Socialists And The Green Movement

[YKTMX]

OK, I don't have much time, I have to go to work in a hour (for British Petroleum, haha - conflict of interests).

But the relationship mentioned in the title is something I've been considering for a little while. I know the greens and the enviros have been at the centre (in fact, they may have even started) the anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist movement.

First of all, let me state that I accept that global warming is happening. The science is not dodgy, it's overwhelming. I'll also say that in large part the damage being done is unnecessary. Capitalism funnels mountains of resources into industries like weapons manufacturing and the military which would not exist under socialism. Also, the pursuit of profit is completely at oods with any sort of enviromental concerns, so I don't see how one could be a genuine enviromentalist without being an anti-capitalist. I also accept that, in the final instance, there is only one planet, and that the Earth in the long-run is a closed system (that is, there is only so much energy and then it runs out). We must use those resources in a fashion that respects, but doesn't "bow" to in some spritual sense, the Earth. The Earth is a complex ecological system with its own laws, etc etc.


However, and here's the bit that might be controversial, I do see something slightly reactionary and misanthropic in sections of the Green movement. And I'm not just talking about the lunatic fringes, such as the "Deep ecology" movement ("plants have feelings too").

Let's get this straight: human beings are part of "nature". As an evolved species, we have the right to inflict ourselves on the planet as much as anything else. This may, from time to time, involve "destroying" other habitats and enviroments. This is all part of evolution. When the grey squirrel arrived in Britain it didn't think "well, I better not breed too fast or I might endanger the red squirrel", it did it anyway. And don't get me wrong, this doesn't apply to every situation. Wholescale de-forestation, for example, is irrational, because it threatens the survival of our species (never mind all the other ones).

And to the question of "development". Capitalist development is never going to benefit the poor people of the world or the enviroment. But this doesn't mean that we should just go on some crusade against progress or human development. I favour the Chinese and India people becoming much wealthier than they are now. I support the right of the Indians and the Chinese to "use up" the resources of the planet in developing their economies and lifting people out of poverty, because these things, like oil, are only a resource because our big brains allow us to make them so. If a herd of elephants came upon an oil well, they wouldn't or couldn't consider it a "resource". It only becomes a resource when we can both conceive of making it so and have the technology to do it.

And in the process of developing, we will always leave a mark upon the planet. The Planet is a sturdy thing, it's meant to be battered about, which is why it's so teeming with life and seemingly "unique". There's no reason to be ashamed about "leaving our mark". Sometimes you get the impression that ecologists wish the industrial revolution had never happened.

Let's be clear here: the industrial revolution, for all its horrors and barbarism (which I would totally deplore) was a good thing. The reason the world has seen such a massive population explosion and increased life expectancy, not to mention things like cinema or air travel or cars, is because of the industrial revolution. It's good that we've grappled with nature and conquered some of our "flaws". This has allowed us to fly without wings and go deep into the sea without gills, or travel at hundreds of miles an hour on land in safety and comfort.

Under socialism, we would still have cars and aeroplanes. We would still drill for oil. We would still have people travelling everywhere and anywhere (even more so). We would want the poor places of the world to be consume "more" things and more resources, while we consumed as much or maybe more than we do now.

For socialists, the enviroment and "nature" should be a thing we're mindful of, but not deferrential to. I don't believe that the Earth feels "pain" or that there is some abstract force called "nature". Just like I don't believe in God. I believe that human beings can make the world in their own image, and should do.

Our job is not to stop that image being imprinted, but to change the image and make sure the image stays there for a long, long time. Capitalism is not sustainable, but socialist progress is.

[Enragé]

the goal of any political movement should be to maximize the amount of happinness for everyone. If this means producing more, while damaging the environment, so be it, however if this means producing less, and in fact even becoming less "wealthy", but thereby increasing the quality of environment, that is what we should strive to.

I dont think we should get caught up in abstract ideas of "progress" based on anything except the idea that life is to be as pleasant as possible. We dont need to get more stuff all of the time, perhaps less actually IS better. Point is, this should be up to communities/societies themselves.. we should not be forced into producing more all of the time simply because some abstract idea says "more = progress" and neither should we be forced to go live in caves because some other abstract idea says "to restore nature, the "natural balance" (whatever that may be) = progress".
Only ONE thing matters, quality of life. I dont want to live in a world without technology, but i dont want to live in a world without trees, animals etc. either.

[YKTMX]

the goal of any political movement should be to maximize the amount of happinness for everyone. If this means producing more, while damaging the environment, so be it, however if this means producing less, and in fact even becoming less "wealthy", but thereby increasing the quality of environment, that is what we should strive to.


Fine, I accept that.

My problem is with petty bourgeois liberals and ruling class politicians (I'm not suggesting you're either of these, haha!) who are falling, or leading us, into a kind of bizarre "new age" post-materialism. whereby westerners are "bad" because they have "too much".

I like using up resources. I like flying to places I've never seen, I like using my computer and TV. I like having central heating. I like having enough to eat and drink. And I'd like that for everyone in the world. If that means just distributing existing resources better, then that's great. If it means the world "consuming" even more, then that is also fine.

It seems to me that this deflects from the real problem, which is not of Westerners having "too much", but of some obscenely wealthy westerners having "too much". So, rather than talk about the dynamics of our own unequal societies, we want to use broad brush strokes (the rich and poor world).

[Hit The North]

Under socialism, we would still have cars and aeroplanes. We would still drill for oil. We would still have people travelling everywhere and anywhere (even more so). We would want the poor places of the world to be consume "more" things and more resources, while we consumed as much or maybe more than we do now.

I'm currently reading 'The Party's Over' by Richard Heinberg and he claims that the emerging energy crisis will result in the end of sustainable industrialization by the middle of the current century.

So we could very well see the collapse of capitalism coinciding with a serious depletion of energy resources. This would have obvious implications for the (hopefully) subsequent socialist/communist society as it would be inheriting a lower level of productive forces - plus a more fucked up environment.

Therefore, it's not clear that the attainment of a higher level of consumption would be the main task of the new society.

Let's be clear, Americans and Europeans already consume more than their fair share of global resources. The idea that this would continue after the revolution seems untenable.

[Enragé]

My problem is with petty bourgeois liberals and ruling class politicians (I'm not suggesting you're either of these, haha!) who are falling, or leading us, into a kind of bizarre "new age" post-materialism. whereby westerners are "bad" because they have "too much".

A non-materialist outlook is a logical reaction to the defeat of religion in the western world (europe at least). Honestly, i can understand it. A world revolving around having things is a load of crap (in fact, the reason why I strive for a communist revolution is because communism leads to a situation in which material possesions are not important because everyone has what they need, so dont have to worry about it). However if you then go around saying shit about some godlike mother earth, we are once again falling into the same trap of religious bullshit.

The only way to do away with materialism's bad influences (as in everything in life is revolves around having things) is to have everything available for everyone, not about denying the importance of material circumstances. I think if we just put that forward would lead to any support for mystical ideas of mother earth, or the idea that having stuff is "bad" would more or less wither away.


I like using up resources. I like flying to places I've never seen, I like using my computer and TV. I like having central heating. I like having enough to eat and drink. And I'd like that for everyone in the world.

Well sure you do
But do you also like wastelands?
Do you like animals dying?
Do you like species annihilated?
We have to weigh one thing against the other, is having 1 car for every adult in the population of a country worth the destruction of 6 animal species in that country, or in any other country?
Do you think spraying chemicals used in make up into a baby kitten's eyes worth looking "better"?
Do you think destroying every single tree on the western hemisphere is worth you flying to places you've never seen?

Its about making choices.
Sure, most people would like to get high every single day, but they dont, cuz it might just kill them.
You cant have both a shitload of wealth as well as have beatiful landscapes, cute little animals etc.


If that means just distributing existing resources better, then that's great.

i think its mostly just that.


It seems to me that this deflects from the real problem, which is not of Westerners having "too much", but of some obscenely wealthy westerners having "too much". So, rather than talk about the dynamics of our own unequal societies, we want to use broad brush strokes (the rich and poor world).


true

[elmo sez]

We need to start making our actions less damaging to the environment.

Think of it like this

Making paper
Capitalism - Goes out cuts down entire forest ( doesnt replant ) - makes brown pulp in factory - ands many dangerous chemicals to paper to make it white - sells paper - paper used - then thrown away into a landfill

Socialism/Communism/Anarchism : Hemp is used instead of trees bceause it grows much faster, easy to replant , little space needed thus saves forest - makes pulp in the factory using other hemp products , naturally white therefore no need for harmful chemicals - given to who needs it - used- recycled

So as you can see from this example - you dont really end up with less stuff its just made far better .

Oil is another example . we dont need it you can make oil substitute out of hemp its just hemp oil , it works just like oil makes plastic and runs engines everything oil can do it can do better .

But having less stuff is generally better. like every adult doesnt need a car
We all dont need a lawn mower .. see what I mean

[Amusing Scrotum]

The Green Party section down here, is actually one of the larger sections of a very small "left"....and I happen to have met a lot of the people involved and, on occasions, chatted with them about this type of stuff. And, to be honest, I agree with YKTMX ( :o ) that there are sections of what would be called the "mainstream" "Green Movement" that are "slightly reactionary and misanthropic"....and this, in my experience, has a lot to do with their class.

To use two real life examples here. I've met a really nice lady who's working class, a mother of four and so on; and for here, as far as I can see, the Green part of the Green Party wasn't the most appealing thing. Rather, it was the Green Parties orientation towards old Social-Democracy, well a version of it anyway, that seems to be the major appeal. Much like, for instance, how over the years many workers have been drawn to the British Labour Party.

Likewise, I met a fella' from the rich end of town....and his views definitely verge on "misanthropic". The last I heard, he was busy railing against the building of a tiny bypass type thingy in an area that is always clogged with traffic....and what's more, he doesn't even live in the area concerned. And this is the type of "Green-ism" that I really object too....not least because it's proponents seem to have no idea how difficult it is to, say, do your weekly Tesco's shop when you've got too spend hours in traffic.

So whilst it wouldn't be wise to "universalise" my own personal experiences, I'd imagine others have found the difference between working class "Greenies" and petty-bourgeois "Greenies" to be pretty apparent. And, in my opinion, the class differences within the "Green Movement" is something that should be of interest to us....hopefully, helping to guide our approach.

Another thing to point out, is how despite a lot of "Greenies" promoting the idea that they are against "big business" (never capitalism in general), they're actually funded by small capital which hopes to become big capital. A whole lot of the proposed "Green options", are options that also happen to be sponsoring the Green Party....which really makes the Green Party, and "Greenies" in general, the vessel through which certain sections of the bourgeois aim to maximise profit.

And, given that, I&#39;m always very sceptical when someone tells me of the benefits of this or that Green technology. Especially when, for instance, the real solutions are often far simpler than some far out thing made with wood that that generates energy by smiling at the Sun. <_<

I mean, for instance, there&#39;s a lot of talk about people using less energy or cleaner energy and so on. And, basically, that all, in reality, means a drop in living standards for just about all of us. Yes, some of the best things that can be done are some of the simplest. Little things like Insulation and Double Glazing can go a long way to stopping environmental damage....though it&#39;s far more satisfying for moral puritans to suggest that we don&#39;t watch TV for more than an hour and so on.

I mean, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think that really big and radical changes need to be made in order to "save" the environment, in my opinion, small changes on the Construction side, would help, more or less, to neuter the problem. And, to be honest, a lot of those changes are already happening....there are, for instance, a massive amount of Environmental Laws that govern basic Plumbing procedures. But, of course, there are major problems with main underground pipelines and they won&#39;t be solved until capitalism is gone. But that&#39;s another discussion....

As it happens, a few months ago I had to write a piece of College Coursework along the lines of how the Built Environment impinges on the Natural Environment. And, basically, my whole piece came down to just saying that the Built Environment will impinge upon the Natural Environment....and that&#39;s the fucking point. And, of all people, it was a comment by Chris Harman that I found most useful. When describing early societies, he said that said societies developed by "harnessing" the Natural Environment....and, in my opinion, where possible, that&#39;s all we ever need to do. And not bow down to the Natural Environment and treat it as some abstract societal member that deserves societal rights.

And, as it wrote that, I realised that I&#39;ve gone off on one hell of a tangent here; so back on topic.


Originally posted by YKTMX+--> (YKTMX)I favour the Chinese and India people becoming much wealthier than they are now.[/b]

As it happens, there&#39;s an American Architect who&#39;s been commissioned to develop cities in China at the moment....and his viewpoint is very interesting. In my opinion, it&#39;s the type of Architecture we&#39;d find in a communist society....and, if you like, I&#39;ll link some information on the guy and his Architecture for you.


Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+--> (NewKindOfSoldier)the goal of any political movement should be to maximize the amount of happinness for everyone.[/b]

Yeah; thing is though, I&#39;m happy when my hayfever leaves me alone. Which means less trees and more concrete&#33; :P


Citizen [email protected]
Let&#39;s be clear, Americans and Europeans already consume more than their fair share of global resources. The idea that this would continue after the revolution seems untenable.

Actually, a while ago I saw some figures which said that the U.K. is 4% of the World&#39;s population and consumes 4% of the World&#39;s energy. I was surprised by that myself, but I don&#39;t remember thinking that there was anything that would make me dispute said figures.

I mean, in reality, I doubt there is that big a difference between the "third world" and "first world" in terms of actual energy consumption. Mainly because these areas do have Heavy Industry and that consumes most of the energy. The energy consumption of the populace, is actually rather small compared to that....and I very much doubt the Environment would even notice it if every household in the World had electricity, running water and so on.

Indeed, I&#39;d wager that all the waffle about development in the "third world" harming the Environment, is actually bollocks. And, furthermore, I&#39;d say that there is a distinct possibility that this line of thinking could be made into a new Imperialist ideology....that is, the Imperialist Powers will say they&#39;re invading X because if X industrialises, it will endanger the whole World.


el.mozez
We all dont need a lawn mower....

That&#39;s because we don&#39;t all have lawns. <_<

[Si Pinto]

I think the real debate needs to be between the Greens themselves, as to how are they going to really accomplish the environmental goals they want to and that we all need.

Sooner or later they are going to have to realise that only the abolition of capitalism is going to let them accomplish these aims. I think quite a few Greens do see this fact, but many of them prefer to be Leftist Greens rather than join us, probably for the sake of their ego&#39;s. They fail to see that it won&#39;t be enough, having Green MEP&#39;s or MP&#39;s or whatever isn&#39;t going to make the changes required possible.

There is no point having a Green government in say...Germany whilst the US refuses to sign upto anything and other countries just keep on polluting as they wish.

Only communism offers the real chance for global climate control, by creating global equality.

I hope the Greens get the message soon and join us, we should make every effort to help this happen.

[Enragé]

Yeah; thing is though, I&#39;m happy when my hayfever leaves me alone. Which means less trees and more concrete&#33;

:P
well then we&#39;ll just have to like discuss with other people how we can make you as happy as possible without upsetting the tree-lover-i-like-to-take-walks-in-forest-people (like moi, though i actually like to ride my bike through forests or nature-ish places more than walking ;) )

or we could just give you some medecine against the hayfever :P

[elmo sez]

That&#39;s because we don&#39;t all have lawns. dry.gif

The childishness of this place sometimes amazes me but thats getting off topic.

I was simply relating the topic to my own experiences , let me explain more . I live in a town that is currently riding on the economic boom here in Ireland, people think that the good times will never end and now own all of this pointless crap like a lawn mower each a powerhose each electic hedge trimmer ....useful to an extent but like how often do they use them ...there should just be like one of everything for each block/street .
The ironic thing is , that were the bottom of the ladder we where very poor before the economy picked up , like i mean it was unusal to have a job. And unfortunatly well soon be back there when it all goes belly up ....but hey at least we got a lawn mower each for a patch of grass that we clink too

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is one of the few times I agree with YKTMX. There&#39;s always been a anti-industrial streak to the Green movement, and that really irks me because without the benefits that industrialisation provides it&#39;s harder to monitor one&#39;s impact on the environment and to an extent, fix the damage caused by the less savoury aspects of industrialisation.

On a personal note, having lived in rural Wales for the better part of 6 years, living far from the benefits provided by urbanisation and industrialisation plain sucks. Having to dash out in the rain and cold to use the outdoor toilet is something I should not have to deal with, neither is having to walk for miles to reach shops and services, and some are too far to walk and one is forced to use the polluting car since public transport in rural areas sucks enormous amounts of donkey penis. And the small, close-knit communities in villages and small towns engenders a close-minded mental state hostile to outsiders - compare that to the cosmopolitan tapestry of the big cities&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:08 AM
But the relationship mentioned in the title is something I&#39;ve been considering for a little while. I know the greens and the enviros have been at the centre (in fact, they may have even started) the anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist movement.
I&#39;m not sure why this is supposed to be a point in their favor.

The "anti-globalization" movement is all about economic nationalism, and to describe it as anti-capitalist is just plain inaccurate. It&#39;d be more accurate to describe it as anti-import.

The "Battle in Seattle"? It featured foreign steel dumped in Seattle harbor, Greens wearing sea turtle costumes to protest imports of shrimp from Indonesia....and Patrick Buchanan, the U.S. equivalent of LePen. This seemed to bother most of the left...not at all.

The Greens are a middle-class movement, and as such frankly reactionary at times. This is not a surprise.

United action with Greens? Fine, if it serves workers&#39; goals. General political support of the Green Party? Wouldn&#39;t be caught dead.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:33 AM
United action with Greens? Fine, if it serves workers&#39; goals. General political support of the Green Party? Wouldn&#39;t be caught dead.
I agree, I think the ball is definately in the Greens court, if they are REALLY interested in long term climate control then they must see how the destruction of capitalism is the only way to achieve it, and having realised this they should declare their solidarity with the ideas of global equality.

The problem is that too many of the Greens are far too interested in climbing the political ladder rather than really changing things.

If the Greens can forget about the short term rewards of entering the bourgeois parliament and instead declare their true leftist intent, then we may have something to work on with them.

[YKTMX]

The "anti-globalization" movement is all about economic nationalism, and to describe it as anti-capitalist is just plain inaccurate.

The anti-globalization movement is a contested field. No one "tendency" holds overwhelming control. There are reformist tendencies and there are revolutionary anti-capitalist ones. I don&#39;t think "economic nationalist" would really describe any group in the movement however.


The Greens are a middle-class movement, and as such frankly reactionary at times. This is not a surprise.


I wasn&#39;t really interested in assessing the social characteristics of the Green movement, but its "politics" more generally.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Si Pinto+Jul 28 2006, 10:27 AM--> (Si Pinto @ Jul 28 2006, 10:27 AM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 08:33 AM
United action with Greens? Fine, if it serves workers&#39; goals. General political support of the Green Party? Wouldn&#39;t be caught dead.
I agree, I think the ball is definately in the Greens court, if they are REALLY interested in long term climate control then they must see how the destruction of capitalism is the only way to achieve it, and having realised this they should declare their solidarity with the ideas of global equality.

The problem is that too many of the Greens are far too interested in climbing the political ladder rather than really changing things.

If the Greens can forget about the short term rewards of entering the bourgeois parliament and instead declare their true leftist intent, then we may have something to work on with them. [/b]
Isn&#39;t one of the main "reformist" arguments against revolution that the ruling class would "destroy the planet" before handing it over to the subordinate classes?

I know this is Susan George&#39;s argument anyway.

[RedJacobin]

I think there is some truth to the statement that lifestyles in the Western countries are not ecologically sustainable. Socialism is not going to mean extending that lifestyle to the whole planet.

Under socialism, conditions in the imperialist countries are going to have to be drastically reshaped.

This might mean a decrease in the individual consumption of resources. At the same time, life would get better, because everyone would have food, shelter, education, and healthcare. There would be more public goods like public transportation, parks, theaters, eateries, and things like that. Also, there&#39;d be improvements in life that go beyond material consumption, like women would finally be able to walk outside alone at night without having to fear being raped and crime in general would decline.

Cuba has been on the cutting edge of preventing deforestation, organic farming, and promoting biodiversity. People from all over the world go there to study its efforts.

I think one can be an environmentalist while supporting industrialization in oppressed countries. If they don&#39;t industrialize, that just means that scarce resources will be used up only by the imperialist countries.

[LeninReborn]

I think preserving the environment wherever possible is socialist - after all, the earth is for all of us, not just for a few rich individuals. We should preserve the earth for future generations.

By the way, for those of you who may remember it, I would like to apologise for my earlier criticism of anarchism. I am clearly still a conditioned westerner...

[More Fire for the People]

The socialist movement is a &#39;green&#39; movement in the sense that it supports biodiversity, planned ecology, etc. but the socialist movement should have no tolerance for crypto-primitivists. Socialists should publically disown persons who support plant occupations without support of workers management. Treespikers should die :angry:

[Vanguard1917]

Environmentalism is a misanthropic, neo-Malthusian and petit-bourgeois reaction to capitalist development. Its ascendancy (it used to be an insignificant, grass-roots movement until fairly recently) is partly a product of the radical retreat of working class-orientated criticisms of capitalism since the 1990s and partly a product of capitalist sluggishness.

It is therefore reactionary and should be opposed.

[KC]

I don&#39;t think "economic nationalist" would really describe any group in the movement however.

What about "Buy USA&#33;" and that kind of thing? How is that not economic nationalist? I agree with everything else you said in that paragraph.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:03 PM
Isn&#39;t one of the main "reformist" arguments against revolution that the ruling class would "destroy the planet" before handing it over to the subordinate classes?

I know this is Susan George&#39;s argument anyway.
Agreed YKTMX, but it is exactly that type of idiocy that the real Greens need to distance themselves from, because in some respects that point is correct, the cappies will destroy this planet before we achieve our aims and before the Greens have the chance to do anything.

That&#39;s why the Greens need to see the light (or have the guts to admit they do because I think a lot do in private), and proclaim their leftist intent before we&#39;re truly screwed as a species.

The clock is ticking.

[thewoodcutter]

well, as for india and china achieving the same levels of consumption (and standards of living) as the developed world (north america especially), that is completely impossible. the earth cannot physically support that level of consumption.
our situation is like that of any other animal: if the woods are filled with large numbers of deer, the wolf population will rise, lowering the deer popultaion. the large number of wolves will subsequnetly have fewer deer to eat, and many will die off, leaving the deer to repopulate.
i know this sounds like a very basic example, but it&#39;s all just energy flow. for the east to raise their levels of consumption, the west must decrease theirs. the only way for all people to have a reasonable (western style) standard of living is to decrease the human population.
as for decreasing our impact on the earth (in order to live in a healthier environment), &#39;green&#39; technologies are essential. for the moment, &#39;green&#39; tech is fairly inefficient, but only because its development is underfunded and inhibited by those who have too much to lose if oil is no longer required to power industry.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:00 PM
I wasn&#39;t really interested in assessing the social characteristics of the Green movement, but its "politics" more generally.
Is there a difference? The reason that the Green&#39;s politics seem middle class is because that&#39;s exactly who&#39;s drafting them.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 28 2006, 09:59 PM--> (ComradeOm @ Jul 28 2006, 09:59 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 03:00 PM
I wasn&#39;t really interested in assessing the social characteristics of the Green movement, but its "politics" more generally.
Is there a difference? The reason that the Green&#39;s politics seem middle class is because that&#39;s exactly who&#39;s drafting them. [/b]
I wouldn&#39;t say it was "exactly" the reason. Most middle class people aren&#39;t enviromentalists.

I think there&#39;s more to be said for the origins of the green movement than "they&#39;re all middle class".

The Luddite movement was not a petit-bourgeois invention.

[workingman]

Your on about using recorces planet earth is the most precious recorce we have&#33;

[LoneRed]

The two can be combined, and if communism is to advance its a must.


Rick

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:43 AM
Environmentalism is a misanthropic, neo-Malthusian and petit-bourgeois reaction to capitalist development. Its ascendancy (it used to be an insignificant, grass-roots movement until fairly recently) is partly a product of the radical retreat of working class-orientated criticisms of capitalism since the 1990s and partly a product of capitalist sluggishness.

It is therefore reactionary and should be opposed.
This is kind of an odd statement. Capitalism destroys the environment - as many people have pointed out, going back to Marx and Engels - and both working people and middle-class people often oppose this, for good and obvious reasons.

If this opposition has increased, could this just possibly be because environmental destruction has increased? And also that as society becomes richer, more and more people have the luxury of thinking and acting about problems beyond their personal economic situation?

Really, environmentalism first started to be prominent in the 70s, as one of the later symptoms of the 60s-70s radicalization. Most of the concessions by the ruling class to this movement - in the U.S., including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, creation of the EPA, and a near-halt to nuclear power construction - date to the 70s. If anything, the fight for environmental protection has been in retreat more recently - along with anything else that cuts into profits.

Now, your statement might make some sense if was about some of the ideologies which attempt to raise environmentalism from a single issue to a general worldview. But "environmentalism" does not, in most people&#39;s usage, refer just to primitivists, or "deep ecology" people, etc.

[RebelDog]

To attack those who call for controls to safeguard the environment is reactionary, lets get that straight. Thats the job of the Telegraph, Express and the Daily Mail. They do this because they see environmental controls as a threat to the profits of the capitalist class they represent. Our movement must call for environmental controls as part of attack on capitalism and its senseless excesses.

Of course it is right to be in our movement and call for progress. But I think people are somehow misinterpreting the situation and becoming unwitting reactionaries themselves. To me safeguarding the environment and desiring human progress are not opposing beliefs but ones that must be held in tandem. We have to have a safe, clean environment to survive and thrive. Here in the UK we are like any other developed country in that we need only cut waste to achieve our Koyoto targets. The development of renewables would take us way beyond our Koyoto targets. The UK (Scotland specifically) could be the world leader in renewable development, but it is the intransigent, unprogressive nature of capitalism that is holding this back, ie, all is dependent on quick profit and the taxpayer building the infrastructure.

I think in arguing against capitalism and putting forward our alternative we put forward a programme that is sustainable and sensible. We must expose the psuedo-environmentalists like Blair who argue for people to travel by bus whilst they prop up a glabal system that produces goods on one side of the world and ships them needlessly to the other side. A system that produces more waste and duplication than can be counted. Human progress is sustainable, capitalism is not.

Global warming has already killed thousands of the most vulnerable people on this planet and that is just the start. Unless it is stayed global warming will displace millions of poor people on the coasts and deltas and kill millions. The irony is these people will have been the least complicit in its manifestation. Global warming is probably now the most important reason humanity has for removing capitalism, in terms of its survival. We should be at the forefront telling those people you have to be red to be green. We have to remove capitalism to remove the threat of global warming. Many, many people in the green lobby understand this. I think in the future we will converge when the revolution comes.

[Vanguard1917]

This is kind of an odd statement. Capitalism destroys the environment - as many people have pointed out, going back to Marx and Engels - and both working people and middle-class people often oppose this, for good and obvious reasons.

The starting point of Green politics is that human beings are having too much of an effect on &#39;the earth&#39; and that this is the source of the world&#39;s problem. In reality, human beings are not having enough of an effect on the world. That&#39;s why Green politics has rightly been called misanthropic by some of its critics.


If this opposition has increased, could this just possibly be because environmental destruction has increased? And also that as society becomes richer, more and more people have the luxury of thinking and acting about problems beyond their personal economic situation?

I think it goes a lot deeper than that. Greens are anti-progress and a product of our current period in which the class putting forward a progressive alternative to capitalist production - i.e. the working class - has retreated.

Let&#39;s be clear: this is a political movement that rallies against the development of productive technology (GM technology, for example), patronises Africans on which pesticides they can and cannot use (DDT), calls for &#39;sustainable&#39; development in the underdeveloped world, and is suspicious of industrialisation and urbanisation.

It is a movement of middle class Westerners. Roy Innis has a point when he calls them &#39;eco-imperialists&#39;.

Interestingly, greens are also key critics of population growth, revealing their underlying disdain for humanity. The less of us the better&#33;


Now, your statement might make some sense if was about some of the ideologies which attempt to raise environmentalism from a single issue to a general worldview. But "environmentalism" does not, in most people&#39;s usage, refer just to primitivists, or "deep ecology" people, etc.

Scratch the surface and greens of all varieties share the same underlying misanthropic premises.

[MichaelCollins]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 28 2006, 04:20 PM
The socialist movement is a &#39;green&#39; movement in the sense that it supports biodiversity, planned ecology, etc. but the socialist movement should have no tolerance for crypto-primitivists. Socialists should publically disown persons who support plant occupations without support of workers management. Treespikers should die :angry:
well, these "Green Anarchists" don&#39;t like you either:


Unfortunately, many anarchists continue to be viewed, and view themselves, as part of the Left. This tendency is changing, as post-left and anti-civilization anarchists make clear distinctions between their perspectives and the bankruptcy of the socialist and liberal orientations. Not only has the Left proven itself to be a monumental failure in its objectives, but it is obvious from its history, contemporary practice, and ideological framework, that the Left (while presenting itself as altruistic and promoting "freedom") is actually the antithesis of liberation


http://www.greenanarchy.info/left.php

---------------

as for those who say that environmentalism is "misanthropic" and whatnot... well... maybe it is. But I suspect that I might be as well. I could never want to live in a city devoid of green, surrounded be heaps of people milling about and whatnot. Country side? Absolutely. Small towns? Sure. Big city? Hell know -- and particularly not the sort of sprawl that is rampant in America these days. For instance, Newport News or Hampton. Richmond is pushing it, but at least its not a sprawling heap (although it is dirty).

As I have said in some posts in op-view, I&#39;m really not sure where I stand on some of these issues. I agree with what the "envrionmentalists" say but am hesitant to associate myself with the people who say it, if that makes sense. You lot don&#39;t seem to care for them much, either.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:24 PM

This is kind of an odd statement. Capitalism destroys the environment - as many people have pointed out, going back to Marx and Engels - and both working people and middle-class people often oppose this, for good and obvious reasons.

The starting point of Green politics is that human beings are having too much of an effect on &#39;the earth&#39; and that this is the source of the world&#39;s problem.
Maybe that&#39;s true - though the Greens are pretty heterogenous, from everything I&#39;ve seen. So is "environmentalism" synonymous with the Green party or this belief? No.


In reality, human beings are not having enough of an effect on the world.

That&#39;s another strange statement, since human beings are having a tremendous effect on the environment, and much of that effect is harmful to humans.

It&#39;d be more accurate to say:
The problem is, there&#39;s not enough conscious, social control of human beings&#39; effect on the world. I suspect a lot of self-described environmentalists - maybe a lot of self-described Greens - would agree with that.


Let&#39;s be clear: this is a political movement that rallies against the development of productive technology (GM technology, for example), patronises Africans on which pesticides they can and cannot use (DDT), calls for &#39;sustainable&#39; development in the underdeveloped world, and is suspicious of industrialisation and urbanisation.

All reactionary positions....except "sustainable development", depending on what&#39;s meant by that. Can environmentalism be reduced to those positions? No.

Aside from the anti-GM thing, not even the major activities of environmental groups. The anti-GM movement in Europe, I&#39;d suggest, is as much anti-U.S. protectionism by European agribusiness as anything.


It is a movement of middle class Westerners.

And Chinese peasants, apparently. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=3657)

And Black, Latino, and American Indian communities across the U.S. (http://www.ejnet.org/ej/civilrights.html)

You think working people enjoy breathing smog or getting cancer? You think they never try to do anything about it?


Roy Innis has a point when he calls them &#39;eco-imperialists&#39;.

Roy Innis is a hired voice of the actual imperialists. The finance capitalists who are in fact responsible for starvation in the Third World; even the worst middle-class Greens lack that power.
In 1968, Roy Innis seized control of CORE and moved the group to the far right. Innis has been accused by founder James Farmer and other black leaders of renting out CORE’s historic reputation to corporations like Monsanto and ExxonMobil. (CORE even mounted a counterprotest to environmentalists picketing an ExxonMobil shareholders’ meeting.) “We all want to protect our planet,” says CORE spokesman (and Roy’s son) Niger Innis. “But we must stop trying to protect it from minor or illusory threats—and doing it on the backs, and the graves, of the world’s most powerless and impoverished people.” Niger Innis has also said that the terms “eco-imperialism” and “eco-slaughter” should be household words.

Helping CORE form these talking points is its senior policy adviser, Paul Driessen, the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, who also works with several other ExxonMobil-funded groups. At a 2004 ExxonMobil shareholders’ meeting, Driessen referred to CORE as “one of America’s oldest and most respected civil rights organizations” and called for greater funding for the group.
source (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/blackgold.html)
Presumably you&#39;re not being paid; but I gotta say you&#39;re repeating ExxonMobil&#39;s line also.

Seeing as how Paul Driessen, not Innis, is actually the originator of that "eco-imperialism" line, let&#39;s take a look at his website - eco-imperialism.com (http://www.eco-imperialism.com/main.php)

But even today in Mexico, key industries remain nationalized, and wealth is concentrated in the hands of elites. Prevalent ideologies view wealth as “a zero-sum game,” in which what one person acquires can come only by taking money or property from someone else. These doctrines help foment class conflict, demand “more equitable” distribution of wealth, and condemn globalization and foreign investment, rather than seeing them as agents of improved opportunity, health and environmental quality.
.....
Mexico is not poor because it lacks natural resources or bright, industrious citizens. It is blessed with both in abundance. Mexico is poor because it retains an antiquated legal and economic system – and its populist leaders scapegoat the United States for what ails Mexico, rather than adopting the practices of successful nations.

The prevailing line of the actual imperialists today has seldom been more clearly stated.


Interestingly, greens are also key critics of population growth, revealing their underlying disdain for humanity. The less of us the better&#33;

I gotta say, population control is not a particularly prominent activity of environmental groups either. Or anyone, nowadays.


Scratch the surface and greens of all varieties share the same underlying misanthropic premises.

See, here&#39;s your problem. You just state that - throughout your post - without even beginning to prove it.

Additionally, you&#39;re focusing your attention on ideological errors rather than material forces actually responsible for poverty, underdevelopment...and yes, environmental destruction. To the point where you find yourself repeating the propaganda line and catchphrases of those forces.

[Vanguard1917]

It&#39;d be more accurate to say:
The problem is, there&#39;s not enough conscious, social control of human beings&#39; effect on the world. I suspect a lot of self-described environmentalists - maybe a lot of self-described Greens - would agree with that.

The reality is that hunger and disease are major problems in the underdeveloped world.

The type of hunger and disease suffered in much of the underdeveloped world has largely been eradicated in the West.

The countries of the underdeveloped world need rapid development - not &#39;sustainable development&#39;. In other words, they need to decide for themselves what kind of development they need. Western environmentalists have no right to decide what kind of development is suitable elsewhere in the world.

In our present period, there is no movement in Western society putting forward a progressive alternative to capitalist development.

Criticisms of capitalism today are coming from the middle classes, and there is nothing progressive, let alone revolutionary, about them.

Environmentalists call for capitalists to practice restraint. This is also the main criticism of the bulk of the &#39;anti-globalisation&#39; movement. The idea is that capitalism is going too far.

In reality, the problem with capitalism is not that &#39;it is going too far&#39; - the problem is that it is unable to go far enough: in terms of developing the forces of production, breaking down old social relations, cultures, traditions, etc. As long as economic production is left to the spontaneity of the market, human beings cannot affect their environment to the level that is necessary for human beings to master their environment.

The environmentalist logic is something which is quite different.