Socialism and communism are alive and well despite supposedly having died with the fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the end of the cold war.

Historian Francis Fukayana wrote a seminal best seller, The End of History, in the mid-1990s. It argued that the Hegalian prediction that all ideologies - socialism of the left and right - would ultimately be defeated by classical liberalism. According to Hegel, the triumph of classical liberalism would be "the end of history" in that all other social, political and economic systems will have been vanquished indefinitely. The classical liberal alternatives of personal and economic freedom under competitive democracy would be adopted progressively in virtually all countries.

At first glance, this is what has happened. Since 1990 most countries have taken major steps towards true democracy, and virtually all countries have been privatising and deregulating. However, no sooner had the process started than new anti-democratic forces of central planning, omnipotent power and de facto nationalisation appeared. This latter day fascism, communism and socialism had reappeared in disguise. In very profound senses disguised forms of authoritarianism and dictatorship are more insidious and dangerous. Instead of an unambiguous and visible enemy the new threat to freedom and enterprise is packaged so tantalisingly in universally appealing clichés and platitudes that it is hard to recognise for what it is and even harder to oppose. Environmentalism is presented to the world as a sincere concern about such desirable objectives as clean air, the protection of endangered species and the conservation of essential resources for our children.

Government control and ownership are as problematic environmentally as they have been politically and economically. Government is by its nature inefficient. There are both obvious and obscure reasons, which cannot be explained, in this short article. Suffice it to note that the omnipresent distortions, shortages, unemployment, inflation, corruption and patronage that characterise interventionism economically will, for the same reasons, characterise interventionist environmentalism.

Free market environmental alternatives, like free market economic alternatives, outperform interventionism. The best way to achieve legitimate environmental objectives is to have secure property rights and an economy that produces the wealth that is a precondition for conservation, clean air and so on. Just as government ownership of the commons resulted in the notorious "tragedy of the commons", government ownership of what has to be conserved will be a rocky road. The reason why rhinos are endangered and cattle are not is because cattle are privately owned and there are relatively free markets in cattle products. The nationalisation of endangered species and the prohibition of trade in endangered species products is the cause not the solution of the problem. The nationalisation of rivers, beaches and wilderness areas increases the likelihood of degradation. All the evidence at our disposal suggests that people take greater care of private property than of public property. Vandalism and litter are more common with government than with private ownership and control.

The evidence and literature is so overwhelming to leave no scope for debate on these points.

What the business community should concern itself with is that environmentalism is the new excuse for unbridled government intervention. After a decade of liberalisation, radical environmentalism is resulting in a reversal of the process back to the past. Sometimes environmentalism manifests itself in comical ways such as Minister Vali Moosa's proposed prohibition of plastic packets. For commercial reasons some businesses have felt the need to endorse or pretend to endorse this absurd proposal. To say that the existence and use of plastic packets is the cause of litter is as self-evidently absurd as saying that the solution to people urinating in public places is to prohibit urination. A moment's sober reflection should make it clear to anybody that the problem is not plastic packets but litter. It should also be obvious that the problem with litter is a problem of public ownership. The solution is therefore the same as the solution in private places such as private game reserves or shopping centres which is the management of litter rather than the prohibition of things with which people litter: newspapers, packets, bottles or boxes. The new age threat to business and thus the economy and society in general, is difficult for business to oppose. Any resistance to the excesses and insanities of environmental socialism is perceived mistakenly to be a lack of concern for the laudable objectives of environmentalism.

The extent of the problem is illustrated by the fact that the very word "environmentalism" has been hijacked to the point where proponents of personal and economic freedom have difficulty calling themselves environmentalists, as I do, whilst disassociating themselves from environmental socialism. If one argues against such environmental conventions as the Montreal Protocol on the prohibition of CFCs, one is presumed to be unconcerned about ozone levels or, more importantly, the supposed consequences of ozone depletion. The challenge to the business community in the new millennium - after the "End of History" - is to fight a new battle for freedom of enterprise against new threats that have the advantage of being protected by the tyranny of political correctness and cosmic virtue.

In the past, business organisations had to articulate the case for economic freedom against ill-conceived government intervention intended to improve economic efficiency. In future they will have to fight a new fight: they will have to demonstrate how and why freedom of enterprise is also better for the environment. For the most part, the business community has not yet realised what the new pseudo-environmentalist threats are, let alone how best to defend themselves from these threats - and, more profoundly, how and why conservation of economic freedom is a precondition for environmental conservation.

This article was previously published in Green & Gold Vol 10 No 7, August 2000.