Given the state of the environment, how much time do we really have for revolution?

[CynicalIdealist]

Say the temperature goes up three degrees in our lifetime before we're able to overthrow the bourgeoisie and subsequently regulate the environment through democratic planning. What then? Are we fucked for good? I keep wondering if we're in a now or never phase of capitalism with regard to the potential for both environmental and nuclear catastrophe. We may barely have any time at all.

Maybe somebody more scientifically informed can shed their thoughts on the subject. Is this a contradiction in capitalism that the bourgeoisie can overcome through "innovation" at least temporarily, or are we on the fast track to complete disaster?

[ColonelCossack]

What a depressing thought.

[The Insurrection]

Say the temperature goes up three degrees in our lifetime before we're able to overthrow the bourgeoisie and subsequently regulate the environment through democratic planning. What then? Are we fucked for good? I keep wondering if we're in a now or never phase of capitalism with regard to the potential for both environmental and nuclear catastrophe. We may barely have any time at all.

Maybe somebody more scientifically informed can shed their thoughts on the subject. Is this a contradiction in capitalism that the bourgeoisie can overcome through "innovation" at least temporarily, or are we on the fast track to complete disaster?

What do you think will happen in these environmental situations? The world isn't going to end in these situations. Actually, in these situations they will probably make capitalism even weaker and less able to justify itself. There will be massive conflict as capital scrambles to reassert control over dwindling resources. If it hasn't happened before then, these "catastrophes" may even be a catalyst.

[ColonelCossack]

What do you think will happen in these environmental situations? The world isn't going to end in these situations. Actually, in these situations they will probably make capitalism even weaker and less able to justify itself. There will be massive conflict as capital scrambles to reassert control over dwindling resources. If it hasn't happened before then, these "catastrophes" may even be a catalyst.

I agree- capitalism is unsustainable on so many levels, and the way it deals with the environment is just one. If that goes, like you say, it is likely to trigger other internal contradictions that exist in capitalism.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I would say a while more...but that isn't to say that we would live in anything that resembles what we have now (which is really saying something).

[Blake's Baby]

What will (does) happen in these situations is millions of people will be living in poisoned hellholes that are more and more likely to flood or suffer other extreme weather conditions, have previously unknown diseases, and whose infrastructure is breaking down.

Whilst this should make more people question the current organisation of society, it also quite obviously is a huge barrier to organising against and fighting capitalism. It also paradoxically makes it easier for capitalism to offer a host of miracle solutions that don't actually solve the problem. How many people, for instance, came out of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in the USA a few years ago going 'you know what, the governments's handling of the whole thing has convinced me that marxism is the answer'? Repeat that for the BP debacle, the Bhopal disaster, the sinking of the Exxon Valdez, or a million other environmental catastrophes where capitalism either caused it directly, or made a natural phenomenon into a catastrophe with bad decision making and under-use of resources?

Most people I'd hazed think that the system needs tweaking but environmental catastrophes can be a hugely effective way for capitalism to present itself as a technological and dynamic solution to its own problems - 'this is too big and complex for you to deal with, you need the government and corporations with their technology and massive resources, research labs etc to sort this out'.

[Jose Gracchus]

Well, based on the IPCC figures and the growing minority of even more pessimistic climatologists, if the Earth encounters 4-5 degree Celsius average increases, worldwide economic growth will likely become near-impossible. Investment costs due to sheer crisis-management and adaptation will siphon off most of the surplus available for intensive development, which in turn will lead to a receding horizon of economic and technological mitigation.

Personally, I think if the revolution has not occurred, or if capital does not seriously take into consideration its own continued existence and reproduction, by fifty year from now, the window to sustainable human technological civilization will probably close. A decline into barbarism or even extinction is possible, depending on severity. One must keep in mind, even besides global climate change and its extreme consequences, that enormous social, environmental, and feedstock/raw material constraints for human material reproduction will inevitably be encountered this century. Crude oil will almost certainly be exhausted as economically accessible for its current economic uses (that is, we may have some barrels of oil left, but we will not be able to use it functionally for what we do now if it costs $600/barrel). As will natural gas, and even coal by late century. Many other strategic resources, from rare earth minerals, to arable land, fertile soil, fertilizer resources themselves, and even potable water will be constrained. At current rates of consumption, all global fisheries will be fished to depletion by mid-century.

I do agree, that there is small a window of opportunity to build a material human community, or this entire human experience might well turn out to be a dead-end.

[Zav]

If the planet's temperature goes up three degrees in our lifetime, then yes, we're in deep shit. It's only gone up four since the Industrial Revolution.
Even though it may act as a catalyst for an Anarchist/Communist Revolution, I'm not sure the damage would be worth it.

The answer to this question lies in how optimistic one is. If one's most optimistic one would say that the Revolution is around the corner and this increase mustn't be allowed to happen. If one is just a little optimistic one would be uncertain of the exchange values. If one's a little pessimistic the answer would be that it may be worth the cost, and if one is most pessimistic the answer would be that the environmental cost is worth the Revolution. My problem with the latter-most view, besides it being too anthropocentric, is that we can't be certain that such an event would make everyone realize that the State and Capitalism are the problems and inspire them to destroy said institutions.



Personally, I think if the revolution has not occurred, or if capital does not seriously take into consideration its own continued existence and reproduction, by fifty year from now, the window to sustainable human technological civilization will probably close. A decline into barbarism or even extinction is possible, depending on severity.

Barbarism is not the opposite of technological civilization. The former is a level of violence, and the latter is a form of social organization. As we should be aware of, there is more violence in cities then outside them, even when accounting for population differences, due to the abject poverty they create. There is violence in almost all change, but it will settle out. What you mean to say is that if we don't do something RIGHT FUCKING NOW, there will be global resource wars (see Africa), and/or extinction (also see Africa). I point this out because the concept of barbarism, as the opposite of empathy and peace, being applied to the absence of civilization is particularly offensive. Other than that, I agree with you completely.

[Belleraphone]

I'm just hoping that the capitalist institutions will see "Hey, I can't make a profit if I'm suffocating in CO2 and baking under the sun" and will reform themselves to still oppress the working class but not be totally destructive to the environment.

Either that or hope that the moderate liberals can at least put some regulations on the companies, the environmentalist movement is growing.

[Jose Gracchus]

By barbarism, I simply mean a level of human survival that does not entail immediate extinction (though probably not long off--without having taking advantage of the window of fossil-fueled industrial civilization, no escape from the Earth as tomb will be possible), but a failure to constitute and sustain the capitalist mode of production, and a subsequent social and demographic collapse.

Steady-state capitalism is impossible.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

well, seeing as climate change takes thousands of years. and it is getting colder, id say 500 years, then once that is done, about 400 years to correct it

[Die Neue Zeit]

Investment costs due to sheer crisis-management and adaptation will siphon off most of the surplus available for intensive development, which in turn will lead to a receding horizon of economic and technological mitigation.

Personally, I think if the revolution has not occurred, or if capital does not seriously take into consideration its own continued existence and reproduction, by fifty year from now, the window to sustainable human technological civilization will probably close. A decline into barbarism or even extinction is possible, depending on severity. One must keep in mind, even besides global climate change and its extreme consequences, that enormous social, environmental, and feedstock/raw material constraints for human material reproduction will inevitably be encountered this century. Crude oil will almost certainly be exhausted as economically accessible for its current economic uses (that is, we may have some barrels of oil left, but we will not be able to use it functionally for what we do now if it costs $600/barrel). As will natural gas, and even coal by late century. Many other strategic resources, from rare earth minerals, to arable land, fertile soil, fertilizer resources themselves, and even potable water will be constrained. At current rates of consumption, all global fisheries will be fished to depletion by mid-century.

I do agree, that there is small a window of opportunity to build a material human community, or this entire human experience might well turn out to be a dead-end.


By barbarism, I simply mean a level of human survival that does not entail immediate extinction (though probably not long off--without having taking advantage of the window of fossil-fueled industrial civilization, no escape from the Earth as tomb will be possible), but a failure to constitute and sustain the capitalist mode of production, and a subsequent social and demographic collapse.

Steady-state capitalism is impossible.

At that point, I recall an old response of mine to Dimentio and hereby include in the definition of barbarism the objective necessity of discounting of majority action and the "democratic principle" (Bordiga) in favour of minority- and authority-driven coordinated action resorting to:

1) Economy-wide expropriations (and maybe eminent domain for compensating a select few political friendlies)
2) Other economy-wide "socialist" accumulations by dispossession (like real wage depression across the board and scrapping programs for the elderly, so all that talk about inter-generational economic conflict comes to the fore)
3) Absolute directive planning with technology measuring all inputs and input constraints, but both being the privy of a select few at the top politically
4) Centralization of allocation of direct production materials, labour time (so as to minimize currency black markets), capital equipment, etc.
5) Extensive use of corvee labour and other forms of conscripted labour (to succeed discipline-wise where the Soviets didn't with regards to the inability to fire grunt workers)
6) Pervasive labour discipline culture (like against absenteeism)
7) Wholesale "renewal of cadres" (euphemistically speaking, as a means to punish incompetent managers)

In order to achieve industrial redevelopment and ecological sustainability. Consumer goods and services would be way down the pecking order (heightened "austerity" propaganda, standardization of nutritional needs through proliferation of military-style rations and promotion of "rational" consumption culture around such), particularly if there are fears of overpopulation throughout society.

In short, it should sound familiar; it's a mixture of Act Utilitarianism (philosophically), Bordigism, and "High Stalinism."

[Jose Gracchus]

Sounds like a likely horror story of the late century, but nothing to recommend it. I do not advocate that, I am a communist. That is what will happen if communist revolution does not happen, and the misanthropic greens and neo-Malthusians join the body of armed men.

I actually knew a friend who was writing a tragic disaster story set in conditions much like you are (advocating?) here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm not really advocating, just warning of the second-worst-case scenario (the worst being no industrial redevelopment, no ecological sustainability, and the general drive to extinction). This would be the Coordinator Revolution, free from bourgeois and petit-bourgeois property relations, in its purest form.

[Ocean Seal]

What will (does) happen in these situations is millions of people will be living in poisoned hellholes that are more and more likely to flood or suffer other extreme weather conditions, have previously unknown diseases, and whose infrastructure is breaking down.

Whilst this should make more people question the current organisation of society, it also quite obviously is a huge barrier to organising against and fighting capitalism. It also paradoxically makes it easier for capitalism to offer a host of miracle solutions that don't actually solve the problem. How many people, for instance, came out of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in the USA a few years ago going 'you know what, the governments's handling of the whole thing has convinced me that marxism is the answer'? Repeat that for the BP debacle, the Bhopal disaster, the sinking of the Exxon Valdez, or a million other environmental catastrophes where capitalism either caused it directly, or made a natural phenomenon into a catastrophe with bad decision making and under-use of resources?

Most people I'd hazed think that the system needs tweaking but environmental catastrophes can be a hugely effective way for capitalism to present itself as a technological and dynamic solution to its own problems - 'this is too big and complex for you to deal with, you need the government and corporations with their technology and massive resources, research labs etc to sort this out'.

I agree with this post. We really need to start getting rid of those bourgeoisie rq. I mean this quite seriously, the environment is essentially a clock for revolution. Significant environmental decay is going to take a very long time to repair even under socialism. And environmental decay is a way for capitalists to opportunistically enforce austerity measures and really fuck us quite hard. I'm going to say this, I really hope that the tides of class war turn in 50 years or less, I really do. If they do we might be able to avoid a global ecological catastrophe.

[Jose Gracchus]

DNZ: Now there's something you said I can agree with. This sounds like every right-technocrat peakist or Malthusian or hard green really wants.

Though I am skeptical that such a social form is really possible. "High Stalinism" never departed that much from value, even in theory.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why would "right-technocrats" want this? It's free from bourgeois and petit-bourgeois property relations (Marx's adage about capital being a fetter to its own expansion or something like that). Heavy-handed authoritarian planning based on labour time would atomize black markets and their development. Now, Malthusians and "hard greens"? Maybe.

My scenario was a critique of Bordiga's authoritarian turn from "The Democratic Principle" onwards.

I'm just saying, coming from my much younger, more utilitarian-based background, that this Coordinator Revolution mixing Act Utilitarianism, Bordigism, and "High Stalinism" would be the second-worst scenario compared to staying in the downward spiral within barbarism.


Though I am skeptical that such a social form is really possible. "High Stalinism" never departed that much from value, even in theory.

Why do you doubt the possibility? Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[socialistjustin]

Aren't we already fucked? I remember 5 years ago when this debate was happening we would need to make changes in 5 or so years to avoid catastrophe. It has been 5 years and we have done fuck all. We're these projections alarmist or real?

[Le Rouge]

Aren't we already fucked? I remember 5 years ago when this debate was happening we would need to make changes in 5 or so years to avoid catastrophe. It has been 5 years and we have done fuck all. We're these projections alarmist or real?

But what do you mean by fucked? That the world will end? That many species/people will die? Complete melting of poles?

We are not fucked and will never be in our lifetime...But i didn't say we won't have many environmental problems.

[socialistjustin]

By fucked I mean the process of climate change being nearly irreversible. With that you would get all the resources wars and such. Even now there are droughts and extreme weather taking place. There was a book called Tropic of Chaos that was released recently talking about the drought the horn of Africa and other places. Haven't read it, but it sounds pretty horrific.

[Jose Gracchus]

Why would "right-technocrats" want this? It's free from bourgeois and petit-bourgeois property relations (Marx's adage about capital being a fetter to its own expansion or something like that). Heavy-handed authoritarian planning based on labour time would atomize black markets and their development. Now, Malthusians and "hard greens"? Maybe.

I disagree. I think that it is impossible to arbitrarily suppress money or pseudo-monetary exchange by fiat, even with the use of labour-hour accounting and labor-hour consumer-points for consumption. The ruble was not instrumental to Soviet black markets; in fact, the exchange-economy was characterized by the insufficiency of the ruble for fill bourgeois-money (universal commodity) functions. The gray and black market used blat, barter, substitute-money (gold or other intuitive stores-of-value), and foreign hard currency.

I'm giving technocrats some credit, and presuming that it is the "right" that wants to resort to reactionary super-exploitation of laboring masses.


I'm just saying, coming from my much younger, more utilitarian-based background, that this Coordinator Revolution mixing Act Utilitarianism, Bordigism, and "High Stalinism" would be the second-worst scenario compared to staying in the downward spiral within barbarism.

Agreed.


Why do you doubt the possibility? Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I doubt the extent to which a political center and technocracy can juridicially and impose upon the property and social relations on the ground level. "High Stalinism"'s real ability to command productive relations on the base of society was highly overrated. Considerable assets were destroyed, massive social and political resistance provoked, and massive disorganization and productivity losses were incurred. Its sustainability in the historical scenario was more due to Russian and 1920s historical contingency than any objective tendencies, in my view. If that makes sense.

[Blake's Baby]

By fucked I mean the process of climate change being nearly irreversible. With that you would get all the resources wars and such. Even now there are droughts and extreme weather taking place. There was a book called Tropic of Chaos that was released recently talking about the drought the horn of Africa and other places. Haven't read it, but it sounds pretty horrific.

Then we're already fucked and have been for decades, probably.

Remember when Bush didn't ratify the Kyoto accords and the greens condemned him? Hypocritical on their part, I remember in the early '90s when the Kyoto accords were put forward almost all green groups condemned them, as not going far enough. So Bush was being condemned for not something the greens knew wasn't going to work anyway, 15 years after it was already kinda useless.

I'm old enough to remember when it snowed every winter here (in the UK) - and often in spring too. We've had snow in the last couple of winters but for a long spell (from maybe 1993-2008) snow was very rare here. That's not right. Weather patterns have been changing for a couple of decades, at least; but whether these are blips, and will return to 'normal', or whether they're permanent features now, we don't know. We also don't know how much we're contributing to the process.

What we do know is that changes in weather patterns do happen naturally, and sometimes these happen very rapidly. In a couple of decades there can be major changes; we're pretty confident that the climate records from ice-cores etc can be read to demonstrate that there can be non-manmade rapid changes.

This gives 'climate sceptics' comfort - 'oh look the earth warmed by 4 degrees 10,000 years ago, that wasn't because stone age people were driving SUVs in cities and using incandescent lightbulbs'. True. The earth did that without any obvious help from people. So how much worse will it be if we throw billions of tonnes of toxic gas into the atmosphere and cut down the rainforests? Errrm... much worse I'd guess.

What we also know is that the planet is several degrees warmer than it was a couple of centuries ago. While that might not sound like it matters - the earth has warmed before, life has survived - there are two factors that are very important; firstly, the last warming occurred when there were maybe a couple of million people (if that) on the whole planet. Floods? Extreme weather? Environmentally-induced food shortages? Never mind. Pack up the tents, let's climb the hill, and tomorrow we look for berries on the far side, maybe we'll find out if the heard of deer we were following went that way. Now we have 7 billion people (80% or more of whom live on land in danger of rising sea-levels) and it will be much harder to find space and resources for them all. We're not just talking 'life' as an abstract concept in biology here, we're talking about people; how many people are going to die bacause of capitalism's failure to grapple with this?

Secondly, the last 'Global Warming' brought the world out of a cold period - the last (so called) Ice Age. We are currently in a warm period. We 'should' be moving into a cold period. Instead, things are getting warmer. So we are actually seeing 'Global Warming' on top of a period of... Global Warming.

It may be impossible to reverse this in any meaningful way. But if we coinsider that it's human-generated (or even human-enhanced) we should probably redouble efforts to do something about it. Either way we have to cope with the consequences for decades, if not centuries.

But what is to be done? I'd say that capitalism will never be able to solve this, as capitalism is based on profit, and hang the environmental consequences. The rich can afford to move, to protect themselves, and if some plebs starve or drown or die in the water-riots or oil-wars or whatever... well. Plenty more where they came from.

So, yet again, it's another great reason for overthrowing capitalism, before it's really too late.

[Jimmie Higgins]

the scale of the environmental problems and inability and disinterest of ruling classes to do anything about it really underscores the idea that it really is either socialism or barbarism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I disagree. I think that it is impossible to arbitrarily suppress money or pseudo-monetary exchange by fiat, even with the use of labour-hour accounting and labor-hour consumer-points for consumption.

Electronically, the disabling of circulation, with or without application to legitimate intermediate transactions, can be done. Where did you come up with the term "consumer points"?


The ruble was not instrumental to Soviet black markets; in fact, the exchange-economy was characterized by the insufficiency of the ruble for fill bourgeois-money (universal commodity) functions. The gray and black market used blat, barter, substitute-money (gold or other intuitive stores-of-value), and foreign hard currency.

I don't think the barter and substitute money were that pervasive, before taking into account informer networks. Even before taking into account electronic development, money can be carried around easily, as opposed to the hard assets. The foreign hard currency is irrelevant to the scenario I just posed. Any currencies created would be private (and illegal), but not recognized in any of the legal stores. At best, the black market potential would be limited to petty barter.

[I stated this point in my old CSR pamphlet's appendix, countering a "libertarian" assessment of labour credits.]


I'm giving technocrats some credit, and presuming that it is the "right" that wants to resort to reactionary super-exploitation of laboring masses.

OK, but not too much credit.


I doubt the extent to which a political center and technocracy can juridicially and impose upon the property and social relations on the ground level. "High Stalinism"'s real ability to command productive relations on the base of society was highly overrated. Considerable assets were destroyed, massive social and political resistance provoked, and massive disorganization and productivity losses were incurred. Its sustainability in the historical scenario was more due to Russian and 1920s historical contingency than any objective tendencies, in my view. If that makes sense.

Um, informer networks? Management rotations between locations (not "enterprises")? "Renewal of cadres" generally?

I'm sure my scenario doesn't have a permanent shelf life, either. Once industrial redevelopment and ecological sustainability have been achieved, once that society has been "led out of the wilderness" (Biblically speaking) by the Coordinator Revolution, questions will be asked.

[Jose Gracchus]

The secondary economy (which was vital to the functioning of the Stalinist military system, the so-called primary economy), and the illegal exchange was accomplished on the basis of favors, industrial barter, and state theft. Even in our modern era of much greater use of electronic accounting and data management, and inventory control, there is still corruption and embezzlement and theft. And in 'conventional' 'market' capitalism, you have some level of real competition for market-share and freedom to fail to keep things honest. In a Stalinist system there's no reason for the state authorities to be able to adequately police and monitor things (in fact, they are susceptible to material bribes or favors) at the base. And as noted before, centrally-administrated economies were usually chaotic to the point where a certain level of tacit tolerance for secondary economic activities had to be accepted, just to meet the needs of supply and information which the military system was not and could not be adequate to. I do not think this was simply a problem of inadequate information and technological tools at the disposal of the Stalinist ruling center.