Do you guys support the climate change initiative?

[RadioRaheem84]

Cap and Trade? The Copenhagen Summit? Is that a front we should be supporting? Personally, I think that people are using the real issue of global warming to help pass legislation that will favor a new industry to speculate on. I know that investment banks have been pumping money into new green industries to try and prop them up as lucrative ventures. But they know that most of this is useless without climate change legislation to accompany it. This is then followed up with major social investment by world governments to help build this industry.

That's as far as I go with this theory before it dives off into the conspiracy realm but then again this has been brought up a couple times in the business press. It's nothing secretive to them. I am not trying to say that we shouldn't necessarily oppose such legislation because people will take advantage of it.


*Also anyone keeping up with this "Climategate" thing in the Independent? Whats that all about?

[pranabjyoti]

I personally don't think that these kind of efforts are capable to bring any kind of real change. Actually, it is imperialist-capitalism, which is threatening the existence of mankind and other species. Without uprooting it, all efforts are bound to be fruitless.
But, probably this new green ventures can buy some more time for the mankind I guess.

[syndicat]

"cap and trade" will not work. it is an attempt to provide subsidies to polluting industries. the problem is the market, the solution does not lie thru the market. usually credits are simply distributed free to poluting industries. the pollution trading scheme in the LA area simply led to hot spots in working class areas.

a more effective reform position would be in favor of a cardon tax.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I basically agree with both of the above posts. Sure, cap and trade might buy us a few more years, but it will do so by allowing wealthy companies to buy privileges and push their less wealthy competitors out of the market. This in turn will result in greater concentration of capital, the proletarianization of people who were once part of the petit-bourgeoisie, etc....all the classics of late-stage capitalism.

[rebelmouse]

copenhagen summit is clear shit and people will show it when they demonstrate against it. I believe that such summit can't bring any changes because it is summit of those who pollute nature because of their running for profit.
more floods and more fire in rich part of cities, all over the world, would push them to change their way of thinking.

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent posts guys. It seems as though the major proponents of these changes are coming from the people that can profit the most out of them. Big business is using this as another scheme to flush out the smaller businesses that cannot afford the tax.

[chebol]

Cap and trade is indeed a deliberate and criminal fraud. Here is some useful background;
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/

http://links.org.au/taxonomy/term/138

http://www.dsp.org.au/node/166

http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=674

[Potemkin]

Greetings everyone,

Yes, I think we all agree that capitalism is at the root of the environmental crisis, and only through the elimination of capitalism (and its replacement by a more decentralized, egalitarian, not profit-driven system) will there be hope for the environment.

Nevertheless, given that we currently live under global capitalism, is anything better than nothing? Even if it helps to perpetuate a so-called "green" capitalism, will action such as this be helpful in the long or short term?

I would argue that something coming out of Copenhagen will be good overall. Firstly, because it buys some time for the environment (I think we should reject the idea of letting capitalism go until it can no longer sustain itself because everything has been destroyed and new markets can no longer emerge. Nature is finite, and a position such as this would leave the socialist society that hopefully replaced capitalism a hollow victory, if not much of the natural world remains.). Action such as what I hope comes out of Copenhagen (or Mexico or wherever the next one is) would give the poor and working classes who are most affected by climate change more "room to struggle," admittedly at the risk of cooptation by capital, which will pretend that the climate issue has been "fixed."

In addition, it presents an opportunity for us to make further demands and go on the offensive against capitalism, giving us an opportunity to radicalize and revolutionize a global ecology movement.

While I look to Copenhagen as a pragmatic, temporary help toward protecting the environment (certainly, I don't have any false hope as to the meaning of agreements like these), there are many other facets of the greening of capitalism that should be opposed altogether. "Clean coal" and nuclear energy immediately spring to mind.

Thanks for reading!

[ls]

No, I don't give a shit about the environment like people always bang on about, the fact is there is no proof to say 'cimate change' is thanks to carbon emissions and I don't care what pseudo-scientific 'proof' you bring up.

When we take power, we may need to industrialise quickly and any attempt to derail this, or in Capitalism, to facilitate reformist Capitalist attacks on workers via 'being green' is to be rejected! Do you know how many workers are charged thru the nose to drive their car in London thanks to the 'low emission zones' and 'congestion charge' bullshit? You had better not support reactionary measures like that, I can tell you now.

Don't get me wrong, I am aware of what real environmentalism is, our rivers being polluted, drinking water for rural workers in Africa being polluted in some cases deliberately so they have to eat out of the hands of the Capitalists, disgusting things like that must be stopped and yeah, once socialism is established far and wide enough.. measures which will only have a lasting good effect on the economy that are 'green' should be passed by the councils. Indeed, it is simply more efficient economically to recycle, use recyclable materials for as many things as pos etc but, when we do 'green' things they must only be progressive, working on the basis of the enviroment > the people is reactionary, end of.

[Potemkin]

Well, ls, I guess we would disagree on climate change and carbon emissions. Of course it is happening. Your analysis seems to be rather one-sided, and your attitude rather hostile. Even though carbon emissions are causing climate change, this shouldn't be interpreted as an attack on working-class lifestyles. Of course, this has been the line of the liberal/bourgeois environmental movement, but who are the bigger polluters (and carbon emitters): big business or individual workers? Obviously, it is capitalism that is the real cause. This is what I am arguing, not that workers are to blame.

The idea that we still need to move through a period of industrialization is simply out of step with reality for most of the world. Obviously, this need not happen in the United States, Europe, and parts of Asia. In places that still might need or benefit from "industrialization," we now have the technology to be able to do this in a way that is in line with the ecology of the respective region.

Of course, we should reject attacks by green capitalism on workers and their lifestyles. No one on this thread was arguing otherwise. I think that the duality of mankind over nature or nature over mankind is a false one. We have the technology and the capacity to raise the quality of life for everyone on the planet while reestablishing an equilibrium between nature and humanity. It need not, and cannot, be one over the other.

[Potemkin]

Allow me to also add that a revolutionary ecology movement has many points in common with revolutionary workers movements, and cooperation between the two should be a priority. After all, it is the poor and working-classes that are most affected by climate change and environmental degradation. For some good writing on this, I highly recommend works by Australian "eco-anarchist" Graham Purchase.

[RadioRaheem84]

The only reason why this green legislation hurts the working class is because we get the brunt of the taxes considering that capitalists don't adhere to progressive taxation. Also they find ways to go around them and not pay while we're stuck getting taxed to drive our cars to work! WE pay for their little social projects while they pat themselves on the back for conjuring up these schemes!

Also I work part time for a mid size construction firm and everything nowadays has to be 'LEED certified' (the eco-friendly stamp of approval). This costs smaller firms lots of money and renovation. While it is good that we're working toward more environmentally friendly buildings, the costs to keep up with newer environmental regulations make it harder for the smaller firms to keep up, cornering the market for the bigger firms. These jackals are using environmental science to their advantage bypushing for legislation that will favor their industries because they have the money and the resources to renovate and re-invent themselves. It's an excuse to monopolize the industry.

This is what monopoly capitalists do. It's not even that they're being nefarious about it, it's just another way for them to corner a market. Since they pressupose free enterprise to be the legit way to go, they assume that best way about making this a safer planet is to use big business and big government to do so. Everyone else has to keep up (smaller firms) and pay their share (citizens).

[ls]

First of all, let me say: 90% of all environmentalist movements, like other popular 'workers rights' movements such as feminism or racial identity politics is unsalvageably bourgeois to its core.



Well, ls, I guess we would disagree on climate change and carbon emissions.

Do you put workers or the environment first, that is a base question which must first be answered.


Of course it is happening.

In your opinion then, China should cut down its carbon emissions because it is the "worst pollutor"? Even though it's a 3rd world country and the most populated one on earth? I bet that is what you think.


Your analysis seems to be rather one-sided, and your attitude rather hostile.

Of course my attitude is hostile towards bourgeois environmentalism, which is 90% of the environmentalist movement.


Even though carbon emissions are causing climate change, this shouldn't be interpreted as an attack on working-class lifestyles. Of course, this has been the line of the liberal/bourgeois environmental movement, but who are the bigger polluters (and carbon emitters): big business or individual workers? Obviously, it is capitalism that is the real cause. This is what I am arguing, not that workers are to blame.

It doesn't matter, the kind of measures you would support probably harm workers and are reformist in the first place.


The idea that we still need to move through a period of industrialization is simply out of step with reality for most of the world.

But not all of the world.. also, industry must be changed in most of the world, the way it works must be restructured to be much more efficient.


Obviously, this need not happen in the United States, Europe, and parts of Asia. In places that still might need or benefit from "industrialization," we now have the technology to be able to do this in a way that is in line with the ecology of the respective region.

Really? Without significant extra cost - which let's face it, in a socialist society detracts directly from the workers, somehow I imagine you put way too much emphasis on this being a "top priority" as opposed to having technology in the first place.


Of course, we should reject attacks by green capitalism on workers and their lifestyles. No one on this thread was arguing otherwise. I think that the duality of mankind over nature or nature over mankind is a false one.

Yes, I agree with your point on duality, however the way others on this thread and to an extent, you, are terming things makes me wonder whether you really accept what you said as true....


We have the technology and the capacity to raise the quality of life for everyone on the planet while reestablishing an equilibrium between nature and humanity. It need not, and cannot, be one over the other.

It completely depends on what you mean here, you either have priorities or you don't, there are more efficient ways of doing things but they aren't pretty.


Allow me to also add that a revolutionary ecology movement has many points in common with revolutionary workers movements, and cooperation between the two should be a priority. After all, it is the poor and working-classes that are most affected by climate change and environmental degradation. For some good writing on this, I highly recommend works by Australian "eco-anarchist" Graham Purchase.

It doesn't matter, ecological movements are often very contaminated with bourgeois elements. Cooperation between the two should be a "priority"? It's as if you place more importance on it than the class-struggle.



..
Also I work part time for a mid size construction firm and everything nowadays has to be 'LEED certified' (the eco-friendly stamp of approval). This costs smaller firms lots of money and renovation.

Fair enough, but we don't share the concerns of the petty-bourgeois in a way like this.


While it is good that we're working toward more environmentally friendly buildings, the costs to keep up with newer environmental regulations make it harder for the smaller firms to keep up, cornering the market for the bigger firms. These jackals are using environmental science to their advantage bypushing for legislation that will favor their industries because they have the money and the resources to renovate and re-invent themselves. It's an excuse to monopolize the industry.

Indeed it is, however there are many revolutionaries who place waay too much emphasis on environmentalism; it worries me that in a revolution now, there would be too much emphasis on environmental friendliness which can (and has) detracted from the class-struggle and progressive things.

Perhaps the group 'plane stupid' (which says it all really), has been a good example in Capitalism, they oppose the building of new airports and runways and the like (even in a developed country such as the UK) with direct action, but they are really not doing anything progressive for the class-struggle at all. I'm sure there are a lot of revolutionaries involved with them and there's no reason to think such idiotic movements mightn't exist under socialism too..

[Kléber]

First of all, let me say: 90% of all environmentalist movements, like other popular 'workers rights' movements such as feminism or racial identity politics is unsalvageably bourgeois to its core.I wouldn't call it unsalvageable. We need to get out there and steal these movements. They are also very good venues for getting the middle class on the same side as the workers in imperialist countries where this is a problem (if the workers can't attract the middle class, the bourgeoisie and their fascist lackeys will, its happened before). At its core, the preservation of the environment is most beneficial to the working class because they can least afford to protect themselves or move away from pollution. Same goes for women and oppressed peoples, sexist and racist oppression primarily affect working women and non-white workers. We can't just complain about the liberals while accepting their hegemony, we have to co-opt the environmental movement and change the discourse from "how do we create more green-collar jobs?" into "who should the environment belong to, workers or bosses?"


In your opinion then, China should cut down its carbon emissions because it is the "worst pollutor"? Even though it's a 3rd world country and the most populated one on earth? I bet that is what you think.Not everyone who accepts the clear evidence of global warming wants China and India to shoulder the burden of environmental protection.


reformist in the first place.
Who said we can't fight for reforms to draw more people into the struggle?


P.S. heads up everyone: "climate change" is a euphemism cooked up by the capitalist legal teams to take the edge off of "global warming."

[ls]

I wouldn't call it unsalvageable. We need to get out there and steal these movements.

Then we might as well get out there and "steal" the parties themselves, Trotskyists often have tried to and still try to do this, you will notice it doesn't have a high success rate.


They are also very good venues for getting the middle class on the same side as the workers in imperialist countries where this is a problem (if the workers can't attract the middle class, the bourgeoisie and their fascist lackeys will, its happened before).

Dunno what you're talking about here, if you are talking about the sociological middle-class or the petit-bourgeois they are two very different things, not-so-coincidentally the sociological middle-class you will find is mostly petit-bourgeois, so no I don't think getting the petit-bourgeois onside is a priority, in fact I have no idea how you would've come to that conclusion. Sure, the workers with more of a sociologically middle-class outlook need to be got onside, but environmentalism has little to do with the class-struggle and participating in reactionary politics is.. reactionary.


At its core, the preservation of the environment is most beneficial to the working class because they can least afford to protect themselves or move away from pollution. Same goes for women and oppressed peoples, sexist and racist oppression primarily affect working women and non-white workers. We can't just complain about the liberals while accepting their hegemony, we have to co-opt the environmental movement and change the discourse from "how do we create more green-collar jobs?" into "who should the environment belong to, workers or bosses?"

What does this mean in real-terms, we should participate in direct action such as that of blocking airport development (which is reactionary tbh)?


Not everyone who accepts the clear evidence of global warming wants China and India to shoulder the burden of environmental protection..

I saw what you wrote here originally, I will wait for a response from Potemkin.


Who said we can't fight for reforms to draw more people into the struggle?

Because the fight that leftists undertake for most reforms are reformist and not socialist, we should not fight for environmental reforms they are simply not worth it under Capitalism.


P.S. heads up everyone: "climate change" is a euphemism cooked up by the capitalist legal teams to take the edge off of "global warming."

There is nothing other than pseudo-scientific proof to prove that global warming/climate change/earth murdering actually exists.

[RadioRaheem84]

Indeed it is, however there are many revolutionaries who place waay too much emphasis on environmentalism; it worries me that in a revolution now, there would be too much emphasis on environmental friendliness which can (and has) detracted from the class-struggle and progressive things.


Agreed. I dislike all liberal projects that distract away from the main problem which is global capitalism. Leftists should be casual observers of environmentalism but shouldn't be a main part of reform that distracts from the issue.

[Kléber]

Dunno what you're talking about here, if you are talking about the sociological middle-class or the petit-bourgeois they are two very different thingsI was talking about the petty bourgeoisie. In many countries there are large middle classes. In times of social crisis the middle class is usually ruined and attracted to radical ideologies. The middle class never exercises an independent historical role, it can only be led by one or another of the two great competing classes. If the proletariat is well organized and looks like it can lead the way out of the crisis, then the middle class will opportunistically flock to the revolutionary camp. Or, if we are a disorganized bunch of fools who care more about shocking the bosses than organizing the workers, we will scare rather than inspire the middle class, and they will turn to conservative and fascist parties to restore the old "order."


What does this mean in real-termsThat communists should advocate environmental reforms that protect workers and make big business clean up after itself. We should push for international legislation to stop capitalists from moving "dirty industries" to countries with low life expectancies to try and hide the effects of their pollution (this is an admitted policy of world financial institutions). We should consistently oppose attempts by the old imperialist powers to unload the blame and the burden for pollution on the currently-industrializing countries. Finally and most importantly we must propagandize against those liberals who believe in the fantasy of a "green" capitalism; we must turn the environmental debate into a debate over the question of social property and explain the environmental struggle as a struggle for public control. We must show that the irrational devastation of the environment is inextricably bound up with deregulation and bourgeois dictatorship. We must smash at every turn the pernicious liberal influence that blames "over-consuming" workers for the crimes of the capitalist megapolluters. We must link the goals of environmental protection and revolutionary socialism, making clear that there can be no democratic takeover of the environment without a more general democratic takeover of industry: a proletarian revolution. We must present a socialist, internationalist, revolutionist alternative to the bourgeois environmental movement.


There is nothing other than pseudo-scientific proof to prove that global warming/climate change/earth murdering actually exists. Do you disagree that global temperatures have been increasing over the last 50-100 years, or merely disagree that there is any connection between that and the fact that industrial activity and CO2 output have been rapidly increasing in the same timeframe? In the former case, there is no shortage of data I could bring up to prove to you that temperatures have been increasing. In the latter case, common sense should suffice.


Leftists should be casual observers of environmentalism but shouldn't be a main part of reform that distracts from the issue. If you're saying that environmental activism isn't the #1 priority for most left groups right now, I agree. But if you are saying that a mass workers' party that is a real political force and has the members, printing ability etc. to engage in a multitude of struggles, should deliberately abstain from fighting for leadership of the environmental movement, then I emphatically disagree. The destruction of the environment is an attack on the working class. We can not be casual observers while our planet is raped by the capitalists. We have to be the ones associated with the demands for reform, so that when the reforms get passed, instead of the bourgeoisie saying "how nice of us, giving you those reforms" or the liberals saying "how nice of them, etc." it is us there saying "look, we grabbed them by the throat and forced these reforms out of them, let's organize to fight for more." The wavering people will not flock to our revolutionary banners because of beautiful words or hardcore uncompromising rhetoric, they will only come when they see us winning apparent victories and accomplishing what look like real solutions. Hijacking the reformist bandwagon and putting it to the service of the revolution is exactly what the capitalists and the liberals don't want us to do.


P.S. the Russian ecological movement was friendly to both 1917 revolutions.

[RadioRaheem84]

If you're saying that environmental activism isn't the #1 priority for most left groups right now, I agree. But if you are saying that a mass workers' party that is a real political force and has the members, printing ability etc. to engage in a multitude of struggles, should deliberately abstain from fighting for leadership of the environmental movement, then I emphatically disagree. The destruction of the environment is an attack on the working class. We can not be casual observers while our planet is raped by the capitalists. We have to be the ones associated with the demands for reform, so that when the reforms get passed, instead of the bourgeoisie saying "how nice of us, giving you those reforms" or the liberals saying "how nice of them, etc." it is us there saying "look, we grabbed them by the throat and forced these reforms out of them, let's organize to fight for more." The wavering people will not flock to our revolutionary banners because of beautiful words or hardcore uncompromising rhetoric, they will only come when they see us winning apparent victories and accomplishing what look like real solutions. Hijacking the reformist bandwagon and putting it to the service of the revolution is exactly what the capitalists and the liberals don't want us to do.


P.S. the Russian ecological movement was friendly to both 1917 revolutions.
I would only support environmentalist organization that frame global capitalism as the main contributor to the problem. Anything else is liberal reformist drivel that only helps the larger industries grab more power. The way the current climate change initiative is set up is largely in favor of major corporations who can afford the change. Like the whole organic movement/fair trade didn't help the working class but only benefited the rich yuppies that can afford to shop at Whole Foods, the same will happen when prices go up and we're taxed to supply liberals their pet project. Remember that we end up paying for most of these schemes and they end up benefiting only those that can afford to take part in the green movement.
I agree that we should take over the green movement away from the liberals and turn it into a damning indictment of globalization. It should focus more on the effects over production and rapid development have on the environment. For instance, Dubai is a neo-liberal's wet dream yet the UAE has the biggest carbon footprint of any nation. The ecological disaster rapid expansion has had on the local environment. The dumping of sewage and waste into the ocean because there is an overflow of waste.

I would support environmentalism if it was built on this premise; as a damning indictment of the crimes of neo-liberalism. Sadly, like human rights or any other pet project of the liberal, the issue of capitalism is never addressed.

[pranabjyoti]

There are a lot of good ideas, which can reduce environmental damage without harming the production process is available now. But, so far, no or very little funding is available for those ideas. How can the damn Copenhagen summit can change that kind of attitude.
With control of the proletariat, I can assure everybody that we will see waves of new technology and products, that can sustain global ecology and mankind without degrading, instead upgrading the lifestyle of the whole human race in total all around the Earth.

[ls]

I was talking about the petty bourgeoisie.

Then no, why should we work to appease the petit-bourgeois, I completely and utterly disagree.


In many countries there are large middle classes. In times of social crisis the middle class is usually ruined and attracted to radical ideologies. The middle class never exercises an independent historical role, it can only be led by one or another of the two great competing classes.

The petit-bourgeois are more flakey in that regard, than the lumpenproletariat, I think you are wrong when you say we can 'lead' them. The roles they play as managers in the workforce are most of the time directly hostile to ours.


If the proletariat is well organized and looks like it can lead the way out of the crisis, then the middle class will opportunistically flock to the revolutionary camp. Or, if we are a disorganized bunch of fools who care more about shocking the bosses than organizing the workers, we will scare rather than inspire the middle class, and they will turn to conservative and fascist parties to restore the old "order."

Of course we should be organised, no one is really arguing against that though. What is being argued is participating in a reformist manner in reformist organisations, they are not one and the same thing, we should not "scare away" the p-b, instead we should organise for workers' self-management.


That communists should advocate environmental reforms that protect workers and make big business clean up after itself.

Then we will get sucked into the trap of reformism proper, this is not how things work, when you distract the class-struggle by pushing way into dead ends you are already going down the path to hell.


We should push for international legislation to stop capitalists from moving "dirty industries" to countries with low life expectancies to try and hide the effects of their pollution (this is an admitted policy of world financial institutions).

Certain kinds of direct action to stop that as well as strong criticism is fine by me, there are examples of stopping certain kinds of pollution which completely fit within the class-struggle perspective.... then there are movements such as "ecological human rights organisations" which people get involved in and get dead-ended.


We should consistently oppose attempts by the old imperialist powers to unload the blame and the burden for pollution on the currently-industrializing countries. Finally and most importantly we must propagandize against those liberals who believe in the fantasy of a "green" capitalism; we must turn the environmental debate into a debate over the question of social property and explain the environmental struggle as a struggle for public control.

And you will find a lot of hostility to the idea, you can't co-opt it if its base is bourgeois, the liberal environmental movement's base is bourgeois. In many ways 'climate camp' and stuff like that are more affinityish movements which don't have a "base" per se and are a slightly more complicated affair, still I am none too happy that anarchists like to flock to that environmental open-affinity group, you still see that p-b people are the people "on top of it" so to speak. And it's not from a class-struggle perspective.


We must show that the irrational devastation of the environment is inextricably bound up with deregulation and bourgeois dictatorship. We must smash at every turn the pernicious liberal influence that blames "over-consuming" workers for the crimes of the capitalist megapolluters. We must link the goals of environmental protection and revolutionary socialism, making clear that there can be no democratic takeover of the environment without a more general democratic takeover of industry: a proletarian revolution. We must present a socialist, internationalist, revolutionist alternative to the bourgeois environmental movement.

Yes, I agree with you here, but it must not be co-opted by bourgeois stooges which is what you and others propose, instead it must be completely overdominated with a class-struggle perspective. Also, I don't think it has to be a 'movement', more a kind of affinity for revolutionary left ecosocialists.


Do you disagree that global temperatures have been increasing over the last 50-100 years, or merely disagree that there is any connection between that and the fact that industrial activity and CO2 output have been rapidly increasing in the same timeframe? In the former case, there is no shortage of data I could bring up to prove to you that temperatures have been increasing. In the latter case, common sense should suffice.

You seem to like saying 'common sense proves this and that', well it's a strawman argument.


If you're saying that environmental activism isn't the #1 priority for most left groups right now, I agree. But if you are saying that a mass workers' party that is a real political force and has the members, printing ability etc. to engage in a multitude of struggles, should deliberately abstain from fighting for leadership of the environmental movement, then I emphatically disagree.

Why would leftists want to lead a bourgeois movement? Where is the sense in that?


The destruction of the environment is an attack on the working class. We can not be casual observers while our planet is raped by the capitalists. We have to be the ones associated with the demands for reform, so that when the reforms get passed, instead of the bourgeoisie saying "how nice of us, giving you those reforms" or the liberals saying "how nice of them, etc." it is us there saying "look, we grabbed them by the throat and forced these reforms out of them, let's organize to fight for more." The wavering people will not flock to our revolutionary banners because of beautiful words or hardcore uncompromising rhetoric, they will only come when they see us winning apparent victories and accomplishing what look like real solutions. Hijacking the reformist bandwagon and putting it to the service of the revolution is exactly what the capitalists and the liberals don't want us to do.

Hijacking the reformist bourgeois bandwagon will lead to dead ends and in fact, more 'banner waving' than you can shake a stick at. The real socialist movements which include the correct pro-environment approach would be less rhetorical, more direct action and absolutely critique based.


P.S. the Russian ecological movement was friendly to both 1917 revolutions.

Interesting, I would imagine it was quite different back then but I know little about it, do you have more info on this? Thanks. :)

[Potemkin]

Greetings everyone,

ls: Your argument, that because most of the environmental movement is not radical we should disregard ecological concerns is very obviously off-base. The reality is that those affected most by environmental degradation, pollution, and climate change (Kleber states that the term "climate change" is an attempt to greenwash the more radical "global warming" -- I just use "climate change" as a more encompassing term, to reflect the erratic environmental changes that would seemingly otherwise fall outside the term "global warming" -- I'm open to reconsidering this, however) are the poor and working class. Therefore, environmental destruction is inherently a worker/working-class issue, and should be treated as such.

Secondly, if we agree that radical social change can only come about through a dramatic shift in consciousness by the people, we must work to bring out this consciousness. Meeting people where they are (in the sense of political consciousness) and pushing their views further is the only non-coercive way I see of making this happen. Many people are concerned with issues regarding the environment, but as the liberal/bourgeois environmental movement has set the debate, this is where most people fall -- workers included. Why should we allow workers to succumb to this?

I don't see it as productive to just dismiss all of those people, rather than loudly advocate a view that logically takes their thinking to the next level, and ultimately to the root of the problem (capitalism).

I don't appreciate the uncomradely approach you've taken toward myself and others during this discussion. Such a hostile and puritanical approach is not what is needed, and not something that will be of help to workers in the long run. Do you treat the workers you are trying to organize in the same manner as you have treated people here? We are not enemies. I am a worker as well, and proud member of the IWW. Your hard line approach has lead you to accuse a fellow worker (myself) of being anti-working-class, which seems counter to your claim of being class based and for the worker.

Kléber: Thanks for your comments, I agree.

ls: From an anarchist-communist perspective, social movements are not political movements, and there is a big difference in participating in movements at a social level and trying to coopt political parties. Social movements present much more opportunity than party politics, and historically, anarchists have not shied away from being a part of more broad based social movements.

Your statement that "envirnmentalism has little to do with the class-struggle" reveals to me your inability to see that environmental degradation is primarily a class issue, and should be (and is) of concern to workers.

As for China and India -- I'm not here to plan their development. My primary focus (as it has to be) is dealing with the unique socio-political situation in my own country, the United States. That's not to say that I am not in solidarity with workers' internationally. Of course I am. However, I take it as standing in solidarity by working to improve conditions here, as well as take on the issues with the United States that affect workers elsewhere.

However, I believe that we have the technology to make China and India's development much less impactful on the environment, and therefore on workers. I believe that if the United States has these technologies (even though they haven't really implemented them here), it should share them with other countries -- as China, India, and Brazil are calling for at Copenhagen.

You may argue that it takes more worker effort to implement green technology, and that China and India should go on with older technologies at the expense of the environment. However, this environmental damage also hurts workers, so we get into a situation where we have to decide what is more harmful: greener, more advanced technologies, or the environmental destruction caused by not implementing them.


...it must not be co-opted by bourgeois stooges which is what you and others propose...

Lastly, it is simply outrageous for you to state that anyone on this thread has proposed "being coopted by bourgeois stooges." Your hostility should be directed at the bourgeoisie, not other comrades who take a line slightly different than your own. Plurality of struggle is important, and I haven't heard a view on this thread that is not revolutionary and does not place workers at the center of their thought.

[ComradeMan]

Just a load of hot air to add even more to global warming. The debate is not about changing what we do with "roadmaps" and "programmes" and all the other meaningless unspeak they come out with but rather about STOPPING NOW, if it's not too late already.

[ls]

ls: Your argument, that because most of the environmental movement is not radical we should disregard ecological concerns is very obviously off-base.

This is not only a strawman but a complete distortion of my argument as well, congrats.


The reality is that those affected most by environmental degradation, pollution, and climate change (Kleber states that the term "climate change" is an attempt to greenwash the more radical "global warming" -- I just use "climate change" as a more encompassing term, to reflect the erratic environmental changes that would seemingly otherwise fall outside the term "global warming" -- I'm open to reconsidering this, however) are the poor and working class. Therefore, environmental destruction is inherently a worker/working-class issue, and should be treated as such.

In practice, you advocate we get involved in the 'social movement' for climate change which means working directly along with petit-bourgeois and even bourgeois people themselves, this is not a socialist position, you also advocate reformism as you later write:
I believe that if the United States has these technologies (even though they haven't really implemented them here), it should share them with other countries -- as China, India, and Brazil are calling for at Copenhagen. .

All those bourgeois governments want is to exploit workers, as an anarcho-communist you should know this and you shouldn't expect nor want 'sharing of technology' or place any faith at all in a summit such as the Copenhagen one.


Secondly, if we agree that radical social change can only come about through a dramatic shift in consciousness by the people, we must work to bring out this consciousness. Meeting people where they are (in the sense of political consciousness) and pushing their views further is the only non-coercive way I see of making this happen. Many people are concerned with issues regarding the environment, but as the liberal/bourgeois environmental movement has set the debate, this is where most people fall -- workers included. Why should we allow workers to succumb to this?

I never said we should, once again you're distorting my argument.


I don't see it as productive to just dismiss all of those people, rather than loudly advocate a view that logically takes their thinking to the next level, and ultimately to the root of the problem (capitalism).

But you do see it as productive to work directly within bourgeois organisations and to advocate reformism, I have pointed out where you've advocated this already.

Answer this: would you applaud the group 'plane stupid' for blocking development of heathrow airport, because apparently the airport is going to contribute to the earth's destruction via emissions? Yes or no?


..Do you treat the workers you are trying to organize in the same manner as you have treated people here?

First of all, I don't go around "organising and educating workers" because that is a slightly patronising way of wording it, I advocate and attempt to facilitate workers' self-organisation.


We are not enemies. I am a worker as well, and proud member of the IWW. Your hard line approach has lead you to accuse a fellow worker (myself) of being anti-working-class, which seems counter to your claim of being class based and for the worker.

Workers can be anti-worker too you know, it doesn't matter whether your intentions are good or not, if you intend to work within bourgeois 'ecoleft' organisations, you are a stooge of the bourgeois, it is nothing personal against you. Being a member if the IWW means little if you simultaneously are a member of another anti-worker organisation, I don't know if you are or aren't but your positions indicate to me that you probably are.


From an anarchist-communist perspective, social movements are not political movements, and there is a big difference in participating in movements at a social level and trying to coopt political parties. Social movements present much more opportunity than party politics, and historically, anarchists have not shied away from being a part of more broad based social movements.

Yes, this anarchist emphasis on "social revolution" and the like does grate on me just a little bit. I don't think separating 'social' from 'political' movements is particularly helpful, in fact, social movements have been co-opted very easily by the bourgeois historically too. That is why I have stopped advocating this approach.


Your statement that "envirnmentalism has little to do with the class-struggle" reveals to me your inability to see that environmental degradation is primarily a class issue, and should be (and is) of concern to workers.

Actually I said "..environmentalism has little to do with the class-struggle", I meant bourgeois environmentalism, which is 90% of the environmental movement.


As for China and India -- I'm not here to plan their development. My primary focus (as it has to be) is dealing with the unique socio-political situation in my own country, the United States. That's not to say that I am not in solidarity with workers' internationally. Of course I am. However, I take it as standing in solidarity by working to improve conditions here, as well as take on the issues with the United States that affect workers elsewhere.

The environment in the USA comparatively to other (mostly third-world) countries is of little importance, there aren't many cases of drinking water being poisoned and the like, like in other countries, or struggles against big corporations attempting to poison whole towns. The cases where there have been.. of course Socialists should be there attempting to build a direct action based struggle against the Capitalists. I would never speak out against something like that.


You may argue that it takes more worker effort to implement green technology, and that China and India should go on with older technologies at the expense of the environment. However, this environmental damage also hurts workers, so we get into a situation where we have to decide what is more harmful: greener, more advanced technologies, or the environmental destruction caused by not implementing them.

You are saying "greener, more advanced technologies" but what evidence is there for this at all? Should all cars use diesel - even though it's much less efficient than petrol, should cars be abolished altogether? Such ideas are harmful in post-revolutionary society.


Lastly, it is simply outrageous for you to state that anyone on this thread has proposed "being coopted by bourgeois stooges." Your hostility should be directed at the bourgeoisie, not other comrades who take a line slightly different than your own. Plurality of struggle is important, and I haven't heard a view on this thread that is not revolutionary and does not place workers at the center of their thought.

What do you want me to say, it's nothing personal, I'm sure you're nice really, but then good intentions doesn't mean good politics.