The prospect for Marxism concerning climate change

[monkeydust]

This isn't really a developed theory as such; just a thought that came to my mind a little while ago.

It seems pretty certain that two processes are currently occuring. In the first place, we are probably going to see some degree of climatic change affecting the environment in the future, and, secondly, our natural non-renewbale resources may well soon become ever more scarce.

"End of the world" scenarios are probably pretty pointless at this stage, so I won't comment on their likelihood or unlikellihood.

However it seems that the probable net result of the aforementioned two factors will be, to some extent, an increasing dearth of resources available to man (or a lessened ability to practically extract them or sustainably use them), and therefore an overall reduction of wealth in the world generally.

Presumably in such a situation bourgeois classes aren't going to sit idly by and accept their own resulting loss in income. It would be expected for them to try and grab as much as is possible while they can.

So, if this were to be the case, a corrolary of potential climate change and dwindling resources would be increasing poverty for mass populations - especially if the world population continues increasing. If we are to reach a situation in which the earth's resources cannot sustain people in their current state of relative wellbeing, it seems only logical - provided the rich ruling classes do not wish to dispense with their own wealth - that in the future your average "Joe Bloggs" will be worse off than he is today.

If humans are unable to come up with sustainable and equally efficient and cheap methods for producing energy, then there's going to be some loss somewhere along the line, in terms of our overall prosperity.

Does the future, then, bode well for Marxism? Are we likely to see the prospect of radical social change made more likely by the increasing paucity of wealth resulting from environmental changes in the next 100 years? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree?

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:14 PM
This isn't really a developed theory as such; just a thought that came to my mind a little while ago.

It seems pretty certain that two processes are currently occuring. In the first place, we are probably going to see some degree of climatic change affecting the environment in the future, and, secondly, our natural non-renewbale resources may well soon become ever more scarce.

"End of the world" scenarios are probably pretty pointless at this stage, so I won't comment on their likelihood or unlikellihood.

However it seems that the probable net result of the aforementioned two factors will be, to some extent, an increasing dearth of resources available to man (or a lessened ability to practically extract them or sustainably use them), and therefore an overall reduction of wealth in the world generally.

Presumably in such a situation bourgeois classes aren't going to sit idly by and accept their own resulting loss in income. It would be expected for them to try and grab as much as is possible while they can.

So, if this were to be the case, a corrolary of potential climate change and dwindling resources would be increasing poverty for mass populations - especially if the world population continues increasing. If we are to reach a situation in which the earth's resources cannot sustain people in their current state of relative wellbeing, it seems only logical - provided the rich ruling classes do not wish to dispense with their own wealth - that in the future your average "Joe Bloggs" will be worse off than he is today.

If humans are unable to come up with sustainable and equally efficient and cheap methods for producing energy, then there's going to be some loss somewhere along the line, in terms of our overall prosperity.

Does the future, then, bode well for Marxism? Are we likely to see the prospect of radical social change made more likely by the increasing paucity of wealth resulting from environmental changes in the next 100 years? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree?
I would say that the chances for real communism as whole would not
dwindle - due to the fact more people would be inclined to concider our
ideas. But this in and of itself - has do with the capability of making our
ideas understandable in everyday language. Because if we what we say
makes sense to the working person - then our chances for the establish
-ment of a classless society would grow.

[redstar2000]

What worries me is that since the ruling class is planning a major reduction in the working class standard-of-living anyway (as shown by the dismantling of the portions of the state apparatus devoted to public welfare)...an "environmental crisis" will be a "great excuse" for what they already plan to do.

Particularly, if people swallow it.

We could end up with a situation in which the working class of 2090 lives no better than the working class of 1890...and yet accepts that because "it's the environment, you know."

Accordingly, I think it would be a good idea for us to attack the idea of an "environmental crisis" whenever that idea is used as a cover for increasing the exploitation of the working class.

No doubt the climate is going to continue to change (it always has) and much of the planet will just have to learn to do without winter. That's not a "valid excuse" for attacks on the working class; we should not let the ruling class "get away with" that crap.

As to resource depletion, that will not happen -- in my opinion. That's not because some resources may not be actually depleted...it's because the ruling class would have to be insane not to have substitutes "ready to go".

I can't predict what those substitutes will turn out to be...but everything I've observed about capitalist psychology tells me that they will not sit around with their thumbs up their asses and watch their whole social order just collapse for want of raw materials.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Iepilei]

Our economy will fluxuate significantly the decline in oil or the proposed "simulation" of it. While I don't find this too far fetched, I believe the ruling-class would be digging their own grave if they intentionally shocked the market.

:ph34r:

[monkeydust]

What worries me is that since the ruling class is planning a major reduction in the working class standard-of-living anyway (as shown by the dismantling of the portions of the state apparatus devoted to public welfare)...an "environmental crisis" will be a "great excuse" for what they already plan to do.

Particularly, if people swallow it.

We could end up with a situation in which the working class of 2090 lives no better than the working class of 1890...and yet accepts that because "it's the environment, you know."


I'm not so sure.

I realy doubt that the working class of 2090 will accept their poverty in the way that those in the 19th century often did. Workers in the 19th century were not well off at all, no. But the privations that they experienced were what they had always known.

A hypothetical working class of 2090 will not merely have to endure squalor comparable to the 19th cenury in and of itself; it will have to lose its former relative affluence. I dubt many will accept that, personally.

And I'm sceptical about how far the working class will be duped into believeing the environment is an excuse to allow for their poverty and yet for the propserity of the upper-classes to remain. The extent of communications today - particularly the internet - will probably preclude any such mass ignorance.

I actually think the effects of the environment, in terms of their contribution to the decreasing overall wealth in the world, will make the prospect of a Marxist revolution much more likely. If people are - over the course of, say, 50 years - pushed into abject poverty, I think the odds of some challenge to the current way of things will be vastly increased.

Incidentally, I've noticed over the last 10 years or so a number of "anti-globalization" and "anti-big business" stemming from the "green" movements, and these ideas seem to be gaining considerable currency. Of course, such ideas aren't in "Marxist" in the full sense, but the fact that they are able to take root in society and also often stem from concerns for the environment can surely only be a good thing in terms of revolutionary ideas being more widely accepted in the future.