Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

The Watermelon Summit

An "environmentalist" is a totalitarian socialist whose real objective is to revive socialism and economic central planning under the subterfuge of "saving the planet" from capitalism. He is "green" on the outside, but red on the inside, and is hence appropriately labeled a "watermelon."

A conservationist, by contrast, is someone who is actually interested in solving environmental and ecological problems and protecting wildlife and its habitat. He does not propose having government force a separation of man and nature by nationalizing land and other resources, confiscating private property, prohibiting the raising of certain types of animals, regulating human food intake, etc. He is not a socialist ideologue who is hell bent on destroying capitalism. He does not publicly wish that a "new virus" will come along and kill millions, as the founder of "Earth First" once did. More often than not, he seeks ways to use the institutions of capitalism to solve environmental problems. There is even a new name for such a person: enviropreneur. Or he may call himself a "free-market environmentalist" who understands how property rights, common law, and markets can solve many environmental problems, as indeed they have.

In light of the distinction between an environmentalist and a conservationist, "Watermelons of the World Unite!" should be the theme of the upcoming "Earth Summit" in Rio that begins on June 19. The meeting will be devoted to endless conniving about how to go about creating a centrally planned world economy (under the auspices of United Nations bureaucrats) in the name of the latest euphemism for socialist central planning, "sustainable development." This doesn’t mean that the Watermelons of the World will be successful; only that they are as numerous as flies on a herd of cattle, and will never give up on their pipe dream of a centrally planned, socialist world economy, no matter how much of a nightmare socialism has been for millions of people all around the world.

The watermelon strategy was announced and encouraged by one of the gray eminences of academic socialism, the late economist Robert Heilbroner, in a September 10, 1990 essay in The New Yorker entitled "After Communism." Written in the midst of the worldwide collapse of socialism, and the realization that socialist governments during the twentieth century had murdered more than 100 million of their own people as part of the "price" of establishing their "socialist paradise," Heilbroner’s essay was a huge mea culpa (See Death by Government by Rudolph Rummel). He even wrote the words, "Mises was right," about the inherent failures of socialism, referring to the writings of Ludwig von Mises in the 1920s and 1930s that explained in great detail why socialism could never work as an economic system (See his book, Socialism).

After admitting that he had been dead wrong for the previous half century during which he devoted his academic career to promoting socialism in America (the veiled purpose of his The Worldly Philosophers, that made him a millionaire), Heilbroner sadly bemoaned that "I am not very sanguine about the prospect that socialism will continue as an important form of economic organization . . ." While much of the rest of the world was wildly celebrating the demise of this diabolically evil institution, Heilbroner was crying in his soup over it.

Rather than facing the reality of the inherent evil of all forms of socialism, Heilbroner intoned that "the collapse of the planned economies has forced us to rethink the meaning of socialism." (Writing in The New Yorker, Heilbroner naturally assumed that all of "us" readers were socialist ideologues like himself). After all, he continued, "socialism is a general description of a society in which we would like our grandchildren to live." But "what, then, is left" of "the honorable title of socialism," asked Heilbroner.

The man was obviously depressed and dejected that history had proven his academic career to have been a complete fraud, but he was not about to admit that fact, or to give up on perpetrating the same fraud that he had perpetrated for at least the previous half century. A new subterfuge must be invented, he said, that will fool or lull the public into acquiescing in adopting socialism. This might take a while, he said, and if "we" are successful, "our great grandchildren or great-great grandchildren may be prepared to acquiesce in social arrangements that our children or grandchildren would not."

Heilbroner’s suggested subterfuge was explained by him as follows: "There is, however, another way of looking at . . . socialism. It is to conceive of it . . . as the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with . . . the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment." "We" socialists must all become watermelons, in other words. If enough members of the public can be hoodwinked with this subterfuge, then "capitalism must be monitored, regulated, and contained to such a degree that it would be difficult to call the final social order capitalism." That is exactly what will be discussed at the upcoming "Earth Summit" in Rio.

What a load of ideological neo-conservative bullocks.... did you down load that directly from the mad hatters Tea Party website...

Ah.. of course... I should have known from your previous posts...



Does he still reckon the southern states of the US should succeed???

What a load of spam. Tempted to delete this thread

Hmmm, yep... Really poor propaganda, please think twice before posting crap like this Superveg... And very tempted just to delete, because it serves no real purpose.

No point... nobody's going to read it, not in its entirety anyway!... no offence intended SV, but it's waaaay too long and has lots of big words.

I got halfway through the second paragraph and it turned into blah, blah, blah!... like when your year 9 math teacher was explaining how you would use algebra in your everyday life!

Can we have it in bullet points next time please?...

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but my attention span isn't what it used to... hey isn't the footy on?

Squirrel...... Ha ha ha. Yeah I stopped reading half way through.

*sigh*

Claptrap

hmmm... I posted that hoping those interested might be interested in a somewhat intellectual conversation about the article.

It is all pretty much correct, anyone who followed up what was referenced would agree (if anyone cared).
Austrian Economics actually explains what is going on in the economy, unlike what you all hear about on TV (keynsian economics).

However due to popular (un)demand, feel free to delete the thread if you want. I posted it in General Banter "A place to discuss anything to do with life." because it seemed most appropriate.
I don't really mind if everyone except one other person didn't like the post, its that one person to whom it was intended.

EB the purpose was to initiate intellectual thought and question the topics covered. Important things IMO.

And Rupe its not neo-conservative at all. The author is a libertarian and Austrian Economist, BIG difference.

I stopped after the first paragraph.
But this is what I have been taught in my bachelor of commerce.

Economics theory tells us that big corporations will eventually work towards the greater good. Not rape and pillage the earth forever like Marxism teaches.

The theory is quite simple.

Right now being environmentalist and looking green is the "in thing".
So a company can currently charge a premium if they can supply a product that is greener than their competition. (Organic produce is an excellent example of this)
Being a high demand and low supply means price is shifted higher as it isnt a perfectly competitive market.
Eventually other companies follow suit, because they are either getting left behind and sales are dropping, or they are looking at the cash cow.
This increases supply to meet demand, so the price drops.
The market reaches an equilibrium and the price reduces down to pretty comparable levels to the old unsustainable produce.
Now there is no advantage to a company using unsustainable methods to supply the product as it costs the same as the sustainable method, but the public wont want to buy your product.

So capitalism actually helps the environment.

Now I admit it, I am a capitalist. I am a greeny at heart, but honestly, that is what I am.
However if you stop and think about it, it kinda makes sense.

Thats my opinion.
I have probably been brainwashed by my commerce degree in peoples eyes, but to me it works.

Andrew

it's impossible to "discuss" or "debate" when the originators of this kind of bunk don't believe in science or facts, just forwarding rubish to try to convince the masses that they know best..

how can you call that an "intellectual" statement?

Not forever but long enough to kill off many many many... species, and to potentially make living hard for our own too. "Eventually" may be too late. If externalities like carbon pollution are never put in the system then the theory may kick in late.

If corporations are people then they mesh easily with politics, sometimes you have dictatorships, oligarchies, warlords, anarchy, not just nice economic idealism/utopianism but messy political stuff instead.



I'll repeat my addage here: "We're all advocates for the ideas we've been infected with." Just to realize this like you have is very helpful when having intercourse with other people.

You'd probably have to provide me with your definition of "libertarian" before I could agree Superveg...

The libertarian movement worldwide... has been highjacked by the neo-conservatives... and bears no more ressemblence to "libertarian" ideas... that the current Liberal Party does to "Liberal" values.... or the Labour Party does to "labour" values...

And frankly from what I read about the guy... he's nowhere near a "libertarian"... but definitely very similar to a neo-con.... and sprouting the modern neo-con war cry... of "those bloody socialist"... who seem to be everywhere.... and under every bed thses days...

If he walks like a duck... quacks like a duck... chances are he's at least a cardboard cutout neo-conservative...

I think my view of economics might be slightly different than the majority of other members of the forum.