Green MP: "We can learn from wartime rationing"

[Vanguard1917]

Britain's Green Party Member of Parliament, Caroline Lucas, has suggested that WW2-style rationing may be needed to tackle climate change, and has praised wartime rationing for helping to bring about positive "social change" in Britain. She has also argued that governments today should not be scared about "alienating" voters and should just implement "the necessary measures".*

So, should the policies of one of the most anti-working class governments of 20th century Britain be replicated or taken inspiration from in response to today's environmental problems?

Also, when and why did it become legitimate in "leftwing" and liberal circles to openly romanticise wartime poverty and to effectively call for state-of-emergency-style government powers to immiserate the working class?


* See Lucas's article from today on the Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/20/home-front-war-climate-change

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The exploiting and oppressing classes reveal more each day exactly what their "environmentalism" really entails.

[scarletghoul]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::crying:

[ed miliband]

Not as bad as the "greens" (inc. Prince Charles) saying that we can learn from Indian slums as a model for the future.

[Quail]

Forcing the working class to adopt a shittier quality of life doesn't really address the huge amounts of waste caused by big companies due to the profit motive. We don't need people to suffer even more under capitalism to solve environmental issues. We need an overhaul in the socioeconomic system.

[bcbm]

we must be willing to do anything in the name of saving the planet, except question the system that got us into this mess in the first place.

i think the nationalist rhetoric of the linked piece is interesting as well given the global nature of the problem

[ed miliband]

Oh man, apparently some conservatives are using this as "proof" that environmentalism is communism is disguise.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also, when and why did it become legitimate in "leftwing" and liberal circles to openly romanticise wartime poverty and to effectively call for state-of-emergency-style government powers to immiserate the working class?
Fantastic point.

IMO the reason is that things have become so dire that if you are looking for solutions to the enviro crisis within the logic of capitalism, NAZI-like ideas are the only ones remaining. Even "liberal" environmentalists use Malthusian arguments now and some argue for forced birth-control (I'm sure rich people would be able to get "baby credits") forcing the 3rd world to remain undeveloped (despite the fact that industrial nations pollute more than nonindustrial ones) immigration restrictions, and austerity and restrictions for the domestic population.

If a liberal makes this argument, I think it's pretty easy to flip it around and make people question the priorities of the system. Argue, why should we make cuts when business finds it more profitable to ship beef across the Atlantic, why does Mexico import tortillas from the US, why does China import rice from California? Ask, why should we cut our petrol use when there are jets doing bombing-runs over Iraq and Afghanistan and everyday. In fact the US runs military planes over practically every US state and most other countries. There are US military planes flying over my head as I type this. Once you start pulling the threads both arguments for forced restrictions and moral appeals to "change your light-bulbs" look like pretty flimsy and useless solutions.

The fact is that a system based on profit and unmitigated growth is profoundly and inherently bad for the environment. People should read Engels on Manchester because capitalism has been shitting on the environment for a long time and has been destroying ecosystems and who regions long before global climate change generalized the environmental impact on the earth to the entire planet.

It's the same argument as around budget cuts: they say WE need to tighten OUR belts, we say the immediate problem is one over spending priorities and the long-term problem is a system based on profits not human (and therefore the long-term sustainability of our species/planet) needs.

[Dimentio]

Actually, rationing would probably mean an improvement for those who are not enough ill to receive health support and not enough... enough... to receive unemployment benefits.

[Frosty Weasel]

I suppose next she'll suggest Cannibalism because of how green it is?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually, rationing would probably mean an improvement for those who are not enough ill to receive health support and not enough... enough... to receive unemployment benefits.

Could you elaborate? I don't think I understand.

[Fabrizio]

Not as bad as the "greens" (inc. Prince Charles) saying that we can learn from Indian slums as a model for the future.

LOL I saw a documentary on this some time ago. It's quite a useful "discourse", if the con-Dems get their way much of Britain will end up looking like that. Gotta love the Big Society.:laugh:

[Dimentio]

Could you elaborate? I don't think I understand.

Under rationing, everyone are entitled a certain amount of everything, perhaps on a poor level, but it would certainly be better for those who are begging on the streets.

[Jimmie Higgins]

we must be willing to do anything in the name of saving the planet, except question the system that got us into this mess in the first place.Damn, I shouldn't have even posted my long-winded shit - this quote is the nail hitting the head.

[Vanguard1917]

The fact is that a system based on profit and unmitigated growth is profoundly and inherently bad for the environment. People should read Engels on Manchester because capitalism has been shitting on the environment for a long time and has been destroying ecosystems and who regions long before global climate change generalized the environmental impact on the earth to the entire planet.

Yes - we should be able to condemn capitalism's negative effects on our natural surroundings without accepting any of the reactionary conclusions drawn by environmentalism. Indeed, one of environmentalism's most detrimental consequences is that it has managed to marginalise progressive criticism of the destructive aspects of capitalism, and has succeeded in making its own reactionary petit-bourgeois political framework the predominant way through which things like pollution, global warming, etc., are viewed. Hence why it is commonly (and correctly) seen as an elitist, misanthropic movement of middle-class petty snobbery.

[Vanguard1917]

Oh man, apparently some conservatives are using this as "proof" that environmentalism is communism is disguise.

:confused:

It's a Green bestowing lavish praise on wartime Conservative policy. If that's proof of anything, it's of how comfortably a Green can adopt anti-working class Tory policies -- and present them as being somehow progressive.

[ed miliband]

:confused:

It's a Green bestowing lavish praise on wartime Conservative policy. If that's proof of anything, it's how comfortably a Green can adopt anti-working class Tory policies -- and present them as being somehow progressive.

Conservative logic:

Green Party = left-wing = communism.

Communism = state telling everybody what to do = ^^ article.

Basically.

[Vanguard1917]

Conservative logic:

Green Party = left-wing = communism.

Communism = state telling everybody what to do = ^^ article.

Basically.

Despite, of course, the obvious enormous affinity between Green and Blue. Indeed, until fairly recently, the ideas which we associate with modern environmentalim were more often than not associated with the right, not the left. Some conservatives just don't know their own history.

Ask Zac Goldsmith: Tory-toff multi-millionaire MP and eco-warrior/former editor of The Ecologist.

Communism, on the other hand -- at least the communism of people like Marx, Engels, Lenin and the Bolsheviks -- is antithetical to virtually everything the modern green movement stands for.

[Technocrat]

What would be so awful about rationing?

During wartime rationing in Britain, those previously unable to afford food were at least guaranteed something.

The purpose of rationing is to ensure that no one goes without when resources are scarce. Again, what's bad about this? An older British acquaintance of mine once remarked that the poor never had it as good as under wartime rationing. I'm not on expert on this, but it seems to me that if, before rationing, these people couldn't obtain everything they needed, and after rationing, they could obtain those things they needed, that therefore these people had it better under rationing.

In communism - goods would be rationed to each individual - "to each according to his needs." If goods aren't rationed then they are obtained in the marketplace. So, rationing is the distributive mechanism that would be employed in any non-capitalist method of organization.

What about rationing of food (breadlines) during the Great Depression? Was that a bad idea too?



Communism, on the other hand -- at least the communism of people like Marx, Engels, Lenin and the Bolsheviks -- is antithetical to virtually everything the modern green movement stands for.



The modern green movement inasumuch as it seeks to maximize well-being for the maximum number of people, cannot be said to be "antithetical to communism." You may disagree with some of the assertions that are made - but the reasoning behind those assertions is very much in line with leftist thinking (i.e. "how do we ensure a good life for everyone").

[Vanguard1917]

During wartime rationing in Britain, those previously unable to afford food were at least guaranteed something.

The purpose of rationing is to ensure that no one goes without when resources are scarce.


Well, that's just plain nonsense. The purpose of rationing during the war was to keep the masses' consumption levels low. This was part of the general Tory war-effort policy at the time to make the working class work more for less, i.e. to increase the exploitation of labour, in accordance with ruling class wartime policy across Europe and the US at the time. As James Heartfield has outlined fairly recently in an excellent article, greater austerity measures were put in place as capital's class war against labour intensified in order to raise wartime productivity: http://libcom.org/history/world-war-class-war

[Technocrat]

Well, that's just plain nonsense. The purpose of rationing during the war was to keep the masses' consumption levels low. This was part of the general Tory war-effort policy at the time to make the working class work more for less, i.e. to increase the exploitation of labour, in accordance with ruling class wartime policy across Europe and the US at the time. As James Heartfield has outlined fairly recently in an excellent article, greater austerity measures were put in place as capital's class war against labour intensified in order to raise wartime productivity: http://libcom.org/history/world-war-class-war

Like I said, I'm not an expert on this particular topic, but it seems to me that something is better than nothing.

Before rationing, some people got nothing. After rationing, they got something.

And of course people got paid less and worked more during the war. That's because war is expensive.



COST OF WAR
$288,000,000,000 — cost to U.S.
$212,336,000,000 — cost to Germany
$111,272,000,000 — cost to France
$93,012,000,000 — cost to Soviet Union
$49,786,000,000 — cost to Britain
$41,272,000,000 — cost to Japan
$1,600,000,000,000 — direct economic costs of WWII

Source: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/peaceinthepacific/numbers

[Vanguard1917]

Like I said, I'm not an expert on this particular topic, but it seems to me that something is better than nothing.

Before rationing, some people got nothing. After rationing, they got something.

Nope. It would be more truthful and accurate to say that consumption levels fell for most people as a result of wartime austerity measures (of which rationing was a key component).



And of course people got paid less and worked more during the war. That's because war is expensive.


The penny's finally dropped, then. Yes, the inter-imperialist war was funded by intensifying the exploitation of workers.

[Dimentio]

As said, most got less, but those with least got something.

[Vanguard1917]

As said, most got less, but those with least got something.

So i'd like to see your evidence that any significant section of the British working class saw their living standards rise during the war.

And even if a small section of society did indeed experience a rise in living standards as a result of this general ruling-class attack on workers' living standards, it would not change it from being ... a ruling-class attack on workers' living standards -- as opposed to some nice little policy of sharing, which is essentially what Technocrat tried to portray it as being ("The purpose of rationing is to ensure that no one goes without when resources are scarce." -- a statement that could come from a WW2 government propaganda document).

[Rooster]

The fact that Green parties are stealing attention away from left and communist groups must point towards something. You can't just wave away the fact that most Green parties are now the left in government. You also can't ignore the environmental aspect of Marxism either.

[scarletghoul]

The Greens should be hanged imho.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Another point to consider is that rationing was not expected to be a permanent situation - people may have willingly submitted to it in the belief that any privations brought about would be temporary.

Tell people that they have to endure a permanent decrease in quality of life, with no visible results elsewhere for most of them, and you'll get a shitstorm of discontent, I guarantee it.

[thesadmafioso]

I don't really see anything at fault with the underlying premise of the proposal, presuming that it is applied equally across the socio-economic spectrum and all would be brought down to an equal level of rations. If anything it could serve a progressive social purpose, as it would be reducing the relevance of class in society a great deal. Of course it would be heavily dependent upon proper application, and the proposal in general is not something which is politically viable, but the general basis of the concept still seems sound enough.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Like I said, I'm not an expert on this particular topic, but it seems to me that something is better than nothing.But in the case of most of the rationing for the environment arguments I've read concentrate on restricting personal consumption while this misses the mark. The most detrimental part of production is how it is accomplished, not how it is consumed. These bullshit "scientists" are talking about restricting OUR food while the US government DESTROYS food to inflate prices. The fundamental problem with this approach is that the vast majority of environmental damage is done not by the consuming, but by the PRODUCING.

Part of the flaw in this logic of restricting consumption is the myth that "capitalism produces to meet people's demands". This is bullshit - people don't need analogues of Viagra, there's Viagra already. People do need houses, but they stopped building them because they can't sell them at a profit.


People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change, a major new report warns.This is from a different Guardian article. Now really think about how is approach really the best approach in a capitalist society. First of all even in the US there is massive malnutrition and a notable percentage of the population goes without meals. Why ration US when we are not the ones choosing to feed Cows, dead male cows and processed cannibalistic feed that increases fat and as a side-product, increased methane than when cows naturally graze clovers and grasses.

When capitalists fish the ocean, most of what is caught in nets is not profitable and so it dies and is thrown away - they are practically clear-cutting the oceans (as opposed to literally clear-cutting the rain forests) by dragging nets across the floor and digging up everything. So even if everyone cut their fish intake in half, the logic of capitalist production would still result in the needless deaths of countless animals and possibly extinctions as well. A much better reform to curtail the harmful effects of the fishing industry than rationing consumption would be to force industry to take on less profitable but more efficient and less destructive ways to extract fish.

[Vanguard1917]

A much better reform to curtail the harmful effects of the fishing industry than rationing consumption would be to force industry to take on less profitable but more efficient and less destructive ways to extract fish.

Or let's use our ingenuity, "lay down rules for the oceans" (Trotsky) and revolutionise the fishing industry -- which currently resembles a hunter-gatherer situation more than it resembles what we have achieved with food production on the land -- by developing a thriving large-scale aquaculture once and for all. :cool:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Only as long as the aquaculture is state-owned.

[bailey_187]

do the green party support cuts too? I mean, it is reducing peoples consumption. Shouldnt all environmentalists be pro-austerity?

[Technocrat]

So i'd like to see your evidence that any significant section of the British working class saw their living standards rise during the war.

And even if a small section of society did indeed experience a rise in living standards as a result of this general ruling-class attack on workers' living standards, it would not change it from being ... a ruling-class attack on workers' living standards -- as opposed to some nice little policy of sharing, which is essentially what Technocrat tried to portray it as being ("The purpose of rationing is to ensure that no one goes without when resources are scarce." -- a statement that could come from a WW2 government propaganda document).

I'll acquiesce to your superior knowledge on the subject. I don't know enough about the history of wartime rationing in WWII Britain, although I have British acquaintances who lived through that period and told me that rationing was a benefit to the poor. Maybe they were all just making stuff up.

I'll conclude by saying that although what you say of rationing in WWII Britain may be true, the same does not hold for the concept of "rationing" in general.

[Technocrat]

Or let's use our ingenuity, "lay down rules for the oceans" (Trotsky) and revolutionise the fishing industry -- which currently resembles a hunter-gatherer situation more than it resembles what we have achieved with food production on the land -- by developing a thriving large-scale aquaculture once and for all. :cool:

Hey, I agree with this - we should leave the oceans alone and let fish stocks replenish. We can get seafood from fish farms.

I seriously doubt that our current agricultural practices can be sustained, though. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

We will need to implement sustainable agricultural practices. Part of this would be replacing our current large-scale monocropping with more diversified permacultures, which can both produce more food per acre of land and return more nutrients to the soil.

[Fabrizio]

Well, that's just plain nonsense. The purpose of rationing during the war was to keep the masses' consumption levels low. This was part of the general Tory war-effort policy at the time to make the working class work more for less, i.e. to increase the exploitation of labour, in accordance with ruling class wartime policy across Europe and the US at the time. As James Heartfield has outlined fairly recently in an excellent article, greater austerity measures were put in place as capital's class war against labour intensified in order to raise wartime productivity: http://libcom.org/history/world-war-class-war

Yet those measures paved the way for the mass nationalization and the welfare state

Also are you sure about "lowering consumption"...was this really the main objective after a decade of economic depression? Surely the objective was to avoid starvation of the poorest (even if for self-itnerested reasons) at a time of great scarcity.

[Vanguard1917]

Surely the objective was to avoid starvation of the poorest (even if for self-itnerested reasons) at a time of great scarcity.

No, not at all. I'd highly recommend a read of the article linked in the paragraph you quoted.