Environmentalists oppose immigration

[Vanguard1917]

'"We've got to talk about these issues - population, birth rates, immigration," says Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which confronts whalers, seal hunters, and those who poach wildlife in the Galapagos Islands. "Immigration is one of the leading contributors to population growth. All we're saying is, those numbers should be reduced to achieve population stabilization."' Article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0512/p01s04-ussc.html)

Environmentalists are hostile to immigration on the grounds that it leads to population growth and is 'unsustainable'. Old-fashioned racist arguments against immigration are no longer seen as legitimate in Western politics. Instead, it is now argued that mass immigration gives way to 'over-population' and 'unsustainability' - terms popularised by Greens. Anti-immigration sentiment today more than often employs the language of environmentalism to justify its position. More and more, environmentalist ideas are finding themselves at the core of contemporary reactionary politics in the West.

Environmentalists are taking sides against immigrants. What do we need to do to confront the Greens?

[Guerrilla22]

That argument makes no sense. We can't have immigration because population growth degrades the evironment. There is no population growth with immigration, people are simply relocating, its not as though they wouldn't exist if they weren't in a different country.

[Comrade_Scott]

is this the train of thought in every large(famous) group of environmentalists because this is the biggest load of crap ever. the environment is in the state its in because its "cheaper to pollute than go green" and we have an attitude of "ill be dead anyway" so dont blame immigrants.... just shit racist shit!! i hope this isnt the train of thought for all environmentalist groups (major)

[BreadBros]

I highly doubt anti-immigrant sentiments are as widespread among conservationists as you attempt to make them seem. In the US the biggest conservationist group is the Sierra Club. In 2004 some anti-immigration activists attempted to make the case against immigration on conservationist grounds and ran for the Sierra Club's Steering Committee. The media then made it appear as if it were some major debate between two different sects of environmentalists. The result was that in the end the "population reductionists" only got 3% of the vote. Its of interest to note that the person you quote had to resign from the Sierra Club because his ideas were unwelcome there.

As Guerilla22 pointed out, its a ridiculous argument to say that immigration leads to environmental destruction. The environment is a global system and people have an effect on it regardless of where they live. Industrialization is just as much an issue in the third world as in the first. I don't think most environmentalists have much of a problem discerning that fact. Not to mention that most rational people are able to balance competing issues, such as environmental degradation and people's economic necessity without being dogmatic.


Old-fashioned racist arguments against immigration are no longer seen as legitimate in Western politics.

Maybe true in the UK, definitely not in the US. Ever heard of Pat Buchanan? One of the main issues for American anti-immigration activists is the dilution of "American culture" and the English language by "invaders".

In my opinion far more troubling than anti-immigration environmentalists (which I don't think I've ever encountered in my experiences in pro-immigrant organizing) is the trend by some people to argue against immigraton from a pro-labor standpoint ("Help! The evil immigrants are depressing our wages!"). In my opinion thats far more widespread (I've sadly seen quite a few Minutemen who were members of major American trade unions) and more of a problem on the left.

[bcbm]

Your argument, like most of the ones you spout, is a logical fallacy through and through.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 05, 2007 11:13 pm
Your argument, like most of the ones you spout, is a logical fallacy through and through.
Who's that?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+March 05, 2007 08:33 pm--> (PRC-UTE @ March 05, 2007 08:33 pm)
black coffee black [email protected] 05, 2007 11:13 pm
Your argument, like most of the ones you spout, is a logical fallacy through and through.
Who's that? [/b]
Vanguard1917.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:28 am
Environmentalists are hostile to immigration
Um, no, some environmentalists are hostile to immigration. I know it's been a hotly contested issue within the Sierra Club, for example.

As Breadbros points out, a lot of people oppose immigration in the name of workers' rights. Historically many, and even some today, labor unions have opposed immigration. Famously Cesar Chavez in the middle of one of the UFW's early organizing drives among farm workers, called for "illegal" immigrants to be deported.

And certainly that's the most commonly used argument against immigration. Number two is vague fearmongering around "crime", "drugs" and "terrorism". I have to say it's been a while since I've heard an environmentally based justification for anti-immigrant policies. Not that it doesn't exist, just that it's hardly the main one as you claim.

So one could use your same argument to say labor unions are reactionary groups which should be "confronted."

****

Now I'll agree that the Sea Shepherd group is profoundly reactionary. In addition to the bit on immigration you've quoted, they've been active in harassing Makah Indians excercising their treaty rights to hunt whales, and made some pretty racist comments in that context. Also, citizens of the U.S. going out to attack ships from other countries is pretty clearly a bit of inter-imperialist hostility.

How should they be opposed? When they hold a reactionary action, counter-mobilize. As the Makah, other Native American tribes, and their supporters did. (http://www.themilitant.com/1999/6324/6324_7.html)

[YSR]

Originally posted by Vanguard1984
Environmentalists are taking sides against immigrants. What do we need to do to confront the Greens?

I am an environmentalist. I have not taken sides against immigrants. Quite the opposite, I am working with immigrant groups in my area.

There, you're wrong! Oh, what's that, you mean some reactionary bourgeois who happen to believe in some parts of "environmentalism" because it legitimizes their control are anti-immigration? Boy, it sure would be inaccurate and ridiculous if you said that green perspectives are becoming at the core of contemporary reactionary politics in the West! That sure would be purposely misleading of you.

[Vanguard1917]

We can't have immigration because population growth degrades the evironment. There is no population growth with immigration, people are simply relocating, its not as though they wouldn't exist if they weren't in a different country.

The Green argument, as that article points out, is that immigrants are more likely to have more children in America than they would in their home countries:

'there's new evidence that Hispanic women who move to the US have more children than if they stayed put.'

Also, we should remember that the Greens may talk about 'saving the planet', but Green ideology is first and foremost a Western middle class ideology and expresses a series of contemporary Western middle class interests and prejudices. Along with opposing large-scale industrialisation, the middle class instinct has also always been to be hostile to immigration.


The environment is a global system and people have an effect on it regardless of where they live. Industrialization is just as much an issue in the third world as in the first. I don't think most environmentalists have much of a problem discerning that fact. Not to mention that most rational people are able to balance competing issues, such as environmental degradation and people's economic necessity without being dogmatic.

The environment may be a 'global system' but the Greens are hardly internationalists. The Green movement is a Western middle class movement expressing, as i pointed out above, the extremely narrow interests and prejudices of the Western middle class. Central to these is a petit-bourgeois hostility to mass industrialisation. Mass immigration and mass mobility go hand in hand with this hostility.

Remember, the Greens are the number one opponents of air travel. Therefore, they are against the free movement of people around the world. They are against the mass mobility of human beings. They are for borders, and for people to remain within their own particular borders.


I have to say it's been a while since I've heard an environmentally based justification for anti-immigrant policies.

Anti-immigration arguments based on 'overpopulation' and 'sustainability' are central in both the US and Europe.


So one could use your same argument to say labor unions are reactionary groups which should be "confronted."

It's not the same thing. Trade unions are working class organisations, expressing the narrow economic interests of sections of working people. (And, of course, trade union leaders do need to be confronted when they're propagating petit-bourgeois ideas.)

Green groups, on the other hand, express the interests and prejudices of the Western middle class, like i briefly explained above.

[rouchambeau]

I'm anti-immigration? I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know.

[welshred]

Im an environmentalist as well, I am definitley not anti immigration!

[chebol]

The Australian Greens had a policy for a long time (I think they have now dropped it) of "zero population growth" - and were opposed to immigration on what they claimed were environmental grounds. Interestingly the middle class prejudice that gave rise to this is the same one that is behind their current support for asylum seekers (not that this is necessarily middle class at all, but that movement is dominated by that same form of sentiment).

[welshred]

Immigration isn't a contibuting fact to environmental problems. It is capitalism and the sooner environmental groups realise this the better.

[joe 91]

[QUOTE]As Breadbros points out, a lot of people oppose immigration in the name of workers' rights

I think what many unions/workers think of this idea is that they're not opposed to immigration outright, ie. for racist or nationalist reasons, but more for the reason that UNDER A FREE MARKET CAPITALIST SYSTEM immigrants from poorer countries can be given jobs by businesses for much much less pay and work longer hours, with less rights etc. than unionized workers, thus undermining the effect of unions and leading to workers of the host country having to accept lower wages and poorer conditions in order to be 'competitive'.

Added to this, immigration is usually concentrated in poorer areas of any society, which means added strain on the infrastructure of working class communities, competition for resources etc. Middle and upper classes, on the other hand, entirely benefit from increased immigration, due to cheaper labour and no direct effect on their living standards. Anyone noticed how those who champion uncontrolled immigration are usually middle class liberal socialists?

Of course under a socialist gov. these issues would be irrelevant, wage equality and the end of class segregation would mean free movement of people is entirely possible. Until then however, its difficult to see uncontrolled immigration as feasible

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:38 pm
Immigration isn't a contibuting fact to environmental problems. It is capitalism and the sooner environmental groups realise this the better.
A lot of these groups are heavily capitalist themselves. Whilst there is a majority of progressive environmentalists, unfortuanetly there is a reactionary minority.

[welshred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:07 pm

A lot of these groups are heavily capitalist themselves.
Thats probably why they wont admit that capitalism is to blame then. Are there any groups that do oppose capitalism? I heard earth first do, but I havent heard of any other groups.

[BreadBros]

The Green argument, as that article points out, is that immigrants are more likely to have more children in America than they would in their home countries:

'there's new evidence that Hispanic women who move to the US have more children than if they stayed put.'

First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "The Green argument". This may be the view of a self-declared Green or the UK Green Party or something, but I'm fairly certain that this is not the viewpoint of the worldwide Green movement.

Regardless...I don't know the source of that assertion but it doesn't really seem like an argument as much as a statistical fact. The question is: so what? So the bonehead you quote thinks thats justification for booting out immigrants, that makes little difference since 1. he was repudiated by a major conservationist group 2. none of the environmentalists here agree with him 3. Severian has pointed out the reactionary anti-indigineous viewpoints of his organization.

Most environmentalists seem rational enough to realize that environmental destruction is a large-scale process driven by industry, deforestation etc. Whether or not a minority of people have larger families is of no real consequence to the environment in any one way or another. What that guy is peddling is not only not leftist its fundamentally bad science. What needs to be combatted is the twisting of environmental arguments to justify reactionary views held by a minority, not environmentalism itself.


Also, we should remember that the Greens may talk about 'saving the planet', but Green ideology is first and foremost a Western middle class ideology and expresses a series of contemporary Western middle class interests and prejudices. Along with opposing large-scale industrialisation, the middle class instinct has also always been to be hostile to immigration.

I'm assuming that by middle class you mean petty-bourgeois? It probably is true that a significant percentage of the membership of Greenpeace or even some Green parties is petty-bourgeois. However, environmental devastation really hits working-class people hardest of all. Right now children in Harlem and South Central LA are far more likely than other children in the country to have asthma or respitory illnesses. Its easier for companies to get away with dumping toxic shit in working-class towns (ever heard of Hinley, CA and their fight against PG&E over water contamination?). Thats only in the first world, in the third world the issue of destruction of natural resources that people rely on is even greater. Sure the big lobbying groups are mostly petty-bourgeois in nature but environmentalist working-class fights go on with more importance (and probably more frequency as well, although way less reported on).


The environment may be a 'global system' but the Greens are hardly internationalists. The Green movement is a Western middle class movement expressing, as i pointed out above, the extremely narrow interests and prejudices of the Western middle class. Central to these is a petit-bourgeois hostility to mass industrialisation. Mass immigration and mass mobility go hand in hand with this hostility.

Remember, the Greens are the number one opponents of air travel. Therefore, they are against the free movement of people around the world. They are against the mass mobility of human beings. They are for borders, and for people to remain within their own particular borders.

Actually Green parties exist on every continent and in a large % of countries in the world. Its not internationalist in the leftist sense but it certainly isnt some middle-class phenomenon. Keep in mind most environmentalists probably aren't even involved with their local Green party. As for air travel, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Andy Bowden]

Remember, the Greens are the number one opponents of air travel. Therefore, they are against the free movement of people around the world. They are against the mass mobility of human beings.

Not if you support alternative methods, such as high speed rail links, boats etc. Plane travel is extremely costly to the environment in terms of carbon emissions etc,

In terms of Green ideology being exclusively middle-class, its true that much of it is - but, environmentalism, like feminism has a variety of strains.

Some are middle class, but others are Socialist.

If the left can't take an analysis of how specifically capitalism, and class society are destroying our environment through climate change then any future society based on workers control is going to be put into serious jeopardy.

[Vanguard1917]

Most environmentalists seem rational enough to realize that environmental destruction is a large-scale process driven by industry, deforestation etc. Whether or not a minority of people have larger families is of no real consequence to the environment in any one way or another.

Green ideology sees population growth as the cause of 'environmental degradation'. More humans, more problems - that's the misanthropic Green line. That's why Green ideology comes into conflict with mass immigration. Mass immigration would need to go together with large-scale development (particularly urbanisation) for it to be successful. The Greens are hostile to such development. They favour the rural over the urban, and consistently oppose building plans in the countryside.

The Greens don't support mass immigration. In fact, they cannot support it. Their worldview is inconsistent with it and comes into conflict with it.


Thats only in the first world, in the third world the issue of destruction of natural resources that people rely on is even greater. Sure the big lobbying groups are mostly petty-bourgeois in nature but environmentalist working-class fights go on with more importance (and probably more frequency as well, although way less reported on).

The main problem facing the poor in the third world is the problem of economic underdevelopment. Economic underdevelopment is what brings misery to the lives of billions of human beings today. The problem with capitalism is precisely and primarily that it cannot provide needed economic development around the world. When was the last time you heard a Green ardently advocating economic development?


As for air travel, I have no idea what you're talking about.

The Greens oppose air travel. Without air travel, you cannot have free and open mass movement and mobility around the world. Again, the Green position is inconsistent with mass immigration. The Greens would prefer it if people just stayed put within the confines of their narrow borders.


Not if you support alternative methods, such as high speed rail links, boats etc. Plane travel is extremely costly to the environment in terms of carbon emissions etc,

Alternative methods to air travel are not as efficient, especially for long distances. Also, emissions from air travel actually make up only about 3% of the total amount of man-made emissions worldwide.

[Vanguard1917]

An interesting observation by this article (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1564/):

"Today, demanding the abolition of immigration controls can also expose the reactionary character of what passes for radicalism. Like the Labour left, environmentalists have long been hostile to an open-door policy because they believe that population increases are not ‘sustainable’. However, the fact that millions of people around the world are desperately seeking to live and work in industrialised countries demonstrates why we need more development, not less; more industrialisation in the Third World rather than calls for ‘sustainable development’ to ‘save the planet’, as favoured by today’s greens and NGOs."

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by welshred+March 06, 2007 05:07 pm--> (welshred @ March 06, 2007 05:07 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2007 02:07 pm

A lot of these groups are heavily capitalist themselves.
Thats probably why they wont admit that capitalism is to blame then. Are there any groups that do oppose capitalism? I heard earth first do, but I havent heard of any other groups. [/b]
In the Netherlands there is a Green party which has socialist roots. http://www.groenlinks.nl/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreenLeft Personaly, from what I know of the Green party in my country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_%28United_States%29, I'm impressed by there platform http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/. If they're not socialist they're pretty close. I even voted for there candidate for governor, here in Ohio, Bob Fitrakis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Fitrakis).

[Guerrilla22]

The Green argument, as that article points out, is that immigrants are more likely to have more children in America than they would in their home countries:

'there's new evidence that Hispanic women who move to the US have more children than if they stayed put.'

This makes no sense either I'm affraid. I hope that most environmentalist do not hold these sentiments.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:26 am

The Green argument, as that article points out, is that immigrants are more likely to have more children in America than they would in their home countries:

'there's new evidence that Hispanic women who move to the US have more children than if they stayed put.'

This makes no sense either I'm affraid. I hope that most environmentalist do not hold these sentiments.
Environmentalism is a very diverse movement. One group does not hold the same sentiments as others. vanguard1917 hates them so much for some unknown reasons which has lead him to support the practices of some big businesses. So he tries to paint all environmentalist movement under one banner and associate with right wing idealogy of 1 marginal group. I don't know what he is going to accomplish.

BreadBros has answered about this group in detail.

[Vanguard1917]

vanguard1917 hates them so much for some unknown reasons which has lead him to support the practices of some big businesses.

We need to reject Green criticisms of industrial capitalism because they are reactionary. They oppose the very features of capitalism that are historically progressive, and they apologise for the most reactionary feature of the capitalist system. The most reactionary feature of the capitalist system is that it cannot provide needed economic development around the world. Environmentalist ideology provides convenient excuses for capitalism's most serious and appalling defect.


Environmentalism is a very diverse movement.

If there are any environmentalists who support mass immigration and an open-door immigration policy, they're not exactly prominent.

Environmentalists oppose air travel. If you oppose free international travel, you cannot support the free movement of people around the world. Opposing international human mobility means supporting borders, national or otherwise.

Environmentalists oppose some of the most positive features of modern society. One of those features is the fact that the world has become a smaller and less alien place for millions of people. The environmentalists, in effect, regret such progress and call for the people of the world to remain within their restrictive confines.

[R_P_A_S]

OOHH PLAWSEEE!!!! :rolleyes:
immigration seems to get the scape goat for all this freakin pro foreign policy scums

[ichneumon]

We need to reject Green criticisms of industrial capitalism because they are reactionary.

MIRROR

you are reactionary. you are almost definitive for "reactionary"

[Brekisonphilous]

^^ That is very true, that individual chose to make a very ignorant statement, one that invalidates their entire argument :lol:


I'm an environmentalist and I say borders don't exist. destroy them.

I am also against industrialization. It shouldn't have happened as it did in the first place . We shouldn't continue making the same mistake twice by destroying the environment, it only makes social pressures worse. We need to encourage moving towards renewable energy, a whole new look at how we power our planet, with goals of keeping it sustainable. We are going to exhaust it in the future if we don't make use of the technology we now have available to greatly slow the rate of habitat destruction and pollution. We will have much better luck in the future if we work harmoniously with the earth rather than against the grain. We affect the planet we live on, if we wish to continue evolution we will respect it.

[Tekun]

Like RPAS mentioned, it seems that immigrants are once again the scapegoats for all the countries problems
They were the scapegoats at the beginning of the last century and now at the beginning of this new century
It seems that everyday there are new arguments arguments against immigration
Terrorism, pollution, health care costs, jobs, over population, integration,.....u name it, everything's been used to mask racism and xenophobia

[bretty]

I hate to give small comments in threads like this, because it is a big issue, but I consider myself an environmentalist and I see socialism as completely attached to environmentalism because of planned production versus surplus and other large issues when comparing and contrasting both systems.

I don't know why people think they can change capitalism into something environmentally friendly. It is inherently working on unsustainable practices. It can't be changed like many groups push for.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You know it's kind of funny, because I happened to pass a television the other day and Bill O'Reilly's show was on. He was talking to the CEO of GM or Ford (can't remember); asking questions about gas mileage, and he said "what do you say to the greens -- and I am a green -- that say you're making gas guzzlers."

Bill O'Reilly, the anti-worker, anti-immigrant, anti-woman, homophobic piece of shit considers himself a "green."

It doesn't mean that all "greens" share every view with O'Reilly; but it does have significance.

[bcbm]

It doesn't mean that all "greens" share every view with O'Reilly; but it does have significance.

Not really. Lots of people can be concerned about the environment, that doesn't make it a reactionary view. If anything, it speaks to the level of concern people do currently have for the environment that the reactionary pieces of shit feel they need to adopt the label to stay relevant. You can bet that under any sort of scrutiny, he's a green like I'm a trout.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Being "concerned about the environment" and being a "green" aren't one in the same.

[Vanguard1917]

It doesn't mean that all "greens" share every view with O'Reilly; but it does have significance.

It is highly significant because environmentalism has, in content, always been conservative. As this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64316) showed, environmentalist ideas played a fairly prominent role in the most reactionary political ideology of the 20th century - Nazism. Back then, though, environmentalism was conservative in content and in form.

The difference today is that environmentalist has taken the form of a radical position. It is still conservative in content, but due to the collapse of the working class-oriented left and the consequent disorientation of the progressive left, environmentalism has been allowed to take on the form of radical politics.

But, in content, it's as reactionary as ever.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by CdeL+--> (CdeL)Bill O'Reilly, the anti-worker, anti-immigrant, anti-woman, homophobic piece of shit considers himself a "green."[/b]

Association Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)

If we take everything with this one then

Originally posted by [email protected]

Osama bin Laden is opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. Therefore anyone opposed to the invasion of Iraq must be a terrorist.


Vanguard1917

It is highly significant because environmentalism has, in content, always been conservative. As this thread showed, environmentalist ideas played a fairly prominent role in the most reactionary political ideology of the 20th century - Nazism. Back then, though, environmentalism was conservative in content and in form.
In the same thread I have given an an alternative analysis of the green movement. I give it again (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/g/r.htm#green-movement). I tried to engage with you in that thread but you didn't.I don't know what you are thinking ? Repeating a accusation again and again doest make that right.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by g.ram+April 08, 2007 02:01 pm--> (g.ram @ April 08, 2007 02:01 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]
Bill O'Reilly, the anti-worker, anti-immigrant, anti-woman, homophobic piece of shit considers himself a "green."

Association Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) [/b]
I assume CDL is aware of the Association Fallacy and has also not actually committed it.


CDL
It doesn't mean that all "greens" share every view with O'Reilly; but it does have significance.

Misquoting someone, or taking a quote out of context is an extremely dodgy argumentative tactic.

To CDL: As concern for the environment and being green are not one in the same what is the difference and which are you?

[Vargha Poralli]

Then CdeL should clarify what he really meant. I didn't misquoye him but he himslef nullified his disclaimer in his reply to BCBM.

The point have already been addressed in this same thread. Some arguments against immigration had also made from workers point of view.So does that mean that we should also oppose all worker actions.

[Vanguard1917]

It's not an 'association fallacy' for the simple reason that environmentalist ideas (anti-industrialisation, anti-urbanisation, anti-modernity) are inherently conservative and were historically associated with right-wing politics. It is therefore not suprising that conservative individuals support environmentalist ideas, since conservatives are against progress: i.e they're anxious and fearful of change and wish to conserve the status quo. Some environmentalists (the ones who propose de-industrialisation, de-urbanisation, localised economies, small-scale production, primitive agricultural methods, etc) even wish to take humanity backward.

For hundreds of years, since the great industrial and social revolutions of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries which gave way to the birth to the modern era, traditional conservatives have been telling us that unless we practice restraint and caution concerning social and economic change, we'll face ruin, disaster, chaos, breakdown and, even, apocalypse.

Progressives, on the other hand, always declared that humanity has nothing to fear of progress. Environmentalists, who tell us that unless we stop or slow down progress we face doom and catastrophe, do not belong anywhere near the progressive tradition.

The fact that, today, environmentalism is able to pass itself off as radical says something about the dire state of current radical politics, not about any real radical content of environmentalism.

[Vargha Poralli]

You are making same arguments again and again.

Environmentalist do not oppose Industrialsation just because it is Industrialisation. They more oppose the practices of some Industries which pollute the environment.

In the city where I live some dyeing factories just opened up the chemical wastes in to ponds rivers and lakes make the water sources totally useless. The rich assholes who owened those units can afford processed water(yes it is a privilege here) and they didn't give a shit about those who can't afford it .
We all opposed them and forced those Industries to process those wastes and not to dump them as they wished. Now the Industries are still running but they just don't dump the wastes in to the peoples drinking sources as they wished.

Link One (http://www.boloji.com/environment/15.htm)
Link Two. (http://www.infochangeindia.org/agenda3_14.jsp)

It is workers who are in the end affected by all these acts of Industries.

If greens are fighting for it then yes it is in my material interest top fight alongside them .

[Vanguard1917]

In the city where I live some dyeing factories just opened up the chemical wastes in to ponds rivers and lakes make the water sources totally useless. The rich assholes who owened those units can afford processed water(yes it is a privilege here) and they didn't give a shit about those who can't afford it .We all opposed them and forced those Industries to process those wastes and not to dump them as they wished. Now the Industries are still running but they just don't dump the wastes in to the peoples drinking sources as they wished.

These are negative side-effects of industrialisation in India. With workers' control over industry, industry will no longer be able to recklessly dump waste with no regard for the welfare of people.

But are you trying to suggest - against all empirical evidence - that the Indian people were somehow better off before industrialisation?

Simply put, the positives of industrialisation far outweigh the negatives. Humanity was far worse off before industrial progress.

The major problem with capitalism is that it cannot give way to sufficient industrial progress. For example, a third of humanity (more than 2 billion people) does not have access to electricity. The vast majority of human beings don't reap the enormous advantages of urban life. There are masses of people living in extreme poverty. These are problems associated with the fact that the capitalist system of production cannot provide needed economic development around the world. The point of being a progressive revolutionary is to call for an economic system that is able to do this.


You are making same arguments again and again.

You haven't addressed my arguments. Industrial development is a good thing - it is progressive. Environmentalists who oppose it are against progress. Why are you telling people to support them?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)But are you trying to suggest - against all empirical evidence - that the Indian people were somehow better off before industrialisation?[/b]

Where the fuck I have said anything like that. Don't put words in others mouth.



Simply put, the positives of industrialisation far outweigh the negatives. Humanity was far worse off before industrial progress.

The major problem with capitalism is that it cannot give way to sufficient industrial progress. For example, a third of humanity (more than 2 billion people) does not have access to electricity. The vast majority of human beings don't reap the enormous advantages of urban life. There are masses of people living in extreme poverty. These are problems associated with the fact that the capitalist system of production cannot provide needed economic development around the world. The point of being a progressive revolutionary is to call for an economic system that is able to do this.


The one big problem with your argument is that you are assuming some things and base your arguments on them.

Workers today have no control over the Industries - It is a fact.

Those who control those Industries don't give a fuck about anything else than enriching their pockets. So if the greens fight those capitalist fucks against this shit they are fighting for the workers. That is why this green Ideology had gained this much popularity among the majority of the population.

We cant have workers control over Industry if there are no workers.

We don't live in a revolutionary situation all day . Workers struggle to live everyday and their livelihood is affected by these malpractice of Industries. Don't claim that you are a communist if you put welfare of workers over "progress" as you term it.


Vanguard1917

You haven't addressed my arguments. Industrial development is a good thing - it is progressive. Environmentalists who oppose it are against progress. Why are you telling people to support them?

I really don't know what you are speaking off

Look My points are

1) Greens do not oppose Industrialisation just for the Name.

2) They more oppose the malpractices of Industry which affects the workers more.

3) If they oppose these things yes workers will support them.After all they are fighting for their welfare.

************************************************** *************
(Anyway if you are unaware of a fact India had always been overpopulated throughout its history and supported those populations without capitalism through millions of floods,famines and war under various Hindu,Buddhist and Muslim rulers. This is the thing which made me believe that Malthusian catastrophe is a total crap).

[Vanguard1917]

The one big problem with your argument is that you are assuming some things and base your arguments on them.

Workers today have no control over the Industries - It is a fact.

Those who control those Industries don't give a fuck about anything else than enriching their pockets. So if the greens fight those capitalist fucks against this shit they are fighting for the workers. That is why this green Ideology had gained this much popularity among the majority of the population.

We cant have workers control over Industry if there are no workers.

We don't live in a revolutionary situation all day . Workers struggle to live everyday and their livelihood is affected by these malpractice of Industries. Don't claim that you are a communist if you put welfare of workers over "progress" as you term it.

Without industrialisation, there would be no industrial working class. Thus there would be no prospect of overcoming capitalism.

From a Marxist perspective, one of the central progressive features of insdustrial capitalism is its creation of the industrial proletariat - the revolutionary subject responsible for the revolutionary overthrow of a capitalism system which restrains economic development.


Those who control those Industries don't give a fuck about anything else than enriching their pockets. So if the greens fight those capitalist fucks against this shit they are fighting for the workers.

They're not fighting for the workers. They're against industrialisation because it goes against their petty interests. The workers, on the other hand, benefit from industrialisation; the petit-bourgeoisie suffers from industrialisation. Large-scale ndustrialisation threatens the petit-bourgeoisie with extinction - which is why their class instinct has always been to oppose large-scale industrialisation.

The working class, on the other hand, grows in social power as a result of mass industrialisation.

This is, i think, the ABC of Marxism.

[Vanguard1917]

Anyway if you are unaware of a fact India had always been overpopulated throughout its history

India is 'overpopulated'?

This is a barefaced lie publicised by Western reactionaries with racist tendencies.

India has a smaller population density than Belgium. When was the last time you heard anyone complain that Belgium (a prosperous country with comparatively very high living standards) is 'overpopulated'?

The problem in India and elsewhere is not the number of people, but the lack of development.

[Vargha Poralli]

Without industrialisation, there would be no industrial working class. Thus there would be no prospect of overcoming capitalism.

From a Marxist perspective, one of the central progressive features of insdustrial capitalism is its creation of the industrial proletariat - the revolutionary subject responsible for the revolutionary overthrow of a capitalism system which restrains economic development.

They're not fighting for the workers. They're against industrialisation because it goes against their petty interests. The workers, on the other hand, benefit from industrialisation; the petit-bourgeoisie suffers from industrialisation. Large-scale ndustrialisation threatens the petit-bourgeoisie with extinction - which is why their class instinct has always been to oppose large-scale industrialisation.

The working class, on the other hand, grows in social power as a result of mass industrialisation.

This is, i think, the ABC of Marxism.


Well you are proving me that I am correct in one point. You are making same points again and again so Agaion I quote myslef again



Originally posted by g.ram
1) Greens do not oppose Industrialisation just for the Name.

2) They more oppose the malpractices of Industry which affects the workers more.

This I think is just pure common sense.


India is 'overpopulated'?

This is a barefaced lie publicised by Western reactionaries with racist tendencies.

I don't know which world are you living in. India is the second most populated in world next to China with more than a Billion population.

India was never been able to feed herself lately. We rely mostly on imports to meet opur demand. This is because of the shrinking Land for agriculture.People are able to feed theselves only because of the fact the fact government pours subsidies in to the Public Distribution System to feed its people.


The problem in India and elsewhere is not the number of people, but the lack of development.

Well I assure that the India is well developed. India has more millionaires than whole Belgium combined.

It is who beniofitted from this developement is the point of discussion.

[Vanguard1917]

1) Greens do not oppose Industrialisation just for the Name.

2) They more oppose the malpractices of Industry which affects the workers more.

As i said:

They're not fighting for the workers. They're against industrialisation because it goes against their petty interests. The workers, on the other hand, benefit from industrialisation; the petit-bourgeoisie suffers from industrialisation. Large-scale industrialisation threatens the petit-bourgeoisie with extinction - which is why their class instinct has always been to oppose large-scale industrialisation.

The working class, on the other hand, grows in social power as a result of mass industrialisation.

This is, i think, the ABC of Marxism.


I don't know which world are you living in. India is the second most populated in world next to China with more than a Billion population.

I said population density (measured by inhabitants/km-squared). India is the world's 31st most densely populated country. It is less densely populated than Belgium and the Netherlands - prosperous advanced capitalist countries with relatively very high GDPs per capita.

Incidentally, China comes 71st in the list of densely populated countries - below developed countries like Italy, Germany, Britain and Japan.

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density)


Well I assure that the India is well developed.

India is 'well developed'?

Assure me all you like, that doesn't make your ridiculous claims true.

[Vargha Poralli]

As i said:

They're not fighting for the workers.

Sorry I disagree with you entirely. In my experience they have and had fought for the welfare of workers.


They're against industrialisation because it goes against their petty interests.

Again you are repeating this statement for the 3rd or 4th time.


The workers, on the other hand, benefit from industrialisation;

No it is the capitalists who had benefitted from Industrialisation. Workers will not benefit from it unless the property relations changes.



the petit-bourgeoisie suffers from industrialisation. Large-scale industrialisation threatens the petit-bourgeoisie with extinction - which is why their class instinct has always been to oppose large-scale industrialisation.

Sorry I had read the manifesto already.

But the thing you miss is petty bourgeoisie businesses too damage environment. So they oppose greens as much as the capitalists do.



The working class, on the other hand, grows in social power as a result of mass industrialisation.


Unless they gain the control to the means of production they do not benefit from it.


I said population density (measured by inhabitants/km-squared). India is the world's 31st most densely populated country. It is less densely populated than Belgium and the Netherlands - prosperous advanced capitalist countries with relatively very high GDPs per capita.

Incidentally, China comes 71st in the list of densely populated countries - below developed countries like Italy, Germany, Britain and Japan.


I knew. But having a large population without any means to support that one is different is very much different.

Yes India is less densely populated.It is because it has a larger area. But that does not mean it has arable land to produce enough to feed all people. Millions are malnourished and millions go to bed without meals every day.




India is 'well developed'?

Assure me all you like, that doesn't make your ridiculous claims true.

Yes India is well developed with the capitalist mode of productions. We have more number of millionaires than China. Indian Industires produce billions of dollars of profit every year.

The point is who had benifitted from this "developement". Capitalists don't have an answer for it.

If allowed to damage the environment as they are doing now then revolution and workers gaining power over the capitalists will be confined only to dreams.

[Vanguard1917]

G.gram you have shown your complete ignorance of Marxism. So i would seriously recommend you to start learning about Marxism. Your arguments against industrialisation are simply anti-Marxist.


Yes India is well developed with the capitalist mode of productions

India is not well developed.


Yes India is less densely populated.It is because it has a larger area. But that does not mean it has arable land to produce enough to feed all people. Millions are malnourished and millions go to bed without meals every day.

The fact that millions are malnourished isn't caused by 'overpopulation' or by the lack of arable land, but by backward agriculture.

To suggest otherwise is false, un-Marxist and has extremely reactionary implications.

[Vargha Poralli]

G.gram you have shown your complete ignorance of Marxism. So i would seriously recommend you to start learning about Marxism.

I don't need any certificates from you. Please respond to my arguments.


Your arguments against industrialisation are simply anti-Marxist.

Show me where I have made any argument against Industrialisation.

Yes I oppose all the malpractices of Industries that pollutes water I drink and the Air I breathe. It is my right to oppose it and it is my duty to oppose it.


India is not well developed.

That is the point.India cannot develope any more at this stage.


The fact that millions are malnourished isn't caused by 'overpopulation' or by the lack of arable land, but by backward agriculture.

You know to use forwrad agriculture you need Land. You can't grow crops in skies.



To suggest otherwise is false, un-Marxist and has extremely reactionary implications.

Marxism is based on facts. Not on hopes and dreams.

[Vanguard1917]

You say:


Show me where I have made any argument against Industrialisation.

And in the same post you say:


That is the point.India cannot develope any more at this stage.

Why should India not be allowed to develop?


Marxism is based on facts. Not on hopes and dreams.

And the fact is that - contrary to Green lies - industrialisation is a good thing. That's why Marxists are the biggest supporters of industrialisation.


Yes I oppose all the malpractices of Industries that pollutes water I drink and the Air I breathe.

Access to safe drinking water has improved in India - i.e. it was worse before, not better.

However, due to economic underdevelopment many villages in India still suffer from water shortages. They depend on fetching water from dirty rivers - something which we in the West have not had to do for many years due to economic development. Around a fifth of communicable diseases in India are related to unsafe water. More than a thousand people die every day of diarrhea.

And it's in rural and undeveloped parts of India where the water problems are worse, not in the comparatively industrialised cities.

Water problems in India are due to the problem of economic underdevelopment and rural poverty. And they will be solved through economic development. We need more cities and large towns in India. Life is better in them.

If environmentalists are lobbying the Indian government with the intention of discouraging it from investing in industrial, agricultural and infrastructural development - these people, in my opinion, need to be shot by firing squad.

[Ezekiel]

There was a planned effort by anti-immigrant groups, white supremacists, and their ilk to take over the Sierra Club and declare that immigration is bad for the envoronment. Tom Metzger, the leader of White Aryan Resistance, took some credit for this, as did David Duke.

[CCCPneubauten]

"The development of civilization and industry in general has always shown itself so active in the destruction of forests that everything that has been done for their conservation and protection is completely insignificant in comparison."
- Karl Marx

Vanguard is the kind of fool that is ignorant of even basic things like global warming (hand in hand with big business, which, also argues it is brining development to the Third World, oddly enough) why bother with him?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:44 pm
In my opinion far more troubling than anti-immigration environmentalists ..... is the trend by some people to argue against immigraton from a pro-labor standpoint ("Help! The evil immigrants are depressing our wages!"). In my opinion thats far more widespread
I agree. Today at work I saw a paragraph of graffiti on the wall talking about this. It was a longshoremen bathroom and we are with the ILWU( International Longshore and Warehouse Union). The paragraph said:

"If you support illegal immigration you are supporting depressed wages. Support union wages, not illegal wages!"


I usually don't write on walls but I had to put something up there. So I wrote about how the working class knows no borders and how we are all being exploited by the same system. I pointed out that the I in ILWU stands for International. I said it wasn't the workers fault so don't blame the workers. It is the bosses and the leaders that keep wages down. As long as the workers are fighting amongst each other we can't stand together in solidarity against the bosses.

I really hope that person goes back to that bathroom and sees that. I really can't understand how someone preaching union wages is against the workers first and not the bosses who are trying to find the cheapest wage slave possible.

[Vargha Poralli]

I really find it hard not to use any bad word here....



Why should India not be allowed to develop?

India was allowed to develop and has developed in the capitalist mode of production era.



And the fact is that - contrary to Green lies - industrialisation is a good thing. That's why Marxists are the biggest supporters of industrialisation.


Marxists should also be concerned about the welfare of the workers. Worker can't live long and healthy if he can't drink some water that is not polluted with chemicals from Industries.

You have missed my whole point. Capitalists don't give a shit about workers.If the greens are forcing them to give a shit that would be welcomed by me as a Marxist.


Access to safe drinking water has improved in India - i.e. it was worse before, not better.

I would suggest you to learn something and talk. What you talk is total bullshit.


However, due to economic underdevelopment many villages in India still suffer from water shortages. They depend on fetching water from dirty rivers


Shows the first world chauvinism. Any way the reason for rivers becoming dirty is - Industres dumping their wastes in the rivers.


- something which we in the West have not had to do for many years due to economic development. Around a fifth of communicable diseases in India are related to unsafe water. More than a thousand people die every day of diarrhea.

Yet you support polluting rivers and suggest that you would kill anybody that opposes it.


And it's in rural and undeveloped parts of India where the water problems are worse, not in the comparatively industrialised cities.

Have you ever visited India ? And lived in the streets of Industrialised cities. It is better for you to shut your ass.


Water problems in India are due to the problem of economic underdevelopment and rural poverty. And they will be solved through economic development. We need more cities and large towns in India. Life is better in them.

Currently I live in a City. I have worked in some major metro cities. Life is Hell IMO.


If environmentalists are lobbying the Indian government with the intention of discouraging it from investing in industrial, agricultural and infrastructural development - these people, in my opinion, need to be shot by firing squad.


I would be very happy if that happens. It will show the workers and peasants for whom the government works for. It would have been a catalyst to worker's revolution here.

Unfortunately India is not yet turned in to a fascist state.

[Vanguard1917]

India was allowed to develop and has developed in the capitalist mode of production era.

OK, so you now admit that India is not developed?

That's progress.


Have you ever visited India ? And lived in the streets of Industrialised cities. It is better for you to shut your ass.

People in cities have better access to clean water than people in the countryside. Also, more generally, people in Indian cities have better living standards that people living in rural India.

Are you trying to say that living standards aren't better in the towns?


Currently I live in a City. I have worked in some major metro cities. Life is Hell IMO.

Life is better in the cities than they are in the poverty-stricken villages. That's why millions of Indians are desperate to move to the cities.


Marxists should also be concerned about the welfare of the workers. Worker can't live long and healthy if he can't drink some water that is not polluted with chemicals from Industries.

You have missed my whole point. Capitalists don't give a shit about workers.If the greens are forcing them to give a shit that would be welcomed by me as a Marxist.

Industrial development in India has improved life for Indian people, not made it worse. This is a simple fact. Industrialisation, while it has negative side-effects, represents progress. Living standards have increased in India, life expectancy has increased, access to health care and education is better, and people in India now have better access to better quality food and drink.

And the biggest progress has been in the bigger towns and cities, where most economic progress has been made.

But India is still an impoverished country. Millions of people are living in despicable poverty - the kind of poverty that those of us who are lucky enough to live in the economically developed parts of the world cannot begin to imagine.

Therefore, what countries like India need is clear: economic development. If the Indian masses are to enjoy the high living standards that many in the West enjoy, they need rapid and large-scale economic development. Capitalism's problem is that it cannot provide this development. That's the whole point of opposing it.

But you have shown that you're hostile to industrialisation and urbanisation in India. You give your support to Greens whose number one aim is to oppose and lobby against industrialisation and urbanisation in India.

[Vargha Poralli]

Well i can't respond to all your posts it seems. One point is that you know nothing about India and its problems and talk a shit lot about it.


But you have shown that you're hostile to industrialisation and urbanisation in India. You give your support to Greens whose number one aim is to oppose and lobby against industrialisation and urbanisation in India.

Well you have labelled me a reactionary. The reason yuou give is I support greens. Greens opoose Industrialisation in your opinion.It is not an universal opinion.

Well one thing you have failed to address is the bad effects of Industries and the damage they do to my livelihood.I have given one clear example about a thing happened in my city. In my opinion Greens are fighting on those matters most. When greens are fighting for a cause which in my best Interest then I am not ashamed to associate with them just because your opinion of them, is low.

I can't wait till communism is achived to drink unpolluted water and breathe soem what less polluted air.

[chimx]

vanguard, your total and complete ignorance of India is laughable. You are comparing population densities of central European states with India and China, as if that is the sole factor for agrarian development! The economies of both regions is extremely different. Unlike China and India, central European states were able to transition to capitalist and mercantilist economies easier due to their naval preponderancy which aided in international trade. India and China are still dominated by an agrarian economy, while central European states are dominated by industrial and finance economies. This is because of their historical developments.

Arguing that development is India's sole savior is extremely short sighted. Agriculture as it currently exists, even in most "1st world countries", requires massive amounts of arable land. Population growth encroaches upon this land, and thus harms the economy.

Now obviously technological development such as hydroponics can be used theoretically to grow crops despite population increases, but hydroponic agriculture techniques, or other advanced technologies, are not feasible in most world economies due to the lack of capital investment available for such massive transition. This is especially true in India, I'm sure, as g.ram would no doubt agree with.

And of course, this gets us to the root of your misconstruction of what you call "green ideology". While environmentalism is at its core a politically neutral value, leftist adherence to environmentalism is a byproduct of unsustainable technological growth within a *capitalist* economy. This is *not* to say that environmentalists are inherently opposed to technological growth. Rather, they feel it is necessary to fight capitalist growth that specifically hinders sustainability. You yourself said elsewhere you feel sustainability is a necessary value to uphold. Without it after all, many people would die.

To return to the original topic at hand. Paul Watson's attack on immigration is obviously deplorable. But it is founded on the assumption that immigration does cause massive population increases. I don't know if that is true, but clearly the heart of Watson's fear is population growth as it is related to sustainability within a capitalist economy.

[Vanguard1917]

Well i can't respond to all your posts it seems. One point is that you know nothing about India and its problems and talk a shit lot about it.

The facts are the facts. But i understand your discomfort: the fact that economic development has improved life for Indians is deeply irritating for those environmentalists who are currently trying to decelerate industrial development in India.


I can't wait till communism is achived to drink unpolluted water and breathe soem what less polluted air.

And the reality is that, due to economic development, Indians today have better access to safe drinking water than they have ever had before.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:07 am

Well i can't respond to all your posts it seems. One point is that you know nothing about India and its problems and talk a shit lot about it.

The facts are the facts. But i understand your discomfort: the fact that economic development has improved life for Indians is deeply irritating for those environmentalists who are currently trying to decelerate industrial development in India.

Well I have typed ij wrongly. I meant it is useless to respond to your posts. The Fact is India has well developed in the capitalists mode of production. The Indian Capitalists class was very much comparable to western countries. The workers have not benifitted from this and more Industrialisation will never benifit workers.




I can't wait till communism is achived to drink unpolluted water and breathe soem what less polluted air.

And the reality is that, due to economic development, Indians today have better access to safe drinking water than they have ever had before.


Inreality Indians had always had clean water before Industrialisation. Industries had polluted the rivers.Because of midless destruction of environmentmany pons., Lakes and Rivers have dried up.

And the remianing rivers are fast drying up and the waters in those rivers are polluted by Industries.

************************************************


Vanguard1917 you ignore my point again and again. "Greens" do not oppose Industrialisation. They just oppose the malpractice of Industries whcih pollutes the environment. This fact is denied only by those corporates. Are you in payroll for them ? You have never addressed my point but your are repeating like a tape recorder the same points which I have responded with my own personal experience and Solid example ?