"Clearly its innovation that will solve climate change, through
new technology. Look at history and tell me how much that is new
was created by Govt decree and how much by people and companies being
creative and innovative"
A very good point. I think most historians would agree that technological innovation throughout history was spurred on very directly by the -Government- military complex.
As yet, even global corporations haven't started to wage war, although it's probably only a matter of time, and many believe the corporate military complex has already had a hand... I digress.
A great many inventions can be attributed to the -government sponsored- space race, including velcro and teflon coating.
In fact, the technologies called for and directly created by Government decree is almost endless; from the English longbow to nuclear weapons, and power, radar, planes, ships...

The 'market' has shown many of it's flaws in it's current form. Everything from the patent law system in the USA to lack of competition in many sectors and the assumption that consumers are intelligent

Passy thinks that employees that are paid a lot of money are being "screwed." Go figure!

Passy: "marxists are actually about the withering away of the State since the State grows out of class divisions in society and is the creature of the dominant class."

That may be so, but how can class divisions be removed other than by the use of force? Since force is essential in achieving its objectives, it is inevitable that all Marxist societies are violent. In a free society, on the other hand, individuals satisfy their needs through peaceful cooperation.

"I don't see how capitalism (including the capitalist state) can address climate change."

On this point I am in agreement, for two reasons. Firstly, there are no capitalist states in existence anywhere in the world, at best there are mixed economies. Secondly, capitalism is based on the voluntary exchange of private property rights. Given that nobody has private ownership of the atmosphere, no market can arise and therefore capitalism does not apply.

Passy, the labour theory of value was discredited long ago and was replaced by marginal utility theory. The argument that all wealth in society is created by workers is wrong.

bro

The more well paid societies do have the greatest exploitation (in the marxist sense of bosses ripping off the value workers create.)

Marginal utility theory is an alternative to the labour theory of value, adopted by bourgeois economists to explain and justify and hide the fact that workers are exploited systemically.

Your discussion about the state seems misplaced to me. The Government, courts, bureaucracy (and indeed most of civil society) have profit extraction as their grundnorm.

Any modern state is a reflection in some way of that basic building block. A mixed economy is an artifical distinction. The state and the private sector have a common goal - the extraction of surplus value from workers. This was as true of the USSR as it is of the US.

Marx pithily described the state as the executive committee of the bourgeoisie.

Sometimes this requires intervention in the interests of capital in general at the expense of some capitalits in particular. Climate change might be one of those examples. However any solution will be confined to the basic parameters of wage slavery.

Bro, you mention force. As Marx said the history of capitalism is written in blood. The conquest of common land, foreign land, world wars, invasions like Iraq, and the ongoing suppression of working people (police, army etc) means to me that the system is built on and maintained by force.

Of course force will be necessary to move from capitalism to socialism. This force will be an expression of the vast majority in the interests of the vast majority (ie of workers in their own interests). And given the preponderance of workers in our society, this force will be minimal.

Those days are some way off yet. But in my view when we move from a porfit based society to one where production is organised democraticlaly to satisfy human need, only then can the alternative energy sources necessary for our survival begin to be utlised fully enough to save our planet. The present relations of production have become a fetter on the development (and indeed survival) of humanity.

You raise many points, too many to address in one post so I will limit my remarks.

As I understand it, Marxism is based on the labour theory of value. This was abandoned by economists in the late nineteenth century because marginal utitility was a superior theory, not because of some bizarre conspiracy to exploit the workers.

Can the labour theory explain why a block of land located on the coastline is worth more than a similar block located further inland?

"The conquest of common land, foreign land, world wars, invasions like Iraq, and the ongoing suppression of working people (police, army etc) means to me that the system is built on and maintained by force."

All of these are undertaken by the State and represent the violent powers of the State, which would be accentuated by Marxism, as was apparent in Communist Russia, China, and more recently Zimbabwe (Mugabe is a Marxist).

As a rough rule of thumb, the greater the power held by the State, the greater is its tendency to murder its citizens. Marxism, because it gives full power to the State, is therefore the most evil form of social arrangement imaginable.

On the other hand, capitalism is a social arrangment based on liberty: individual freedom, economic freedom, political freedom, religious freedom, etc. Importantly, a capitalist society is regulated by govt with limited powers.

Sharon Beder must be living on a different planet than the rest of us. She states: "petrol usage has not declined significantly. There has been no mass shift to public transport, no major decline in car sales, no flood of affordable hybrid and electric cars onto the market." In fact, she's wrong on all counts. Petrol usage in the USA - the world's highest per capita user - is in decline. There is a mass shift to public transport in WA and Victoria from recent newspaper reports, one of them (sorry, I can't remember which one) stating a 50% increase in public transport passengers in the last 6 months. And there is a flood of diesel and small petrol engine cars on the Australian market at affordable prices, compared to the seriously expensive and not very affordable hybrid cars that are more fashion statements than practical answers to high fossil fuel prices.
And there have been huge reductions in large vehicle, especially petrol 4WD vehicle sales in Australia, with GM in the USA closing 4 SUV plants and laying of 10,000 employees.
Adam Smith's invisible hand is at work and will become even more obvious (and effective) as liquid fossil fuel supplies shrink and prices go higher.