"Risk Society"

[The Children of the Revolution]

"Risk societies are not class societies ... They contain within themselves a grass-roots developmental dynamics that destroys boundaries"


Risk Society: Towards a new modernity. Ulrich Beck.

Consider the above. Risk society unites the world, exploiter and exploited, by the nature of "risk" - it is universal. Nuclear War, an asteroid impact, or global climate change will affect the Rich and Poor alike. Vast cash and/or material reserves will afford little or no protection to a disaster of a global scale.

In extreme situations - what we are progressing towards - people will be "forced together" due to the "self-endangering" of civilisation. Risk society undermines national and economic boundaries, as well as the promotion of class struggle; united interests are here paramount to the future of mankind.

We are currently (argues Beck) in an intermediate stage, somewhere between an industrial and a risk society. But is this development inevitable? Should it be encouraged? (The united interests at stake would, according to Beck, necessarily produce a utopian ideal...) Is it an alternative to Marxism? Or are the two theories compatible? Comrades?

[redstar2000]

If there is one thing that capitalist society produces in abundance, it is "new theories" to justify itself.

Consider the Titanic sinking...certainly a "global disaster" for that tiny "world". Your chances of survival were in direct proportion to the price that you paid for your ticket; a higher percentage of first-class passengers survived than second-class passengers...and the poor bastards in third-class became fish food.

In the case of the "global risks" postulated by this guy, the upper classes will not be affected in the same way or to the same degree as the "rabble".

In the event of drastic global climate change, the rich will simply appropriate the parts of the planet that remain (or become) the most habitable.

In the event of nuclear war, they will do the same.

In the event of an asteroid colliding with Earth, they will build a space colony and watch the rest of the human species die.

Granted, if the disaster is large enough and completely unexpected, they might indeed be wiped out with the rest of us...and perhaps all vertebrate life on Earth.

But the idea that they will "unite with us" for our benefit in the face of "common peril" is ludicrous.

"Pigs will fly" before that happens.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

Here's another quote:

"Poverty is hierarchic, smog is democratic"

This illustrates perfectly his argument. Pollution, for example, affects EVERYONE. Yes, social "class" or possession of wealth allows you to purchase a certain degree of "safety" - for a while. But as industry develops and the risks become more and more profound, there will no longer be anywhere to run to. Space colonies are nowhere near feasible. Problems - or risks - are global in their nature. Actions taken in the West affect the lives of millions around the world - climate change for example.



If there is one thing that capitalist society produces in abundance, it is "new theories" to justify itself.


This theory runs against capitalist ideas. Instead of promoting the aquisition of wealth, risk society promotes the aquisition of safety for all. As I have said, no amount of money can protect you forever.



But the idea that they will "unite with us" for our benefit in the face of "common peril" is ludicrous.


That was my initial thought. But follow this logic:

> Risks first produce market opportunities; these are exploited by capitalist pigs. Examples - the media, (dissemination of knowledge) drugs companies, (producing vaccinations for allergies or diseases that pollution has contributed toward) etc. etc.

> This exploitation favours contrast between revealing and concealing risks.

> Eventually, the risks get far too large. Ecological damage rises to intolerable levels which can no longer be hidden. It is no longer profitable to exploit risks, they have become threats.

> These threats conspire against even the Capitalist - declining property market, agricultural production etc. etc.

> Therefore it is in the interests of all concerned to deal with the risks; everyone is affected.

Personally, I think the two theories are compatible. A Communist Revolution would not do away with the many risks we face at the moment. Equally, a Risk society would not be entirely utopian or egalitarian. (I agree with you here - although I can see, and subscribe to, the reasons behind universal acceptance of problems and universal action)

Some form of action is inevitable - just as a Marxist revolution is inevitable - the question is, when?

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

I think things would change to a degree, for middle and working class people, but i'm sure the richest of the rich would manage to hang on to their material possesions, they will alwyas find a away, for example they are the ones who can afford bomb shelters, they are the ones who have a huge food supply and plenty of money to do their 'panic buying' with etc etc.

[The Children of the Revolution]

... they are the ones who can afford bomb shelters, they are the ones who have a huge food supply and plenty of money to do their 'panic buying' with ...


Could the emergence of a risk society then promote the class struggle?

If it is only the VERY rich that are to be saved (though they will suffer to an extent) does this not bode well for the prospects of Revolution? I think risk theory certainly has to be investigated...

[redstar2000]

...there will no longer be anywhere to run to.

Something that is true in principle and in the very long run but false in any practical sense.

No member of the ruling class is going to be concerned with the fate of generations a century or more into the future. As long as there is a "place to run", they will run to it.

Nor should we neglect the fact that capitalists like to play "both sides of the game". For every "toxic" industry, there is or will be a "clean-up" industry. When every last drop of oil has been extracted and burned...guess who will be ready to sell you "clean solar power" at an even higher price?


Space colonies are nowhere near feasible.

Gerald K. O'Neill demonstrated their practicality back in the 1970s. Asteroid-detecting programs are already in place and functioning. The discovery of an asteroid on a collision course with Earth would likely be made decades or centuries ahead of time...plenty of advance warning for our rulers to prepare their new homes in space.


Problems - or risks - are global in their nature.

Yes, but effects are different...drastically so. A toxic waste dump in my neighborhood could possibly shorten my life expectancy by a year or two. A toxic waste dump in India has no measurable effect on me at all.

The capitalists do not foul their own nests, except by accident.


This theory runs against capitalist ideas. Instead of promoting the acquisition of wealth, risk society promotes the acquisition of safety for all. As I have said, no amount of money can protect you forever.

In capitalism, "safety" is wealth-dependent. And "forever" is irrelevant...capitalists are concerned primarily with what happens in their own lifetimes. Indeed, for many of them, what happens in the next three months occupies the bulk of their attention.


Therefore it is in the interests of all concerned to deal with the risks; everyone is affected.

Abstractly, that might be true, but so what? Capitalists are not "abstract thinkers". They will exploit "risks" to the limit and, if compelled, abandon the ruins and move on. They don't care about "everyone"...by the logic of their "world-view", why should they?


Could the emergence of a risk society then promote the class struggle?

It's certainly possible that various negative environmental changes could provide additional stimulus to class struggle.

I'm not counting on this, though, because inspite of a great deal of literature on the subject, I haven't actually seen all that much "doom"...or any, actually.

Perhaps, as we have been told repeatedly, the "sky will really fall"..."and soon"...but I remain skeptical.

But if it does, the wealthy will be comfortably sheltered from most of the debris.

That's guaranteed.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

Something that is true in principle and in the very long run but false in any practical sense.


Theories exist in the long term. Marx is still waiting, and he wrote the Manifesto 150 years ago! We are not in a Risk Society yet; these theories are untested.



Nor should we neglect the fact that capitalists like to play "both sides of the game". For every "toxic" industry, there is or will be a "clean-up" industry. When every last drop of oil has been extracted and burned...guess who will be ready to sell you "clean solar power" at an even higher price?


This is what I (and Ulrich Beck) was saying; initially the "Risk Market" will be exploited.
> Eventually, the risks get far too large. Ecological damage rises to intolerable levels which can no longer be hidden. It is no longer profitable to exploit risks, they have become threats.



The discovery of an asteroid on a collision course with Earth would likely be made decades or centuries ahead of time...plenty of advance warning for our rulers to prepare their new homes in space.

No member of the ruling class is going to be concerned with the fate of generations a century or more into the future.

Indeed, for many of them, what happens in the next three months occupies the bulk of their attention.


Good points, comrade...



In capitalism, "safety" is wealth-dependent.


How will money protect you from a nuclear explosion and the subsequent fallout? Or decreasing quality of air due to pollution? Or increased likelihood of natural disasters? Are they going to live underground, in a bunker? If so, would it not be in their interests to tackle the problems?

I do not fully support the utopian ideal proposed by Beck; but I think you dismiss it too lightly.

[Morpheus]

"The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to that. I've always thought [that] under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted; their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. The concern over an agent that causes a one-in-a-million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country where under-five mortality is 200 per thousand." - Memo from Lawrence Summers, Chief Economist of the World Bank at the time. Later he was Bill Clinton's Secretary of the treasury.

In any hierarchical society negatives tend to be distributed towards the bottom and positives towards the top. This is true of pollution, see the above quote. It is also true of other risks. Most of the risks being discussed here are actuall being CAUSED by capitalism or the state - nuclear war, pollution, etc. A "risk society," if it comes about, will simply be the precursor to capitalism destroying humanity. The person you refer to is implicity an apologist for capitalism, and for white supremacy (enviromental racism), because he's trying to fool us into thinking the risks are spread evenly, and that they have a source other than hierarchy, when neither is true.