Current Environmental Movement

[bellyscratch]

After I've got all my uni work out of the way, I'm wanting to do more work that promotes the environmental movement from a socialist perspective. After looking around at the different environmental groups, it seems that all the current environmental groups only seem to call for reforms to the capitalist system and are not questioning the system itself. I'm talking about such groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Stop Climate Chaos etc.

There is a group called Socialist Resistance, which is a small coalition of ecosocialists from the International Socialist Group (small Marxist group within RESPECT), the Green Left (left faction inside the Green Party) and a few non-affiliated Marxists. However, they are an extremely small group (there is 1 ISG member in the entire North East of England where I live) and seem pretty limited to just publishing their quarterly magazine, a few books and the odd meeting here and there.

So, how should we approach the movement as a whole? Is it best to just promote this issue from within your party, showing the inherent environmentally unfriendly nature of capitalism, while trying to keep a presence on any general environmental movement? Or is there a chance of setting up a general coalition of the left on this particular subject?

Personally I do not feel that the bigger socialist parties in this country are putting enough emphasis on the environment, which is one reason why I am still undecided on which party I should join.

I think that is enough for now as I would like to hear other peoples opinions

[Lynx]

*bump*
I believe the focus should be on developing environmental policy within the left movement. There is much work to do, as evidenced by the paucity and small size of RevLeftGreen parties. A coalition with the mainstream environmental movement might be possible for some issues, but imo is of secondary importance.

[ComradeOm]

After looking around at the different environmental groups, it seems that all the current environmental groups only seem to call for reforms to the capitalist system and are not questioning the system itself. I'm talking about such groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Stop Climate Chaos etcAnd that doesn't lead you to question your own emphasis on environmentalism? Hint: if bourgeois parties can openly advocate a policy then said political platform is unlikely to be revolutionary or socialist in character. Greenpeace et al focus on "reforms to the capitalist system" because there is nothing about environmentalism that is inherently socialist

Which leads to the all-important question - why should socialists and the labour movement concern themselves with an agenda that is also acceptable to the bourgeoisie?

[bellyscratch]

And that doesn't lead you to question your own emphasis on environmentalism? Hint: if bourgeois parties can openly advocate a policy then said political platform is unlikely to be revolutionary or socialist in character. Greenpeace et al focus on "reforms to the capitalist system" because there is nothing about environmentalism that is inherently socialist

Which leads to the all-important question - why should socialists and the labour movement concern themselves with an agenda that is also acceptable to the bourgeoisie?

Environmentalism can and should be incorporated into the socialist movement and much more than it currently is. Its about the state of our habitat and being able to survive. If we destroy the environment then we destroy our chance of living. Seems like a no brainer to me.

I've thought about this more and really think there should be more of a socialist coalition pointing out the inherent environmental destruction within the capitalist system of production and consumption.

You don't have to come from the point of view, like the bourgeoisie do, that environmental policies have to be at the expense of living standards, because i dont think it does. We need to separate our socialist environmentalism from the bourgeoisie environmentalism.

[ComradeOm]

Its about the state of our habitat and being able to surviveWhereas socialism is about fighting for and furthering workers' rights. If you want this then join a union or socialist org, if you want to save the world then join Greenpeace

[bellyscratch]

Whereas socialism is about fighting for and furthering workers' rights. If you want this then join a union or socialist org, if you want to save the world then join Greenpeace

I want to do both and the socialist movement is far too guilty of thinking about the state of the environment as simply an after thought when it should be central to the struggle imo

[Delirium]

I think the best tactic is to join already existing environmental groups (local) and try to radicalize them. This is fairly easy when you point out that capitalism is a system of perpetual economic growth in a world with finite resources. At this point in the US (idk about the uk) education and outreach is where it is at.

[bellyscratch]

Well Ive just found out about a local environmental group called Toonclimateaction (http://toonclimatecamp.blogspot.com/), who are mostly anarchists. So I think that I might get more involved with them.

[Palmares]

Liberal environmentalism is pretty rampant. So if you are to become very involved in environmental activism, they are unavoidable.

But then there are the anarchists, or at least the less or anti-authoritarian groups, especially more local environmental groups.

Are there still Earth First! groups in the UK?

[Rascolnikova]

And that doesn't lead you to question your own emphasis on environmentalism? Hint: if bourgeois parties can openly advocate a policy then said political platform is unlikely to be revolutionary or socialist in character. Greenpeace et al focus on "reforms to the capitalist system" because there is nothing about environmentalism that is inherently socialist

Which leads to the all-important question - why should socialists and the labour movement concern themselves with an agenda that is also acceptable to the bourgeoisie?

On this basis, we should have nothing to do with feminism.

I think environmentalism and socialism go beautifully together, and that there's a significant pool of dedicated (albeit bourgeois) environmentalists out there who could very likely be radicalized.

Edit: Ｉ　ｆｏｒｇｏｔ　ＥＬＦ．　：）　　Ｉ　ｄｏｎ’ｔ　ｋｎｏｗ　ｍｕｃｈ　ａｂｏｕｔ　ｔｈｅｍ，　ｂｕ ｔ　ｉｔ’ｓ　ｐｒｏｂａｂｌｙ　ｗｏｒｔｈ　ａ　ｌｏｏｋ．

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The reason we have not incorporated it into our movement in a wider context is that when people think of environmentalism they feel it is liberal/hippy territory.

[Vanguard1917]

Environmentalism can and should be incorporated into the socialist movement and much more than it currently is. Its about the state of our habitat and being able to survive. If we destroy the environment then we destroy our chance of living.


For to the bulk of the environmental movement, 'saving the environment' means enforcing mass austerity, halting, slowing down or even reversing economic development, Malthusian population control, economic nationalism ('buy local', 'limit foreign travel', etc.), opposing agricultural progress in the developing world as well as supporting the banning of disease-destroying pesticides there, giving way to death and illness for millions.

For socialists, none of that is remotely compatible with anything that we believe in. In fact, the environmentalist outlook, as it exists in the real world, is antithetical to socialism. Socialists need to criticise and counter environmentalist notions -- which are, as ComradeOm points out, part and parcel of contemporary ruling class politics -- not capitulate to them.

[ComradeOm]

On this basis, we should have nothing to do with feminismThe breaking down of prejudices, be they racial/sexist/religious/whatever, is a necessity given that such sentiment both divides the proletariat and, more importantly, negatively affects many elements of it. In contrast the environmentalist movement actively campaigns against the working class in the form of demanding that economic progress relent. There is no class interest (beyond 'omg the planet may or may not die at some point in the future') for the labour movement in environmentalism and certainly to reason to line up alongside the bourgeoisie

But if your overriding concern is feminism then by all means join a feminist organisation


I think environmentalism and socialism go beautifully together, and that there's a significant pool of dedicated (albeit bourgeois) environmentalists out there who could very likely be radicalized.Listen to yourself - you are talking about radicalising the bourgeoisie! The reason that so many environmentalists are bourgeois or petit-bourgeois has nothing to do with their politics. The latter is merely a reflection of their position in society

[Rascolnikova]

The reason we have not incorporated it into our movement in a wider context is that when people think of environmentalism they feel it is liberal/hippy territory.


The feminist movement most people think of when they hear the word centered their ideology around making enemies of men, and around enabling bourgeois white women to share in the class privileges of their male counterparts.

Yet the left incorporates (or attempts to incorporate) feminism.

Why exactly is "liberal/hippy territory" more forbidding than this?

[Rascolnikova]

For to the bulk of the environmental movement, 'saving the environment' means enforcing mass austerity, halting, slowing down or even reversing economic development, Malthusian population control, economic nationalism ('buy local', 'limit foreign travel', etc.), opposing agricultural progress in the developing world as well as supporting the banning of disease-destroying pesticides there, giving way to death and illness for millions.
So the bulk (or at least the perceived mainstream) of the feminist movement has been wrong; and the bulk of the environmental movement has been wrong. .. . in some ways. You are aware of the story of DDT, right? You know that it didn't (doesn't--much of it is still not broken down) just hurt birds and fish?


The breaking down of prejudices, be they racial/sexist/religious/whatever, is a necessity given that such sentiment both divides the proletariat and, more importantly, negatively affects many elements of it. In contrast the environmentalist movement actively campaigns against the working class in the form of demanding that economic progress relent. There is no class interest (beyond 'omg the planet may or may not die at some point in the future') for the labour movement in environmentalism and certainly to reason to line up alongside the bourgeoisie

But if your overriding concern is feminism then by all means join a feminist organisation

Wait a minute--so having to pay excessive amounts individually for clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and safe food to eat isn't a class issue? How?



Listen to yourself - you are talking about radicalising the bourgeoisie! The reason that so many environmentalists are bourgeois or petit-bourgeois has nothing to do with their politics. The latter is merely a reflection of their position in societyI am indeed talking about radicalising. . . someone. "Hippy dippy liberals" are increasingly likely to be from the wealthier portions of the working class (by the marxian definition) as college education becomes a more widespread commodity. Even setting this aside I think you'd do well to consider the class background of Che, of Marx, of Proudhon--very often those with the resources to start something are, well, those with resources. . So yes, I would like to radicalize them.


I am no more suggesting that we should adopt bourgeois environmentalism than that we should adopt bourgeois feminism. Socialist environmentalism should be about elegant and effective design, and efficient, sustainable, liberatory use of commonly held resources--concepts every revolutionary ought to be involved with.

[ComradeOm]

Wait a minute--so having to pay excessive amounts individually for clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and safe food to eat isn't a class issue?In the first place this state of affairs (whereby the working class struggles for 'air to breathe, water to drink, and food to eat') has been a feature of capitalism since its inception. As socialists we combat the unequal distribution of wealth in society as the underlying cause

Where environmentalism differs is that it projects these apocalyptic scenarios as disasters that transcend all class or national barriers (they have a point of course - climate change does not distinguish between peoples or class) and thus require united action from society. In reality these are merely bogeymen designed to further their anti-worker and pro-Malthusian agendas. Few movements are as efficient at scaremongering as the Greens. Remember the ozone layer anyone?

Now I have no trouble with incorporating elements of environmental programmes into socialist platforms - where the former are the result of efficient planning at least - but the core ideology of the environmentalist movement is, as VG1917 points out, decidedly reactionary and anti-worker. I see absolutely no reason to compromise with those who advocate neo-Malthusian policies, limiting the growth of society's productive forces, or reducing/freezing living standards. These, and others, are fundamentally in conflict with the aims of the workers' movement


I am indeed talking about radicalising. . . someone. "Hippy dippy liberals" are increasingly likely to be from the wealthier portions of the working class (by the marxian definition) as college education becomes a more widespread commodityNot once I have mentioned "Hippy dippy liberals"; I prefer my class distinctions to be of the Marxist variety. There are of course exceptions, particularly amongst intellectuals, but as a rule members of the petit-bourgeois parties are driven by petit-bourgeois concerns


Even setting this aside I think you'd do well to consider the class background of Che, of Marx, of Proudhon--very often those with the resources to start something are, well, those with resources. . So yes, I would like to radicalize themAnd who radicalised Che or Marx? These were people who broke out from their comfort zones to confront the reality of misery and exploitation of the workers. No one came to them with a hot issue and attempted to divert them into socialism; for the likes of Marx socialism in itself was the issue that drove their actions

[Rascolnikova]

In the first place this state of affairs (whereby the working class struggles for 'air to breathe, water to drink, and food to eat') has been a feature of capitalism since its inception.

That something has been around since the industrial revolution is a poor argument that socialists shouldn't concern themselves with it.


As socialists we combat the unequal distribution of wealth in society as the underlying causeYes; and we combat the unequal distribution of wealth as an underlying cause of sexism, too.


Where environmentalism differs is that it projects these apocalyptic scenarios as disasters that transcend all class or national barriers (they have a point of course - climate change does not distinguish between peoples or class)Doesn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_9th_Ward



and thus require united action from society. In reality these are merely bogeymen designed to further their anti-worker and pro-Malthusian agendas. Few movements are as efficient at scaremongering as the Greens. Remember the ozone layer anyone?I do indeed. I also remember how we stopped manufacturing with CFCs. . .



Now I have no trouble with incorporating elements of environmental programmes into socialist platforms - where the former are the result of efficient planning at least - but the core ideology of the environmentalist movement is, as VG1917 points out, decidedly reactionary and anti-worker. I see absolutely no reason to compromise with those who advocate neo-Malthusian policies, limiting the growth of society's productive forces, or reducing/freezing living standards. These, and others, are fundamentally in conflict with the aims of the workers' movementIf we believed sustainability would entail starving people, we wouldn't support it.





Not once I have mentioned "Hippy dippy liberals"; I prefer my class distinctions to be of the Marxist variety.
I wasn't responding to you here.



There are of course exceptions, particularly amongst intellectuals, but as a rule members of the petit-bourgeois parties are driven by petit-bourgeois concerns

And who radicalised Che or Marx? These were people who broke out from their comfort zones to confront the reality of misery and exploitation of the workers. No one came to them with a hot issue and attempted to divert them into socialism; for the likes of Marx socialism in itself was the issue that drove their actionsYou think constant panic about the environment is a comfort zone? I think these people (at least the dedicated activists, who do other than "consume green") are already uncomfortable, and motivated. They are clearly a minority, but as a minority they've accomplished more lately and shown more dedication than the left, which strikes me as an excellent reason to go out and demonstrate to them why class struggle serves the cause they're already so passionate about.