KurtFF8
20th October 2009, 19:52
I posted this over at the PoFo leftist blog, let me know what you think
Source (http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=111683)
It seems that it's often asked whether or not "Communism" or "Socialism" should be "Green" i.e. should they adopt environmentalism as a key tenant of their party's platforms, promote an ecological-centric view of production/consumption, etc. Examining this question more seems to me that such a question is on the wrong track in general. When asking liberal environmentalists about their platform for ecological sustainability, they often dive into what reforms the current capitalist states ought to take on and focus on one aspect of the system: its environmental impact. Often their solutions involve the promotion of "Green Consumption" and implementing new governmental policies aimed at reducing CO2 emissions and consumer waste. Even some of these very environmentalists are beginning to realize the limits of such reformism as companies can easily move their production "off shore" and viewing the limited impact of "Green products" isn't hard to do (Some Examples (http://www.fairtradefederation.org/ht/d/sp/i/224/pid/224)). This leads environmentalism in a sticky place: what is the best way forward?
In a recent article in Mother Jones, in an article entitled "Industrial Strength Solution (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/05/industrial-strength-solution)" Joel Makower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Makower), who wrote the book The Green Consumer claimed that he was "thinking of waving the white flag" concerning the promotion of Green Consumerism. Throughout the article, he details how most waste that is produced comes actually from industrial waste, not consumer waste (one chart shows that 76% of US waste is from industry, while Municipal solid waste is only at 2.5%). These facts alone present a major problem for those who promote just "living a more green lifestyle" as it becomes strikingly clear that such an avenue for change is quite insignificant.
The real solution here is democratic ownership (i.e. worker ownership) over industry. It's clear that the real problems of the environment are linked to the ownership of wealth and our inability to have a say over how capital is invested, controlled, and used. Since it's quite clear that the problem lies in industrial production itself, the old battles between Marxists and Liberals comes back to life: can we just regulate industry for the benefit of the people? Is capitalist democracy something worth reforming or should we try to adopt a more humane radical system of worker ownership/governance? The questions have been dealt with time and time again, and it seems that history demonstrates that the liberal response to the problems of capitalism fall quite short, and it seems that the problem of the environment is no exception. Only through socialism can we truly adopt a system where we can have a sensible relationship between human production/consumption and nature.
Source (http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=111683)
It seems that it's often asked whether or not "Communism" or "Socialism" should be "Green" i.e. should they adopt environmentalism as a key tenant of their party's platforms, promote an ecological-centric view of production/consumption, etc. Examining this question more seems to me that such a question is on the wrong track in general. When asking liberal environmentalists about their platform for ecological sustainability, they often dive into what reforms the current capitalist states ought to take on and focus on one aspect of the system: its environmental impact. Often their solutions involve the promotion of "Green Consumption" and implementing new governmental policies aimed at reducing CO2 emissions and consumer waste. Even some of these very environmentalists are beginning to realize the limits of such reformism as companies can easily move their production "off shore" and viewing the limited impact of "Green products" isn't hard to do (Some Examples (http://www.fairtradefederation.org/ht/d/sp/i/224/pid/224)). This leads environmentalism in a sticky place: what is the best way forward?
In a recent article in Mother Jones, in an article entitled "Industrial Strength Solution (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/05/industrial-strength-solution)" Joel Makower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Makower), who wrote the book The Green Consumer claimed that he was "thinking of waving the white flag" concerning the promotion of Green Consumerism. Throughout the article, he details how most waste that is produced comes actually from industrial waste, not consumer waste (one chart shows that 76% of US waste is from industry, while Municipal solid waste is only at 2.5%). These facts alone present a major problem for those who promote just "living a more green lifestyle" as it becomes strikingly clear that such an avenue for change is quite insignificant.
The real solution here is democratic ownership (i.e. worker ownership) over industry. It's clear that the real problems of the environment are linked to the ownership of wealth and our inability to have a say over how capital is invested, controlled, and used. Since it's quite clear that the problem lies in industrial production itself, the old battles between Marxists and Liberals comes back to life: can we just regulate industry for the benefit of the people? Is capitalist democracy something worth reforming or should we try to adopt a more humane radical system of worker ownership/governance? The questions have been dealt with time and time again, and it seems that history demonstrates that the liberal response to the problems of capitalism fall quite short, and it seems that the problem of the environment is no exception. Only through socialism can we truly adopt a system where we can have a sensible relationship between human production/consumption and nature.