YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → O QUE NINGUÉM ENTENDE SOBRE A QUESTÃO AMBIENTAL | EP #285

O QUE NINGUÉM ENTENDE SOBRE A QUESTÃO AMBIENTAL | EP #285 — Transcript

by Orientação Marxista - Gustavo Machado · 4,580 words · 727 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Hello, everyone. Gustavo Machado,
0:01Orientação Marxista channel. Many
0:05people ask here on the channel,
0:06especially regarding the materials
0:08involving the ERTs candidacy that was
0:11presented, showing, for example, how
0:13Brazil could increase its GDP by 70%,
0:15reducing working hours, employing the
0:17number of people available to work in
0:19Brazil, and so on. People ask, but
0:22Gustavo, doesn't increasing Brazil's
0:25GDP mean increasing the environmental
0:27damage caused by man, the most diverse
0:30forms of environmental damage? Doesn't
0:32it mean raising the environmental
0:34problem from the level it is at to an
0:36even greater stage? Wouldn't the
0:39solution to the problem be a policy, a
0:42degrowth line, reducing the amount of
0:44wealth produced, or in Marxist jargon,
0:47some go as far as to say the absurdity
0:50of making the productive forces regress
0:53—my friends, no, no, and no. Not even
0:57once, okay? People have an enormous
1:01difficulty understanding what wealth
1:03production is in any social form. In
1:07truth, the environmental problem can
1:09only be solved by increasing human
1:11capacity to produce wealth, and wealth
1:13production itself, by tens or hundreds
1:15of times. You will understand this in
1:18this video. I confess to you that I
1:28remember being shocked, mainly because
1:30it came from certain groups that were
1:32supposedly, if not Marxist, at least
1:34very guided by Marx. An idea that goes
1:37by various names, most in English,
1:39right? Some call it degrowth, uh,
1:42degrowth ecosocialism, uh, about the
1:45need to have a reversal in
1:47technological development, my God, so
1:50that we can solve the environmental
1:53problem. And usually, these views stem
1:57from a lot of confusion, and one very
2:00basic one is more or less the following
2:03correlation. Increase in wealth
2:06production means increase in
2:08environmental damage. That is
2:11absolutely false, okay? Uh, and based
2:15then on this falsehood that I will
2:17discuss in a moment, a neo-Malthusian
2:19idea even emerged, right? And Malthus,
2:22I’ve already done a checklist of
2:24economists here. You can see there what
2:27I think of this figure called Malthus,
2:30who didn't even invent that, uh, with
2:32this neo-Malthusian idea, right, that
2:35we only solve the environmental problem
2:38, uh, by even reversing technological
2:40development and, in the broader sense
2:43of the term, the productive forces.
2:47This is absolutely false. Absolutely
2:50false. One of the big points, okay?
2:54It's not the main one, but one of the
2:56major centers of Marx's theory of value
2:58, which is a theory about capitalism
3:00that reveals much about the production
3:03of wealth in capitalism and even in
3:05other social forms where this value
3:07form disappears, is that wealth is not
3:09the amount of things extracted from
3:11nature. Wealth is the amount of effort,
3:16the amount of labor, of complexity that
3:19you deposit onto things that are
3:21extracted from nature. You will
3:25understand this clearly, but first I
3:27had to clear the path, I have to clear
3:29the field regarding something, another
3:33bizarre confusion that the
3:35environmentalist movement usually falls
3:37into. And it's not because I
3:39underestimate the environmental issue,
3:41no. On the contrary, as you will see in
3:43this video, it is extremely important.
3:45I won't even dwell on that here. For
3:47example, the problem of climate change
3:49caused by, above all, the emission of
3:51fossil fuels, but not only that. Uh,
3:55today, whoever doubts this, I'm sorry,
3:58is crazy, right? Get better informed,
4:00get better informed. The data today, if
4:02this could be seen as a hypothesis
4:05decades ago, now there is no doubt.
4:07None regarding this topic, but there is
4:09a primary confusion I wanted to dispel
4:11here on the channel. The confusion is
4:14the idea that there is clean energy and
4:19energy that isn't clean, dirty energy.
4:22My friends, you won't understand
4:23anything happening in the world if you
4:25don't understand the following: clean
4:26energy does not exist. It doesn't exist
4:29and it never will. Everything man does,
4:32not just energy production, is an
4:34intervention in nature, our very
4:36existence as a natural being living in
4:38nature. Everything we consume is taken
4:41from nature, you know? Everything,
4:43really, okay? Uh, just so you
4:48understand the strength of this, I
4:50remember a colleague a long time ago
4:52who stayed here at my house for a while
4:54and there was one night I had a little
4:56trouble sleeping. Usually that doesn't
4:59happen, but that night I did. Then he
5:02came to me with some pills like this, I
5:04know what he meant, folks! He said, "No
5:06, man, I take this here to help me
5:08sleep. You can take it without worry,
5:10because this here is 100%natural. This
5:12here is natural." I just looked at him,
5:15of course I didn't want to be rude, I
5:16didn't say anything, but I thought,
5:18seriously, do these pills grow on trees
5:20, do these little pill blister packs
5:22grow on trees? Uh, what do you mean the
5:25pill is 100%natural? Of course, in a
5:27certain sense, everything we consume is
5:29extracted from nature, including any
5:31medicine, right, which are products
5:33extracted from nature to reach a
5:35certain conformation. So, in that sense
5:37, everything is natural. Saying that
5:39something is natural makes no sense at
5:41all, right? If it is in the sense that
5:43it is extracted directly from nature
5:45without having gone through specific
5:46chemical or industrial processes, then
5:48it couldn't be a pill, okay? There is
5:50no other way out. My bad. The most you
5:53could say is: "No, the substances in
5:55there, they don't have major side
5:57effects, right?" They are substances
6:01that are present in certain things we
6:03consume and that are extracted directly
6:05from nature, and so on. So look, clean
6:09energy does not exist; everything has
6:11an impact. The issue of our
6:14intervention in nature is knowing what
6:16are the smallest impacts in the short
6:18and long term of the activities we are
6:20going to do, okay? And that answer is
6:23not always easy, nor do I intend to
6:25address this topic here, okay? Uh, but
6:28that is the question, okay? I'll give
6:31you an example of the complexity of the
6:33issue. So, many people say: "No, look,
6:36uh, the best way for people to survive,
6:38besides consuming industrialized
6:40products, would be to live in
6:41self-sustainable communities, right,
6:43and so on." That's fine for those who
6:47want to live in those communities. Who
6:49am I to say what people should do or
6:50where people should live or not? It can
6:52be a life choice, okay? Now, imagine
6:55taking the entire world population
6:57today, 8 billion people, everyone in a
7:00self-sustainable community, right,
7:02without industrialized production. Do
7:05the math on the space needed for that
7:07and the feasibility, because on most
7:09land it's not even possible to do
7:10absolutely anything. Actually, uh,
7:14capitalism develops human capacity, uh,
7:17but at the same time that it develops
7:19human capacity, it completely perverts
7:22the use of that capacity. But being
7:26able to produce on a large scale is one
7:28of the great gains of human society,
7:30including to improve the impacts of our
7:32existence, okay? Including to improve
7:35the impacts of our existence. You can,
7:37for example, produce, uh, producing
7:40just one thing in a region is not bad,
7:43because you can use the soil, uh,
7:45taking into account what is highly
7:48productive for that soil, including
7:50sometimes vegetation, uh, that
7:53developed in that soil from a
7:55geological point of view, right, from
7:58the history of that plant and all that.
8:01Just to give you an idea: you have no
8:04idea what a revolution happened after
8:07the conquest of the Americas, right? Or
8:10the discovery, depending on your
8:11perspective. The Europeans discovered
8:14and conquered; they discovered it from
8:15their point of view, evidently. Uh, for
8:18example: when the potato became
8:20widespread, which is a highly
8:21productive carbohydrate, carbohydrate
8:23consumption increased, and the average
8:25height of populations in various
8:27regions of the world—Europe, mainly,
8:29which led this process of domination—
8:31was just absurd, you know? You have no
8:35idea how Greece developed when they
8:38were able to start producing almost
8:40exclusively, uh, olives and grapes,
8:45right, for oil and wine, which was
8:48highly productive in Greek lands. Uh,
8:52and with that, and the silver mines
8:54they had there, they could buy wheat
8:55from Egypt without needing to produce
8:57wheat in their own territory, which was
8:59highly unproductive for wheat, but they
9:01had to produce it because no one lives
9:02on just oil and wine, right? Difficult.
9:05Uh, there are lands that are absurdly
9:08suitable for pasture, but where you
9:11can't plant anything, okay? People who
9:14have this easy, uh, vegetarian
9:16discourse, right? This discussion, and
9:18nothing against those who are
9:19vegetarian. The problem is turning that
9:21into an ideology for adjusting global
9:23production. What are you going to plant
9:26in the pampas that cover an enormous
9:28territory in Rio Grande do Sul, Uruguay
9:30, and Argentina, which is practically
9:32infertile for anything else, but where
9:34pasture grows beautifully, right? So,
9:37do you understand? Ah, no, but the
9:39ecological chain, whatever, so I won't
9:41even go into detail about that. There
9:44is no such thing as clean energy or
9:46production; they all have an impact.
9:48The question is choosing which one to
9:50do, and it's not always obvious, even
9:52from an energy standpoint. Ah,
9:53hydroelectric energy is clean energy.
9:57Seriously, of course there are
9:59hydroelectric plants that I’m sure
10:00were a huge success to have been built.
10:03Itaipu, for example, it had an impact
10:05like all of them, but it’s very
10:07productive, it produces a ton of energy
10:09. Uh, the flooded area isn't that huge.
10:13Now take Balbina above Manaus there in
10:15the Amazon for you to see Balbina.
10:18Balbina flooded such a large amount of
10:21the Amazon rainforest. I don't know how
10:23it is today, because I don't follow the
10:26statistics on that case anymore, but
10:29for decades one of the largest CO2
10:31emissions in Brazil was Balbina. All
10:34from the decomposition of the forest's
10:36organic matter, and it's not renewable,
10:38okay? Because what was once a forest
10:41that renewed itself became what? a
10:43continuous flooding of a gigantic
10:45forest territory, where the vegetation
10:48wasn't even removed, right? They could
10:50at least have used the wood, which
10:51could have lasted for decades in other
10:53applications, since they were going to
10:54build the plant. That vegetation is
10:56still decomposing there today, and as
10:58it decomposes, it releases an absurd
11:00amount of CO2, okay? From a region that
11:02for, I don't know, a million years was
11:04a forest. Do you realize it's not just
11:07oil? This is hydroelectric. A very
11:09unproductive hydroelectric plant, it
11:11can't even meet Manaus's needs. Okay?
11:13So much so that in Manaus, they burn a
11:15lot of gas to be able to meet the
11:17energy demand there. So, there are
11:19several plants in Brazil that perhaps
11:21were a mistake to have been built. Like
11:25, I don't know, Sobradinho in Bahia,
11:26which is a gigantic flooded area, very
11:28low energy production, uh, most of the
11:30water, more than half of the water
11:32evaporates and ends up raining in the
11:34Amazon, not even in the Northeast, you
11:36get it? And it caused gigantic
11:38environmental damage to the nearby
11:40communities. Uh, the number of insects
11:42made it unsuitable for any type of
11:44agricultural production that already
11:46existed on a smaller scale, and so on.
11:49So, there is no such thing as clean
11:50energy. So, that's the first aspect. Uh
11:54, the second aspect I wanted to call
11:56your attention to, otherwise this
11:57discussion, it also becomes a complete
12:02and absolute misunderstanding, okay,
12:05folks? Uh, as I've already introduced,
12:10the production of wealth is the amount
12:13of complexity of human labor deposited
12:15in those things. This is not difficult
12:17to understand. If you find, I don't
12:19know, an iPhone, right, which is a tiny
12:22thing like this, oh, it's because of
12:24Apple's monopoly, fine. A part of the
12:26iPhone's price may be due to Apple's
12:28monopoly, but it's not almost all of it
12:29, okay? Maybe the price would be 10%
12:32lower, 20%lower, if it weren't for the
12:34monopoly that Apple has on this
12:36specific type of cell phone, okay? Uh,
12:39that thing is very expensive because
12:42the amount of wealth deposited there is
12:45gigantic in semiconductors, using the
12:47most advanced lithography machines with
12:50very few nanometers. The amount of
12:53matter inside the cell phone, the
12:54plastic part that comes from the oil
12:56sector, from the chemical industry,
12:58from the semiconductor, is a tiny bit
13:01of matter, about this big, look. If you
13:03look at the cost to extract it from
13:05nature, what, I don't know, 2 million
13:07iPhones represent, 20 million iPhones,
13:10it's small. It is expensive because the
13:12amount of labor deposited there is
13:14gigantic. I work with high-level
13:18skilled labor, designing chips,
13:20semiconductors, the specific printing
13:22machines, the technology to print the
13:25chips, the memory, you know? The
13:28machine made in the Netherlands, the
13:30designs made at Apple, in the United
13:32States, semiconductor designs, gates,
13:34millions of logic gates, it's thousands
13:37of workers who spend years designing
13:39this semiconductor, okay? To launch a
13:42model meant to be as efficient as
13:44possible. That is why, man, an iPhone
13:47is expensive, you understand? The
13:51amount of wealth that an iPhone
13:53represents is much greater, much
13:56greater than things that are much more
13:59material, right? A bundle of firewood,
14:03okay? If we didn't have other forms of
14:06energy to provide food and everything
14:08else, imagine collecting firewood. Can
14:11you imagine collecting firewood to feed
14:128 billion people? You would devastate
14:14all the world's forests in a very short
14:17period. So you cut a bundle of firewood
14:19here. Why is a bundle of firewood so
14:21cheap? In my childhood, in the city
14:22where I lived, they still sold a lot of
14:23firewood. Most people still didn't have
14:26gas stoves at home. Uh, it's much more
14:30material, are you understanding? Than
14:33an iPhone. But the iPhone is 100 times
14:35more expensive, because the iPhone is
14:37much more wealth. So, my friends,
14:40observe, no. The idea that we must
14:43revert technology to solve the
14:45environmental problem is madness, it's
14:47a delusion, it's an aberration.
14:50Although it is true that technology,
14:52under capitalism, is used so
14:53irrationally, so shamelessly, aiming
14:56for quick profits, that, yes, it
14:58devastates nature a lot; but the
14:59problem isn't in technological
15:01development; the problem is in the way
15:04this technological development is used.
15:07A society where production isn't
15:09oriented toward consumption, toward our
15:11needs, including environmental
15:13constraints. What is production
15:15oriented toward? Toward quick profit.
15:17Production is oriented by production.
15:19Money is oriented toward more money.
15:21Value is oriented toward more value. Do
15:23you see? I will give some examples to
15:25materialize this, these things here for
15:27you. Uh, there is a lot of fake
15:30discourse being made today, okay? The
15:34growth of renewable energies, including
15:36electric cars, for example, is not for
15:39environmental reasons at all,
15:41unfortunately, okay? Renewable energy
15:44is being used a lot more in Europe
15:46because they don't have other energy
15:49sources, and it’s becoming cheaper
15:51because we’ve managed to develop
15:53things like photovoltaic panels, which
15:56have made solar energy much more
15:58efficient, right? And, well, the
16:01development of battery production,
16:02which has made electric cars and all
16:04that stuff viable. So, for the
16:07Europeans and other parts of the world,
16:09like China, and even here in Brazil,
16:11solar energy is now even cheaper than
16:13oil, you see? But it brings several
16:15other problems, right? Because it only
16:16works when the sun is shining. But
16:19regardless of that, just opening and
16:21closing that parenthesis, can you
16:23imagine replacing most of our transport
16:26with electric transport—solar, wind
16:29—all of which have an environmental
16:31impact; clean energy doesn't really
16:34exist—but with the goal of reducing
16:36CO2 emissions, and slowing down the
16:39climate problem, and even trying to
16:41reverse it using technology in the
16:43future. Do you think we are going to do
16:47this through technological regression,
16:50by reducing wealth production? Do you
16:53think that if we were to create, for
16:55example, a vast metro and rail system
16:57in Brazil for urban and intercity
16:59environments to move goods with
17:01high-speed trains, that this would
17:02produce more or less wealth? It would
17:05produce much more wealth, but with less
17:07"stuff," you see? Because a metro and
17:10rail system, a high-speed train
17:12connecting 500 or 1,000 km, allowing
17:14for transport, requires much less
17:17extraction from nature than what would
17:19otherwise be necessary. Compared to how
17:24many tens or hundreds of thousands of
17:27trucks you would have to build over
17:29decades or centuries, burning fuel one
17:32by one to transport every little thing
17:34you consume, do you see? Than putting
17:39it into something that will much more
17:41efficiently transport much larger
17:43quantities of goods, even more cheaply
17:46over time, even though it’s much more
17:48expensive to build. In other words, a
17:51high-speed train is expensive and will
17:53cause local damage, okay? Of course it
17:55does; where the tracks pass, all of
17:56that has to be thought out—everything
17:58causes some damage, you see? So you
18:01will invest much more wealth to do that
18:03than would be necessary to build
18:05another 50 million cars. But with 50
18:08million cars, you will extract much
18:10more iron ore, many more petroleum
18:12derivatives for plastic, etc. And above
18:15all, much more fuel. Do you understand
18:17the point? Do you understand? The point
18:20is not to reduce wealth production, but
18:24if we want to get rid of fossil fuels,
18:27slow them down and move away from them,
18:30there will have to be colossal,
18:33gigantic investments in new energy
18:36sources and in energy storage, right?
18:40Uh, or do you think, oh, solar energy,
18:42great, but solar energy only works in
18:44some places in the world. There are
18:47places where, uh, you could do solar
18:49energy in Norway, you could, but it’s
18:51very unproductive. There’s no sun, it
18:54goes 6 months of the year, 4 months of
18:56the year, which is just night, and the
18:57other months the sun is super weak
18:59because the light arrives at such a
19:01tilt since it’s at the extreme of the
19:03Earth. What are you going to do?
19:05Devastate the Amazon rainforest to put
19:07up solar panels? So, there are places
19:10where solar energy is great, uh, more
19:12arid lands, deserts, and so on, but it
19:14has an impact too, okay? You’ll have
19:16to: the panels will eventually have to
19:18be discarded. When their lifespan ends,
19:20we have to learn how to recycle them.
19:22We need to develop strong new energy
19:25sources, fusion, make fission more, uh,
19:28productive, and all that means
19:30developing technology much more and
19:32producing much more wealth, okay? Oh,
19:39Gustavo, but look, data centers use an
19:41enormous amount of water, everything
19:43uses resources, guys. The point is for
19:46us to know where to put them and how to
19:48set them up, right? The problem with
19:50data centers in Brazil also involves
19:51several other things. Capitalism wants
19:53to spend just to spend, wants to
19:55consume just to consume. So things are
19:58made without taking into account
20:00durability, the quality of the product,
20:02made so that it is replaced as quickly
20:04as possible. That means discarding the
20:06previous one. There are many countries
20:08in the world where people have learned
20:10to discard appliances every year and
20:11buy new ones, even with everything
20:13working perfectly well. And the new
20:14ones aren't necessarily much better
20:16than the previous ones. There is no
20:19more appropriate discussion to place
20:21the need for socialism—although that
20:23alone isn't enough, obviously, because
20:25there has to be a way and a method to
20:28do it—than the environmental issue. A
20:30society that is not focused on quantity
20:36alone, but on the quality and
20:37durability of products, where
20:39replacement is done only when there are
20:40technological developments that truly
20:42justify the replacement, okay? Uh, only
20:47in a socialist society can we choose to
20:49spend more on something that is less
20:52harmful. In capitalism now, the
20:54electric car emerged and the energies,
20:56because it spends because it became
20:57more efficient, otherwise it wouldn't
20:58have emerged. A society where we
21:02articulate production and consumption
21:04is the only one where we can choose a
21:07resource that is more expensive than
21:09another for society and, consequently,
21:12for individuals, but which causes less
21:14damage. And choosing to spend more is
21:18producing more wealth, it is not
21:19producing less, no. Do you understand
21:23that? Well, it’s not just the waste
21:26that capitalism produces, because here,
21:28since there is no planning between
21:29production and consumption, it is the
21:31market that regulates through trial and
21:33error. The stupidest method that has
21:35ever existed, as I have said several
21:37times. So, for example, in capitalism,
21:40it is more interesting that everyone
21:42has their individual car, or at least
21:4330%of the population, those who can
21:45afford it because capitalism doesn't
21:47create conditions for everyone to have
21:49one, than for you to have a decent
21:50subway and rail system and cars
21:52available for personal use when you
21:53need them. So, let those who want to
21:56buy a car spend their income because
21:58they are passionate about cars, okay?
22:00It can happen, you spend your income on
22:02whatever you want. But if you have a
22:04car that you can, you know, use your
22:07resource to utilize a top-tier car when
22:09you need it within a decent subway and
22:12rail system, probably 2%of the
22:14population that has a car today would
22:17want to own one, because you have
22:19access to a car when you need it, much
22:21better than what you could afford
22:24individually, and you do all your daily
22:26commuting to work, trips A, B, C, and D
22:29on a decent, fast, comfortable subway
22:32and rail system, which is much more
22:34wealth to create, but has much less
22:37environmental impact. So, production of
22:39wealth is not production of things. In
22:41the socialist system, besides everyone
22:44having their own washing machine at
22:46home, you can create public laundry
22:49systems by region, by neighborhood,
22:51freeing people from a good dose of
22:54domestic work, easily accessible, with
22:56quality, and in this case, you lower
22:59costs, right? In this case, you do
23:02reduce things, but you don't reduce the
23:03productive force, the human capacity to
23:05do. It is not necessary to have a
23:08washing machine in every house, because
23:10in a place with 1,000 houses, you can
23:13have 50 washing machines that meet
23:15everyone's demand in a public laundry,
23:17right? In a socialist society, you can
23:21shift production surpluses, that which
23:24is not used for reproduction and our
23:26immediate consumption, so that we can
23:29advance in the areas that are most
23:31necessary and advance to avoid greater
23:34environmental impacts, as in the case
23:36of fossil fuels, right? Uh, so there is
23:40no argument that highlights the need
23:43for socialism more than the
23:46environmental issue. Not because it’s
23:48no longer necessary to develop
23:50productive forces, no, because
23:51socialism develops productive forces
23:53more than any other form of society.
23:55And our capacity to produce wealth,
23:58because now people can be rewarded for
24:01the achievements they've made, for the
24:04developments they've created.
24:06Capitalism is the opposite, my friend.
24:08The company is the one that profits.
24:09The company that patents, that holds
24:11the patent, not the worker who
24:13developed it. That person, if they
24:14don't keep making new things, they get
24:15fired. It is an anti-meritocratic
24:18society, contrary to the propaganda
24:21that is spread, okay? Uh, under
24:24capitalism, things are indeed made for
24:27quick and immediate consumption and not
24:29for their long-term durability, which
24:32doesn't mean producing less wealth, but
24:34more wealth with fewer things, adding
24:37more human labor, more complexity. Do
24:41you see capitalism? You cannot opt for
24:43what has a higher cost. Now, we can opt
24:47for what has a higher cost, do you see?
24:50So, if a data center is built
24:51rationally, which one do you think has
24:53a higher environmental cost? If the
24:55data center is powered by renewable
24:57energy in systems, in places where
25:00there is plenty of water available to
25:02be used for this purpose, locating them
25:05strategically in places where water can
25:07be used because it is within the
25:09natural cycle that replenishes itself,
25:12uh, without the energy coming from
25:14fossil fuels. We can even use nuclear
25:17fission plants in a less restrictive
25:19way, because there is no longer the
25:21risk of global capitalist disputes and
25:24the plant being bombed. Or do you think
25:28it’s cheaper, that it’s better for
25:30us to go back to producing millions and
25:33millions and millions and millions and
25:35millions of tons of paper, okay?
25:38Devastating giant parts of the
25:40ecosystem to produce eucalyptus, to
25:43extract cellulose, and turn it all back
25:45into paper. Do you think that’s
25:48cheaper? Does this mean that paper will
25:50disappear? No, but it can be restricted
25:53, do you understand? Uh, so that’s it
25:57. I really wanted to make this video, I
26:00took advantage of this moment here,
26:02it’s not such a long video, to share
26:04these reflections with you. First,
26:06clean energy and clean production do
26:08not exist. Every activity of ours
26:10requires intervention in nature. To
26:13solve the environmental problem, we
26:15don't need a technological reversal. We
26:19need to accelerate our technological
26:22capacity. But yes, under capitalism,
26:24technological capacity is directed
26:26without taking into account natural
26:29conditions and our needs. It is used
26:31aiming for quick profit and almost
26:32never coincides with both things. It
26:34turns against us individually, using
26:37technology to reduce jobs, to reduce
26:39wages. And natural conditions are
26:41exhausted in a completely irrational
26:44way. Socialism is the only society
26:46where production and consumption can be
26:48consciously planned, not left for the
26:50market to solve by trial and error. We
26:53are going to produce not less wealth,
26:56but much more, but wealth rationally
26:59decided, defining things by their
27:01quality, durability, not by their
27:04quantity, by quick profit, producing
27:07things without the enormous waste that
27:10the market always produces by
27:12allocating wealth through trial and
27:15error. Now we allocate in a planned
27:18manner, defining the metrics rationally
27:21. And here we can define, to channel
27:23the surplus labor of society, not into
27:26public debt bonds, not into all this
27:28mess that exists today, into stocks,
27:30securities, the financial market. No,
27:32but to the sectors that most need to
27:35develop so that we can, and so we can
27:40have the resources we need to survive
27:42and survive well, which is always an
27:44intervention in nature, but with the
27:45lowest possible impacts, in a totally
27:47calculated way. For example, allocating
27:51everything to long-term infrastructure
27:54works, to research and development in
27:56energies with high potential and lower
27:59impact, and so on, okay? So there is a
28:03better discussion to frame the question
28:05of socialism. This has nothing to do
28:08with degrowth, with reducing productive
28:10forces, with this so-called degrowth
28:12ecosocialism, this cheap
28:14neo-Malthusianism, okay? The so-called
28:18reduction of material property, of
28:20material production, who knows what
28:22that means, because all production is
28:24material, but rather, we can produce
28:26more, much more wealth with the
28:28smallest amount of things extracted
28:30from nature. Because wealth is not
28:33measured by the quantity of things, it
28:35is measured by what we deposit into
28:37those things. That's it. Send this
28:41video whenever you see an
28:43environmentalist with cheap rhetoric,
28:45okay? A degrowth advocate who today
28:47infests left-wing groups, okay? It
28:50infests left-wing groups and ends up
28:52paving the way for the right. This is a
28:54path where the left could crush
28:56right-wing groups of all kinds,
28:58especially socialists and Marxists, and
29:00it ends up being a victim of these
29:02discussions coming from that garbage
29:05like WWF, Greenpeace, that garbage that
29:07is good for absolutely nothing. All
29:09right? Best regards.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of O QUE NINGUÉM ENTENDE SOBRE A QUESTÃO AMBIENTAL | EP #285 by Orientação Marxista - Gustavo Machado, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 4,580 words across 727 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.