Even “green” energy producers still need to make profit. Take electricity - we can elect to pay extra for “green” electricity which is all well and good, but what if you can’t afford it, and even if you can, why should you have to? To my way of thinking, if we as a society want more people to use green energy then it should cost less than ordinary energy, or residential end users should be subsidised. The argument is always that “someone has to pay for it” (i.e. the infrastructure etc) and we should all “do our bit”. Well why doesn’t the “someone” who makes the profit from selling us the energy pay for it out of their profits? The answer is that nothing is to get in the way of profits, they wouldn’t “do their bit” it if not to make profit, and we have no say in it. Yet if we didn’t have to pay the profit component at all – i.e. we cut out the middle man and ran it ourselves, which workers already do anyway – we could make the best and most cost effective decisions for humans and the environment.

Of course there is also the national/international problem. We can’t just come up with “solutions” in our country to solve “our” problems because we are environmentally and economically dependent/interdependent on the rest of the world.

“The-very-system-we-have-could-work,-if-we-could-just-get-the-right-motives-in-place.-And-it-seems-to-me-that-the-right-motives-will-come….after-we-realise-the-consequences-of-being-ruled-by-the-wrong-motives.-In-other-words;-after-we-face-the-social-and-environmental-catastrophe-caused-by-the-profit-motive-and-expansionist-policies.”

You are right that we are heading for a social and environmental catastrophe caused by the “profit motive”, but there is nothing that can be done about it within the capitalist system that will comprehensively solve the problems we face. What you call the “right motives” are socialist motives i.e. human social needs. Profit motives of a relatively few people in the world are in fundamental opposition to social needs of the majority. To assert that social needs are more important than profit, you effectively assert that no-one has the right to exploit the social need of others for profit.

So, for example, everyone has a need for a roof over their head – it is a social need. Therefore, no-one has the right to exploit a person’s need for housing to make profit - ever. The same with medicine, education, essential services, food etc. This means that profit cannot be derived from such things.

To decide that environmental-needs take precedence over profit, then you determine that the environment cannot be exploited for profit - ever.

There are no half measures or “balance” because if you allow a few people to profit from social needs, or to exploit the environment for profit, then in reality profit takes precedence.

It is impossible for social-needs to predominate in a system where the profit-motive rules - the right to profit currently pervades every aspect of our lives. The profit-system and all of its laws and mechanisms to protect private-property and exploitation must be dismantled completely. Those who benefit from the profit-system are not going to give it up easily, which is why an international-socialist-revolution is required – i.e. it must be taken from them.

Political, social and economic upheavals are inevitable in the coming period and masses of ordinary people will be drawn in, radicalised, and forced to intervene, particularly against the inevitable militarism which will be engaged in by the various “great” powers to secure their piece of the pie as in the two world-wars. The only social force which has the power to stop it is the international-working-class whose interests are irreconcilably opposed to war and destruction of social-conditions Whether the result is the “catastrophe” you speak of will depend on what program, principles and perspective the radicalised masses adopt. Marxists consider that the only solution is for workers internationally to unite to build a mass-party which fights for social needs against the profit-system.

If the social and environmental problems we face, including war, are a product of the capitalist-system, then they cannot be solved except through the abolition of capitalism. A movement against these things must be a movement against capitalism.

tao: I'm actually just interested in taking the piss out of idealists more than anything because I realise that anything I say to you will be met by great slabs of regurgitated Marx.

I could roll out all the predictable anti-Marxist arguments, so you could then roll out all the predictable Marxist counter arguments, and so on and so forth. I'll see your class consciousness and raise you a trickle down economics and off we go.

The trouble is that, as TRTL keeps pointing out, no one has actually pointed out the practicalities of this. It's all very well for you to talk about how the revolution will come one day, but Marxists have been saying that for how long now, and through how many major wars/economic downturns/environmental crises/Bert Newton television series? It's like some form of Millenarianism. "No, wait, it will definitely happen in 1999. Okay, 2000. No, 2005. Hang on, no really, this time it's definitely going to happen in 2010."

If you wonder why no one takes Marxists seriously these days, it's because they're on a par with all those people who stocked up on bottled water because they were convinced Y2K was going to mean we'd all be relearning how to use flint axes. Maybe ninety, fifty, perhaps even twenty, years ago people actually took Marxism seriously, but now, it's all a bit of a giggle really.

(Actually, I think everyone knew it was well and truly a failed ideology by 1987, there was just a lot of arms spending at stake. Incidentally, I urge you to look up on YouTube the interview with Frank Zappa where he talks about how it was his idea to bring down the Berlin Wall, and the telephone conversations he had with Soviet officials, and how he got made a special cultural attache by the CzechoSlovak government. Actually, I urge you to look up any interview with that man -- they're all hilarious -- there's also a really good one where he talks to David Letterman about a Broadway musical he's written.)

Shorbe,

No Marxist worth their salt would ever say that a socialist revolution was "inevitable". However, if a revolution doesn't occur humanity will be reduced to barbarism.

To get a picture of what that will be like, take a look at Iraq. An agressive invasion in the interests of US capitalism has led to bloody civil war and hundreds of thousands of deaths - barbarism.

Apostles communist? John Ball,Thomas Munzer,Jan Bockelson, the Taborites, the Anabaptists, would certainly agree , All humans created equal under god is certainly animal farm stuff. The meek shall inherit the earth , freedom is found in toil for the lord , to turn the trees to ashes, drain the bogs and share equally the wealth. Munzer's call to punish the royalty and merchants for their wickedness. Christianity is the father and mother of communism, the concept of the lay preacher stems directly from early protestant communist communities. The first half of 20th century Europe was a product of the ancient struggle between its communist protestant history and its fascist Catholic history. The New Testament does reflect the communist radicalism of Jesus against the Fascist state of Rome. In the story of Jesus the communist triumphs as immortal unable to be extinguished by the fascist state. In the real world fascism crushed Jesus and his communism by taking the symbology on board and regulating Christianity as if it were an army of fascism. The only escape for Christianity was the enlightenment so today most churches are prosperity cults concerned with worldly wealth , with its communist past manifesting in guilt for exploiting others to gain wealth or its fascist past manifesting in trying to influence secular laws based on religious ideology or "values or morality" as such ideologies are (often wrongly) claimed to be.

tao: Not to mention invasions of a whole bunch of eastern European countries, the Korean peninsula, Tibet, Nepal, parts of south-east Asia, and of course, Afghanistan, to name but a few by Communist forces. I'm sure the average Tibetan is glad of all this, and I'm sure the average Czech or Pole is missing the hell out of Marxism. In fact, so much so that they're probably buying a pair of Nike sneakers to mourn the event.

I guess it's okay when Marxists rape and pillage against non-conformers to achieve their ends though, because it's all for the "good of the people". It's kind of like screwing for virginity really, isn't it?

I know what you're going to say though, "but they're not real Communists". To that, I'll reply, but real capitalists don't believe in the notion of "the state" or "invasions". Now let's get out of theoretical caricatures and into the real world.