We have the capacity to create biodiesel and methane from sources that fully integrate into the carbon cycle.
Also we really shouldn’t be putting much stock into resource-based determinism. Coal was not a sine qua non for successful revolutions in Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, or Cuba.
We have the capacity to do that now, with our current level of technology. The question is if we could have reached the capacity to do these things without first burning coal; a hypothetical world where we have to somehow escape from feudalism without coal.
And don’t dismiss steel. We’re only just now figuring out how to eliminate coal from the process, making steel just from charcoal using iron-age technology is technically doable but so resource intensive and the resulting quality of steel so low that it might never have been able to fuel industrialization. This then limits the extent of mechanization and firearms and railroads etc etc
It’s harder than you’re giving credit. Revolutionaries in the 1900s didn’t have to overthrow feudalism using guns made from steel forged with charcoal and milled on machines turned by water wheels. We really might have needed coal to get this far.
The question is if we could have reached the capacity to do these things without first burning coal; a hypothetical world where we have to somehow escape from feudalism without coal.
This is two different questions packed into one. The first is “can you have a socialist economy without at least fossil fuels” and the second is “can you resist the imperial armies without at least fossil fuels”.
I would say the answer to both of these questions is the null hypothesis of ‘yes’, and that there is an extraordinary burden of proof on anyone who claims the contrary, because it is an extraordinary claim. It is rather close to the post hoc ergo propter hoc claim that capitalist apologists make that “all modern technology was made by capitalism”. I hope you aren’t saying that; we really have to be careful about falling into the trap of determinism.
The gun only surpassed the crossbow in practicality and lethality in the late 19th century. Before that, its main advantage was in awe and prestige, and they were bought by armies to give the appearance that they had the ability to fight on the same level. Resistance along the Great Plains frontier was commonplace until rifled barrels could hit a target reliably from over 200m away. The logistics of a gun are much more extensive, and can be negated more easily. If those logistics were to collapse, it would be more difficult to maintain an empire.
Socialist revolutions in former colonies often would simply raid the colonizers for weapons. This doesn’t enable aggressive campaigns but it does allow you to do targeted resistance.
As for the internal question, planned economies can and have been run without advanced metallurgy. Plenty of societies without bulk steel production have sustained themselves without feudal or capitalist class relations. In fact, some of them even broke the modernist and Eurocentric model of “progression” of society in terms of the heights of physical/chemical technology. I would argue that paper and printing are more important technologies for structuring society than steel is.
You don’t need a railroad to end feudalism. You just need to kill your lord and prevent anyone else from taking his place. Now, it’s certainly true that the tycoon will replace the lord, but that’s typically just because there is a smooth (nonviolent) transition where those who would become lords become CEOs instead, it’s slapping a new coat of paint on a social structure that’s almost exactly the same.
We can absolutely produce biodiesel and methane with appropriate technology. It’s a bit less efficient and a lot more labor-intensive to make sure there are no leaks, but it can be done. Especially if we preserve our knowledge of how to make materials and machines, we can run everything on different fuel sources. I’m not going to make an argument one way or another as to whether we could have originally industrialized without coal; this is a counterfactual question and doesn’t interest me as much.
We have the capacity to create biodiesel and methane from sources that fully integrate into the carbon cycle.
Also we really shouldn’t be putting much stock into resource-based determinism. Coal was not a sine qua non for successful revolutions in Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, or Cuba.
We have the capacity to do that now, with our current level of technology. The question is if we could have reached the capacity to do these things without first burning coal; a hypothetical world where we have to somehow escape from feudalism without coal.
And don’t dismiss steel. We’re only just now figuring out how to eliminate coal from the process, making steel just from charcoal using iron-age technology is technically doable but so resource intensive and the resulting quality of steel so low that it might never have been able to fuel industrialization. This then limits the extent of mechanization and firearms and railroads etc etc
It’s harder than you’re giving credit. Revolutionaries in the 1900s didn’t have to overthrow feudalism using guns made from steel forged with charcoal and milled on machines turned by water wheels. We really might have needed coal to get this far.
This is two different questions packed into one. The first is “can you have a socialist economy without at least fossil fuels” and the second is “can you resist the imperial armies without at least fossil fuels”.
I would say the answer to both of these questions is the null hypothesis of ‘yes’, and that there is an extraordinary burden of proof on anyone who claims the contrary, because it is an extraordinary claim. It is rather close to the post hoc ergo propter hoc claim that capitalist apologists make that “all modern technology was made by capitalism”. I hope you aren’t saying that; we really have to be careful about falling into the trap of determinism.
The gun only surpassed the crossbow in practicality and lethality in the late 19th century. Before that, its main advantage was in awe and prestige, and they were bought by armies to give the appearance that they had the ability to fight on the same level. Resistance along the Great Plains frontier was commonplace until rifled barrels could hit a target reliably from over 200m away. The logistics of a gun are much more extensive, and can be negated more easily. If those logistics were to collapse, it would be more difficult to maintain an empire.
Socialist revolutions in former colonies often would simply raid the colonizers for weapons. This doesn’t enable aggressive campaigns but it does allow you to do targeted resistance.
As for the internal question, planned economies can and have been run without advanced metallurgy. Plenty of societies without bulk steel production have sustained themselves without feudal or capitalist class relations. In fact, some of them even broke the modernist and Eurocentric model of “progression” of society in terms of the heights of physical/chemical technology. I would argue that paper and printing are more important technologies for structuring society than steel is.
You don’t need a railroad to end feudalism. You just need to kill your lord and prevent anyone else from taking his place. Now, it’s certainly true that the tycoon will replace the lord, but that’s typically just because there is a smooth (nonviolent) transition where those who would become lords become CEOs instead, it’s slapping a new coat of paint on a social structure that’s almost exactly the same.
We can absolutely produce biodiesel and methane with appropriate technology. It’s a bit less efficient and a lot more labor-intensive to make sure there are no leaks, but it can be done. Especially if we preserve our knowledge of how to make materials and machines, we can run everything on different fuel sources. I’m not going to make an argument one way or another as to whether we could have originally industrialized without coal; this is a counterfactual question and doesn’t interest me as much.