In defense of socialism?

This interview with Naomi Klein over at Solutions is great food for thought. Below are some of her main points, which are all rational and interesting:

1. The numbers of people who "believe in" climate change in the US are actually falling. These numbers are correlated with ideology (which isn't surprising) but the way she describes the groupings might be. What we traditionally think of as "left" leaning people, she calls communitarian - those who believe we live together and share resources on a global scale, and who are upset by disparities and disadvantaged populations. These people obviously believe in climate change. Those on the "right" hold a more individualistic view or hierarchical view will tend to not believe in climate change. She essentially boils the debate down to an ideological one, with climate change serving as a proxy for the battle between two competing ways of looking at human, nation-state, and global relations.

This is a slightly different way of looking at it, not entirely new, but an intriguing perspective that can change a LOT of how we approach the issue.

2. The market will never solve the problem. She suggests that contrary to what we've been led to believe by our high-profile environmental groups, markets will never be able to undertake everything that needs to be done to really combat climate change.

Although she doesn't out and out say this, I think this is because markets are inherently individualistic. Cap and trade is great, but what we need is interventions to move our systems away from what they look like now - mass-transit infrastructure, changes in our perspectives on housing, and I would add, food production, manufacturing, and industrial design to just name a few.

3. "Who is demanding growth year after year?"

I've begun to really incorporate this line of logic into my thinking and debates in the past few years, as I think this is one of the key structural issues with our current system. As long as we demand unreasonable, indefinite growth, we're going to continue making short-term, damaging decisions. While I agree that corporations are not people, I think they generally make decisions like people do - in common sense and practical ways. Given their circumstances, they will undertake a set of choices and behaviors where long-term consequences are never even factored into the process. This must change.

A case in point - my parents' microwave recently broke - or at least started sounding like it was going to. When I called to find out if it was possible to fix it, they quoted prices to me that made it nearly impossible for a rational person to choose to repair over new. The cost to have someone come out to LOOK at the thing would be about 50% of a new microwave, and there was no guarantees on how much parts and labor would then cost, much less any guarantee that the microwave would then last much longer anyway. So, a normal person would just replace the microwave, despite the fact that it likely needs just one small part changed. Even worse, the microwave is a "hood" version, which combines microwave plus exhaust system for the stove. Thus, I'm forced to throw out a LOT of good stuff because of one small problem that they've priced unreasonably. Further, the company has no responsibility, incentive, or interest in taking the existing piece back and making use of it's component parts. So we essentially have to landfill it? How is this at all rational?

For those who will point out other disposal options that require ME to do hours of homework and then drive 20 miles to take care of it, I say - really? In our convenience-oriented society, can we really expect most regular folks to do this? This is where EPR (extended producer responsibility) really needs to happen, but in our country that's considered more regulation, stifling competition, and anti-jobs/anti-growth. See the problem?

Ms. Klein's answer is to push for a wholly changed system, utilizing the recent groundswell movements and popular demonstration to place pressure on current power structures. It's a very interesting message and one that I think I can get behind. Read the interview here, then tell me what you think!