I recently found myself in conversation with two people — one claiming to be a libertarian, oddly — who touted China and India as more “sustainable” environmental models than the U.S., but any such talk of these dirty, inefficient lands seems odd to someone like me who has coughed his way through semi-socialist (albeit democratic — and sexy!) New Delhi and will seem even stranger to athletes in largely-socialist (and non-democratic) Beijing this week.
In a recent column, Kyle Smith dares ask whether Western journalists will cover up something as large and glaring as Communism’s poverty-induced environmental crimes, as witnessed by this week’s Olympics visitors — and asks whether the Olympic Committee is capable of anything like shame or regret (in an ideal world, every article every day would be a bit like this one, until big government was no more).
The Western media and intelligentsia didn’t learn much from the collapse of European Communism about what produces wealth, efficiency, and high-tech cleanliness, though, and I don’t expect them to learn much from the plight of China now — except perhaps that we all need to “do more” to protect the environment — you know, like those tidy socialist countries do.
5 comments:
Communism and dictatorship in Eastern Europe clearly produced some of the worst environmental conditions in the world, far worse than what was in the capitalistic democratic nations in the West. China, however, is not the best case for your basic (and legitimate) point. Pollution and other environmental problems in China have gotten far worse as China has become more capitalist in the last nearly 20 years, with a huge increase in factories (most of which produce goods for the US) that have almost no environmental regulation whatsoever (a situation of which you would likely, in part, approve). The environmental crimes in China these days as neither poverty-induced (beyond the fact that people are trying to make money to get out of poverty) nor the direct result of Communist economic policies (though those did produce some awful environmental conditions back in the days in which they were in effect).
The answer, of course, is not a return to earlier economic policies but rather increased strengthening of property rights for all citizens, a democratic government, and a more stable and reliable legal system.
On a related point, Western journalists are not “covering up” the environmental situation in China out of sympathy for China’s Communist past, but rather out of fear of being shut out of the Chinese market and the potentially huge profits it represents. Do you think Rupert Murdoch is a fan of Communism? Of course not, but NO ONE kisses the CCP’s ass with more frequency and gusto. Print media outlets who don’t have much hope to make money from China, such as the NYT, have covered China’s pollution problem with great frequency and in great detail. Almost every article about the Olympics in the NYT has talked about the pollution problem and articles focusing on it have frequently appeared as features on their website. The paper is often criticized in China for its “anti-China” coverage as a result.
But said poverty and censorship threats are government-made, so to even imply that market incentives are at fault, given the eagerness of so many to misunderstand this point, is itself a grave crime against humanity.
I see the PRC’s economic system more as a Sino-fascist than purely Communist model. The idea that China is inflicting more damage upon the environment now than during The Great Leap Forward isn’t really indicative of the impact of capitalism-or, at least the skewed version of capitalism embraced by mainland China, Malaysia, and other SE Asian nations. If you have no discernible economy it’s hard to emit much CO2. By that measure, you could say that the DPRK is environmentally friendly because it rations electricity to its citizens and has virtually no auto emissions, or any other energy output that doesn’t involve shooting ballistic missiles at its perceived enemies across the Strait of Japan or detonating nuclear warheads.
If you want to see what Communism does to the environment you should really take a look at the former Soviet Union, e.g. Chernobyl, the ever-diminishing Aral Sea, Siberia, etc…
Gerard, when you say “If you want to see what Communism does to the environment you should really take a look at the former Soviet Union, e.g. Chernobyl, the ever-diminishing Aral Sea, Siberia, etc.,” who is the “you” of whom you speak? If it is me, please re-read the opening sentence of my post above: “Communism and dictatorship in Eastern Europe clearly produced some of the worst environmental conditions in the world, far worse than what was in the capitalistic democratic nations in the West.”
It was more of a general observation than an accusation. What I meant was that the testament to Communism’s ability to destroy the environment is pretty well-documented-I wasn’t implying that you thought it wasn’t.
I still think China’s system, while having some capitalistic innovations, is largely fascist in design and intent. The people who are counterfeiting official Olympic merchandise, in spite of their regime’s attempt to crush their activities, are acting more in the spirit of free market capitalism, albeit in a very anarchistic way, which wholly rejects notions like copyrights.
Post a Comment