>> Here's what bugged me about Chuck's argument. If we placed the blame for
>> certain technologies on capitalism, rather than industrialism, then we
>> have to ask whether better technologies would have arisen under a
>> different kind of industrialism. Could anyone actually make a good case
>> that, under an anarcho-syndicalist industrialism, they'd have avoided
>> coal and gas power entirely, and gone straight to solar and wind power?
>> Probably not; after all, we started using gas and coal power long before
>> we started to understand the impacts of such technologies.
>
> No. Although I have to say that there is some justice to the argument
> that certain uses of certain technologies are related to the economic
> system. Clearly a form of social organisation in which the socially
> necessary means of production is operated for and in the interests of a
> tiny minority of the population, is inevitably going to result in them
> being used in different ways than if they were operated as true public
> services. The incentive (profit) is different, that's going to distort
> the way things are used.
>
> But avoid the use of coal and other hydro-carbons entirely? This seems
> somewhat over-zealous to me. I certainly think that these energy forms
> are mis-used, that capitalism tends towards serious inefficiencies by not
> factoring in the social and environmental costs of certain practices.
> Only a deranged zealot would conclude that this necessitates abandoning
> this resource entirely though.
I'd better clarify something. When I described the hypothetical argument that an anarcho-syndicalist society would have avoided these technologies entirely, I wasn't advocating such a thing. I was describing an argument that, as we both see, was untenable: it seems to me that _any_ industrial society would have developed gas and coal power. I don't think it could have been avoided without avoiding industry entirely.
Its implementation, support, supply, and other details might differ in certain particulars, but it seems to me that industrialization under any political structure would need to have a period where gas and coal are major fuels.
(Actually, I was hoping someone would claim that an anarcho-syndicalist or socialist society would be earth-loving and non-polluting, and as such, would've jumped straight to the solar-and wind-power stage without disturbing those liquefied dinosaurs. That would've been _fun_ to tear into.)