Will Climate Change trigger a Proletarian Revolution?

[Chomskyan]

Climate Change is going to severely harm us if it's not curbed sooner or later. Is there a chance that people will rise up before it is too late and end capitalism, the source of this problem?

[Blake's Baby]

If you mean, 'will the working class take to the barricades rather than drown?' probably not.

If you mean, 'will the working class take to the barricades before we all drown?'... well, it won't be taking to the barricades after, that's for sure.

If you mean, 'is it possible to link the idea of a socialist future with ecologcal sustainability?' then very definitely it is.

[Tsiolkovsky on the Moon]

There is an interesting article on this subject here (http://www.humanistsforrevolutionarysocialism.org/Current_Articles/Climate+Evolution.htm).

I think that disastrous events and major ecological shifts have pushed humanity in different directions before and the coming climate change is no different. However, I don't think that it is guaranteed that the direction taken will be a proletarian revolution; climate change itself is not enough for the revolution to take place, it would merely give an opportunity for a revolution to occur.

The proletarian would have to seize upon this opportunity, because there are an endless number of paths we could take in the fallout of an ecological disaster.

[Comrade #138672]

It may act as a catalyst, because it clearly shows how disastrous capitalism really is, but on its own, it does not say much.

[OzymandiasX]

Climate change will set into effect, as it already has, the economic circumstances which will then foster an atmosphere of discontent as the most basic necessities of life become more scarce. Whether the people look left or right as they try to remedy their situation depends on several factors, but rest assured the highly stigmatized left will have a much more difficult time garnering support compared to the far right, which has wide spread and far more enthusiastic representation throughout the media and politics.

In reference to the USA: It almost seems like the foundation has been set for a sudden shift into a fascist dictatorship. We just need the spark to light up the nation, the fear and underlying contempt for human life has surfaced in the culture. In the following years, as oil prices inevitably climb back up yielding to an ever increasing cost of living, particularly unaffordable food prices, this will most definitely produce a breeding ground for radical political discourse. But I am not sensing a very favorable environment for the left.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What *is* interesting, in a sense, is that not only is capitalism the source of climate change, but capitalism is itself increasingly premised on climate change and the consequent displacement of subsistence farmers and traditional communities, increasing dependence on capitalism's networks of relations to mitigate the outcomes of environmental catastrophe, etc. Or, like, to simply say that capitalism is "the source" can obscure the way in which they are more deeply intertwined.
What's hopeful, maybe, is that anyone who finds themselves in combat ostensibly with either/or has to necessarily reach a certain impasse at which point they must confront both. Of course, some supposed ecologists are resigned to this impasse - happy to waste their lives and energy away in useless campaigns for this or that green reform - as some supposed "leftists" (particularly in the unions) are happy to applaud the "progress" of pipeline construction. Thankfully, I believe most people aren't so stupid or opportunistic (as the case may be), and that these struggles increasingly come together; that a more nuanced consciousness can, and in fact is, emerging out of struggles that begin to see capitalism as a totality which shapes and is shaped by "the environment" (itself a totality, and not an "issue").

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What *is* interesting, in a sense, is that not only is capitalism the source of capitalism, but capitalism is itself increasingly premised on climate change and the consequent displacement of subsistence farmers and traditional communities, increasing dependence on capitalism's networks of relations to mitigate the outcomes of environmental catastrophe, etc. Or, like, to simply say that capitalism is "the source" can obscure the way in which they are more deeply intertwined.
What's hopeful, maybe, is that anyone who finds themselves in combat ostensibly with either/or has to necessarily reach a certain impasse at which point they must confront both. Of course, some supposed ecologists are resigned to this impasse - happy to waste their lives and energy away in useless campaigns for this or that green reform - as some supposed "leftists" (particularly in the unions) are happy to applaud the "progress" of pipeline construction. Thankfully, I believe most people aren't so stupid or opportunistic (as the case may be), and that these struggles increasingly come together; that a more nuanced consciousness can, and in fact is, emerging out of struggles that begin to see capitalism as a totality which shapes and is shaped by "the environment" (itself a totality, and not an "issue").


I agree with what you're saying, but what makes you think most people are not stupid or opportunistic enough to latch on to "green" reforms? I would say the vast majority of people I've talked to about this believe (and this is normally a direct quote) "They'll figure something out". I've even heard leftists claim that capital will be forced to make changes strictly for market reasons. Everyone but a small minority seems to have accepted that this is a problem to be addressed by someone else, presumably the same group of jokers who caused it in the first place.

Without a serious change in that kind of view I see no hope of this being a catalyst for revolution, at least not until it's too late to matter anyhow .

[RedBlackStar]

People are of course moulded by Capitalism to be selfish and concern themselves only with that whumich effects 'me and mine'. I'm sure that's not a new idea to any of you comrades. The only way in which this can change is for people to recognise that what's best for society's improvement is best for their children's future; that means that we must first create social change before people begin to identify both the seriousness of these problems and their source: Capitalism and the State.

This social change would be a product of informing and educating people; primarily young people around my own age who tend to be more receptive to new information and ideas. Until the point that people can gain access to this, both in improved formal education and greater access to resources then society won't change. And until society changes people will only take up arms for that which directly and obviously concerns them, which are normally reactionary to things like cuts etc.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The old Socialist Labour League, who for all their subsequent nuttery could write extremely orthodox (as far as Trotskyism is concerned) texts, had this to say about hopes for capitalism spontaneously collapsing in the sixties:

"Reformists and opportunists of all varieties echo the spokesmen of the bourgeoisie in supposing, and hoping, that the separate manifestations of the fundamental world crisis can be taken one by one and separately remedied. Marxists claim that this is impossible. All such problems are related because of the inextricable connections between them established by imperialism itself. They do not assume, however, that imperialism will somehow collapse because the contradictions which it secretes will eventually bring the system to a halt. Such an idea of automatic downfall is no part of Marxism. The history of the last 40 years has driven home the lesson so often repeated by Lenin and Trotsky, that there are no impossible situations for the bourgeoisie. It survived the challenge of revolution and economic depression between the wars by resort to fascism. It survived the Second World War with the complicity of the Stalinist and Social Democratic leaderships—which ensured that the working class would not make a bid for power—and used the breathing space to elaborate new methods of rule and strengthen the economy. Even the most desperate situations can be overcome if only the active intervention of the workers as a class for themselves, with a party and leadership with a perspective of overthrowing capitalism, is not prepared in time."


(World Prospect for Socialism)


And I think this needs to be repeated to those who are looking for a way for capitalism to collapse of its own accord, without the intervention of a class-conscious, politically-organised proletariat. There are no impossible situations for the bourgeoisie. If widespread ecological devastation were to occur, the bourgeoisie would happily let most of the world drown and sell leaky rafts to the survivors. And the proletariat, unless it is conscious of its tasks, unless it is organised to carry them out, would not stop them.

[Blake's Baby]

Absolutely agreed. 'Socialism or barbarism' is a choice that humanity faces. Until the working class organises to destroy capitalism and wrench society towards the former, we will be served with increasing doses of the latter.

It may be that some workers will come to a critique of the future capitalism has to offer by realising that it's poisoning the planet; but in general, I think it's more likely be other things that galvanise large numbers of workers.