steam to oil and electricity. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that for almost a century, rival blocs of capitalist elites have continued manipulation and rivalry in countries such as; Iraq, Saudi, Iran, Algeria, Libya, Nigeria, Congo, Venezuela etc. In the process using, abusing and even killing, those who stand in the way of ensuring reliable oil supplies.

This history is crucially important to understand. In particular, the people of Iran have an extremely negative experience of UK and USA interference in their countries. During the early 20th century, Iran and it’s oil was controlled by Britain and British Petroleum (BP) whose shareholders became mega rich whilst most Iranians remained desperately poor. Attempts by Iran to gain control of their own resources were constantly thwarted. A regime headed by a Shah was eventually put in charge via a UK and USA manipulated coup.

However, that CIA/MI5 preferred regime, did not sufficiently benefit the masses. Eventually a rebellion deposed him. Iran became dominated by Islamic fundamentalists, headed by Ayattola Khomeini. Religious ideology replaced secular ideology and most secular-minded people were physically eliminated as agents of western capitalism or soviet communism. Iranians were told (and many believed) that Islamic law would create better governance than any Soviet or US backed examples could offer.

Western capitalist systems elites – mainly those in the UK and USA – remained livid at loosing control of the huge and highly profitable oil reserves in Iran. Ever since, Iranian and USA/UK elites have been involved in a hot and cold war with each other. Tragically, hostilities may now be heading toward a new intensity. Further resentment by Iranian people (and other Arab people’s) to the West’s interference in the Middle East, is with regard to the role played by Britain and the USA, in the establishment and maintenance of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, towns and villages since the 1940’s.

Furthermore, when America, Britain and France supported Iraq’s Saddam Hussain with arms and resources in the Iraq/Iran war, this was seen as the West using Iraq to achieve regime change in Iran. But there is an interesting double irony. The reasons many Shia Iranians chose an Islamised state – all those decades ago – was because the secular examples promoted in the region by the West were so consistently bad. However, when Sunni Islam created it’s own alternative version of fundamentalism, via the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (1928) as interpreted by Hasan al Banna, later by Savyid Qutb and redefined by the Islamic State of ISIL/IS IS, this development was vigorously opposed by the Iranian regime.

Part of the irony is that the leading Iranian organiser of successful opposition to ISIS and it’s geographical Caliphate was none other than – Qassem Suleimani – the General assassinated on the authority of Donald Trump! Having allowed the Turkish version of patriarchal Islam, headed by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to disperse and kill the northern Syrian Kurdish fighters against ISIS, the US president has had another fighter against ISIS bumped off in Iraq.

Given that ISIS type Islamism is supposed to be the USA’s main target for eradication this may seem strange. However, it is not elite male killing of rivals and female oppression in general, or Islamic versions of these two inhuman practices, that the West’s own male-dominated elites object to. How could they since they clearly indulge in versions of these patriarchal practices themselves? What they really object to is any threat to the control of what they see as ‘their’ (sic) sources of wealth and profit.

Incidentally, the young people in Iran only six months ago were demonstrating against Shia fundamentalist rule in Iran and by implication also against Sunni fundamentalist rule. This was a welcome groundswell. Youth and women struggling against poverty and patriarchy in the middle-east, undoubtedly saw that their oppression comes from the western elites as well as their own Arabic religious elites.

Yet it is a well established lesson from history that when the population of a country feels sufficiently threatened by the armed forces of another country, they suspend internal divisions for the duration of the threat. In addition, many expect retaliation for acts perpetrated against their own side. This was the case in the two-world wars of the 20th century, where deep divisions in the UK and the USA were suspended between 1939 and 1945. Almost everyone rallied to support their respective Allied governments. The same occurred in Germany and Italy on the Axis side of that war for control of markets and resources.

So it will not be surprising if many of the dissatisfied Iranian women and youth now feel duty bound – not only to object to the American assassination of their (sic) Iranian general – but call for retaliatory action. And not just for this latest act: but also for the poverty and suffering caused by years of USA orchestrated trade embargo against them. Just which sides elites the Iranian dissatisfied feel are the bigger villains in this whole sorry mess remains to be seen. After a century of western interference in the Middle East, it may well be the West’s – yet again – and hostilities continue.

Roy Ratcliffe (January 2020)

On Anti – capitalism.

The first 10 guides in this series, provided many reasons for questioning the existence of the capitalist mode of production. Guide 10, outlined the many failed attempts to moderate capitalisms worst extremes. But early 20th century economic hardship and social unrest, also led to firm conclusions that capitalism had become an existential problem for working people. Large-scale movements developed, proposing to end capitalism.

Indeed, a number of ‘revolutions’ did occur, particularly in Russia and China, but control of the main means of production always remained with elites. In reality these ‘alternative‘ societies were state-controlled forms of economic exploitation. Workers simply became state employed wage-slaves. When these ‘alternatives’ collapsed, most workers became wage-slaves for capitalists again.

Those ‘state-capitalist’ failures revealed that going beyond capital requires; a) a thorough understanding of the capitalist mode of production; b) knowing what really makes a post-capitalist society possible. c) awareness of what actually needs revolutionising.

Anti-capitalist leaders/led of the 20th century, lacked this basic a, b, c. Yet knowledge of (a) had been pioneered by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx. Here, an important distinction needs to be made between Marx and ‘Marxism‘. Marx, after reading what many ‘followers’ wrote, declared that; he was ‘not a Marxist’.

Nevertheless, throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries, many Leninists, Trotskyists and Maoists, still claimed to be Marxists without fully understanding Marx’s revolutionary-humanism. Many pro-capitalist intellectuals criticise present day ‘Marxists’ but demonstrate their own ignorance of Marx by assuming these have understood Marx.

With regard to (b), the most potential developments are the creation of large-scale, non-profit, public service organisations. Despite the alleged superiority and efficiency of private ownership of social production, capitalists have found it necessary to construct huge examples of the opposite.

Even the most enthusiastic pro-capitalists would not advocate completely privatising the following: armies, navies, air forces, police forces, political and legal institutions, local government agencies, schools, universities, health services and road transport systems. The reason is obvious. Funds for these services would be reduced drastically if citizens only purchased them when needed.

It is a frequently overlooked fact by capitalists and pro-capitalists that without the existence of large-scale, non-profit public services institutions, modern capitalist societies would simply collapse. Without these institutions, unemployment would also increase exponentially. Thousands of white and blue-collar workers now staffing them – at all levels – would be jobless.

The fact is, that in the 20th and 21st centuries, a capitalistic private, profit-making sector of the capitalist mode of production can no longer survive without the multiple supporting buttresses of non-profit public services. These non-profit forms are necessary to ensure that transport/waste disposal infrastructure, national security requirements, organisational and personal education/welfare needs, all function sufficiently for modern societies to survive. The private profit economic sector is now absolutely dependent upon a solid foundation of non-profit public institutions.

Moreover most of the services listed above would be essential for a non-capitalist future once the hierarchical appointment structures and management teams within them were democratised. It would be foolish to condemn an excellent set of organisations (eg schools, universities, hospitals, fire services, etc.) just because a small section of those staffing them are currently patriarchal, sexist, elitist, arrogant, self-serving, dishonest, incompetent and overpaid. There would obviously be a need to respond to future changing requirements and to replace the current hierarchical structures, with genuinely democratic and egalitarian ones.

Economic and technical developments, created by millions of skilled and unskilled workers, have produced enormous amounts of surplus-product and value from their combined efforts. This surplus in turn has enabled the staffing of varied and extensive non-profit public services. For over 60 years these non-profit models have proved sustainable and effective in delivering the basic needs of modern citizens. Most represent valuable, if incomplete and still woefully under-resourced, prototypes for a future mode of production not distorted by individual profit-seeking and hierarchical greed. In the 20th century, capitalism gave birth to its future replacement.

This brings us to point (c). What elements of the capitalist mode of production need to be abandoned? First of all private or elite control of the main means of production needs to be ended – in all its various, neo-liberal and authoritarian forms! This is because the ceaseless elite desire to accumulate individual power, surpluses and profit, not only fuels inequality, injustice, trade wars, ill health and global pollution, but also widespread ecological destruction and accelerated climate change. These symptoms of social and biological disintegration are inevitable while elites determine the pattern, the purpose, the pace and the location of production, distribution and exchange.

NB. In the entire history of the human species, capitalism is the only mode of production which has the capability (and elite incentive) to destroy the foundations of humanity itself. Pro-capitalist economic, financial and political classes now have the industrial and commercial means, to globally degrade or destroy; people, water, air, soil, seas, lakes, rivers; and to eliminate vital biological species (trees, bees, microbial soil balance and multifarious forms of sea life) upon which we depend. The existence of humanity and the other life-forms needed, requires that elite control of the modern means of production is replaced by genuine and direct community control.

Instead, the 20th century revolutionary uprisings, noted above, demonstrated that anti-capitalism, in the sectarian, elitist forms of Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and Maoism were authoritarian dead ends. In or out of power, such elitist forms failed humanity completely. Apart from a few remaining members such groups have been abandoned. However, a healthy strand of revolutionary-humanist ideas that transcend sectarian ones have survived those 20th century aberrations.

As noted in Guide 8, Revolutionary-Humanist understanding and practices exist and are available. They offer critical, self-critical and humane responses to capitalism’s existential threats to humanity and life in general. Unlike, religion, nationalism and political affiliation – concepts that intentionally promote human disunity – revolutionary-humanist ideas actually reflect 20th and 21st century global realities and the future integrated needs of our species.

Roy Ratcliffe (December 2019)

On Reformism.

Almost from its earliest beginnings, supporters of the capitalist mode of production, recognised its many benefits to them, whilst it’s huge downsides were recognised by the majority. When capitalism reached the industrial revolution stage, it’s ‘dark satanic’ failings became all too obvious. Pollution, poverty and pestilence for the masses, profit, privilege and prestige for the few. This extreme contrast led to various political tendencies proposing slight changes to the system (known as reforms) to reduce some of these negative outcomes.

The enlightened elite perspective became; Pollution yes – but not too much; Exploitation yes – but not excessive; Poverty yes, – but not starvation; Unemployment yes – but not permanent; Work related accidents and diseases yes – but with compensation and medication; Commercial warfare yes – but diplomatically moderated. Eventually, clean water and air acts; minimum wages legislation; legal entitlement to benefits (unemployment, child and housing); were implemented – as reforms – along with United Nations peacekeeping institutions.

The list could go on, but the reader will undoubtedly understand that even those limited 20th century reforms were mostly ineffective, that the symptoms noted have increased and also become global. The reason is simple. Modes of production controlled by elites can only be permanently reformed when the reforms benefit a majority of the elite. All others, particularly those which reduce the profits and wealth going to the elite, will be resisted, ignored, undermined, countered or exceptions granted.

Revealingly, the two world wars, (1914 – 1918 and 1939 – 45) noted in previous guides had their origins in the rivalry between capitalist nation blocs for control of markets and sources of raw materials. Whatever other rationalisations for these wars are offered in history books, (fictional and non-fictional) the nature of capitalist profit seeking, with industrial levels of production, required ever more markets to sell mass produced goods and ever more raw materials/energy sources to manufacture them. Despite the inauguration of the United Nations (peace-keeping) Organisation, armed conflict between capitalist economies for direct possession or proxy control of these resources, was (and still is) inevitable.

Nevertheless, between 1900 – 1945, after economic downturn, financial collapse, the two world wars and two major revolutions (Russia and China), a ‘new deal’, ‘citizen welfare’ section of the western capitalist elite reasoned that, ‘we must give the workers reforms or they will give us revolution’. Post second world war reforms and a reconstruction-driven boom period followed. Meanwhile the vanguard-led revolutions in the east, had turned into the surreal nightmares of Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism. That kind of authoritarian controlled revolution (plus the Fascist kind) was rejected by most western working people, white-collar and blue. Welfare reforms to capitalism seemed preferable and US lend-lease, defibrillated, European capitalism’s failing heart.

With the fear of revolution gone, the pro-capitalist financial elites of the later Thatcher/Reagan post-war era, guided the less profitable welfare capitalism into its neo-liberal phase. Thus humanity entered the ‘I’m leaving on a jet plane’ period of globalisation with its accelerated negative effects. Added to the ones listed above, were climate change, polluted seas and large-scale ecological destruction. Half a century after destroying much of the world with bombs, capitalism and its supporters were at it again – this time by excessive production, commerce and transport.

So capitalism has faced humanity with another existential crisis and surprise, surprise, it’s supporters have reintroduced the idea of reforming it!

Having progressively abandoned welfare capitalism as too costly and with a tame working and middle-class class hooked on the entitlement ethos of the right to consume ever more commodities, streaming services and holidays abroad, some pro-capitalist elites now suggest reforming capitalism into a eco-friendly condition. Green ‘growth’ is the latest mirage dangled in front of the influential middle-classes and those workers still entranced by conspicuous consumption, spin and deception. The hope is that capitalism, with some clever technological adjustments, can carry on mass producing far into the future.

This new, liberal extinction prevention vision for the future, is based on the following. That capitalism can continue creating profitable investment returns, with guaranteed salaries and pensions for the middle-classes, providing it churns out bio-degradable goods and services, using renewable energy sources and with tireless, non-waged, non-striking robots staffing factories, hospitals and care homes. When the rare minerals and earth elements required to manufacture such ‘brave new world’ technologies run out, then an even more deluded section of the middle-class (scientific) community are keen to send robotic space vehicles to dig out whatever is needed on the Moon, Mars or passing asteroids.

Currently, the capitalist systems advocates claim that it cannot afford decent wages, hospitals, schools, homes and care homes for everyone needing them now, let alone when the extra costs of producing future eco-friendly and non-polluting methods of mass production, transportation, consumption and refuse disposal are added to the balance sheets. And that is assuming capitalist industries of the future will do everything pollution free, regardless of the negative effects this will have on their profit levels. [Their past track record, even when heavily regulated, would suggest otherwise.] To my mind, imagining a future green Capitalism, with eco-friendly production methods is no further advanced intellectually than some early childhood musings, (rather than questioning), when told that the moon was made of green cheese.

Yet dozens of professors of science and astrophysics are jetting around the globe conferencing and planning future billion dollar (or Pounds or Euros) rocket propelled expeditions to excavate and return a few kilos of extraterrestrial, mineral-rich dirt. They seem to think this would be an economically viable activity for a humanity already on the verge of mass extinctions and ecological collapse.

I suggest that campaigns to reform capitalism, unless capable of triggering an anti-capitalist revolution, are nothing more than pie in the sky distractions. Advocating green-capitalism, is also an oxymoronic concept revealing that its advocates have sadly failed to understand how and why the capitalist economic and financial system of production will continue to dangerously mutate unless physically stopped.

Roy Ratcliffe (December 2019)