Environmentalism and the Nazi Party

[Vanguard1917]

Many people assume that the rise of contemporary Green politics reflects contemporary problems in the real state of the earth, and in doing so, they ignore the underlying social conditions which permitted the ascendancy of environmentalist political ideology. But back in the 1920s and 1930s - with the rise of the fascist movement throughout Europe and with the serious defeats suffered by the working class - we also saw the rise of a political environmentalist movement, particularly in Germany: the birthplace of modern environmentalism.

This interesting article (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html) shows that environmentalism featured fairly prominently in reactionary petit-bourgeois politics in interwar Germany. As one writer (quoted in the article) points out: 'Throughout the writings, not only of Hitler, but of most Nazi ideologues, one can discern a fundamental deprecation of humans vis-à-vis nature, and, as a logical corollary to this, an attack upon human efforts to master nature.'

According to another author: 'the majority of the leading National Socialist ideologists were without any doubt more or less inclined to agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism and convinced of the need for a relative re-agrarianization.'

As Himmler (a leading Nazi) writes:

'The peasant of our racial stock has always carefully endeavored to increase the natural powers of the soil, plants, and animals, and to preserve the balance of the whole of nature. For him, respect for divine creation is the measure of all culture. If, therefore, the new Lebensräume (living spaces) are to become a homeland for our settlers, the planned arrangement of the landscape to keep it close to nature is a decisive prerequisite. It is one of the bases for fortifying the German Volk.'

Hitler was himself concerned with human beings conflicting with the 'eternal laws of nature's processes':

'When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall.'

While we can respond to this by simply saying 'just because the Nazis did it, that doesn't automatically make it bad', is it possible to pinpoint the particular social circumstances under which environmentalist ideas rise to prominence in society?

In the 1980s the international working class suffered historic defeats - defeats from which it is yet to recover. With the help of a falling Soviet Union, we also saw the widespread discreditting of socialist politics. Contemporary environmentalism became mainstream from around the early 1990s, and it is now part of official ruling class ideology. What are the social conditions which gave way to the rise of the environmentalist movement?

[welshred]

It seems to me vanguard that you have a problem with environmentalism, why is that? Its like you are always trying to discredit it!

[ichneumon]

you see, i wasn't going to go there - i deleted my post because it was somewhat flamish. if this is where that's going to go, i'm gonna get my 2c in too. later.


The Hitler Card
Alias: Argumentum ad Nazium

Type: Guilt by Association

Example:

[T]he ideas of ecologists about invasive species—alien species as they are often called—sound…similar to anti-immigration rhetoric. Green themes like scarcity and purity and invasion and protection all have right-wing echoes. Hitler's ideas about environmentalism came out of purity, after all.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:26 pm
It seems to me vanguard that you have a problem with environmentalism, why is that? Its like you are always trying to discredit it!
A tree killed his father.

[Vanguard1917]

Political ideologies espousing environmentalist ideas were usually associated with rightwing politics. From the article:

"While concerns about problems posed by humankind's increasing mastery over nature have increasingly been shared by ever larger groups of people embracing a plethora of ideologies, the most consistent 'pro-natural order' response found political embodiment on the radical right."

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

Apparently, 70 percent of the members of environmental groups in Germany were Nazi Party members, even though only about ten percent of the general German population had Nazi party membership.

'The Nazis required "environmental effect reports," essentially environmental impact statements before new industry could be constructed.'

'Walter Darre, Nazi Minister of Agriculture, supported organic farming and opposed the use of chemical pesticides. Nazis opposed hydroelectric dams on the Rhine because of its environmental damage.'

'Nazis were fierce protectors of animal rights. Hitler and Himmler were vegetarians. The Nazis passed legislation in 1933 protecting animal species and plant species, blocking industrial development that interfered with animal habitats, and these very early Nazi laws ran over state or local laws.'

Leading Nazi, Hermann Goring, who was indifferent to human life, issued decrees for the protection of animals:

"In order to prevent the spreading of torture to animals before such law [the Nazi legislation outlawing cruelty to animals]. I issued this decree, making use of a right that is accorded to me, to put violators who still think that they can treat animals as a lifeless commodity into protective custody or a concentration camp. The German people have always shown great compassion for animals and issues concerning animal-rights. They always saw in animals, especially those which became their compatriots in house, homes or battles for thousands of years, yes, we can say; in many ways their co-workers and – one need only to think about the horses – even comrades in arms, creatures of God. For the German people, animals are not just living things in an organic senses, but creatures who have their own unique feels, who feel pain, joy, and show loyalty and affection. Never would the German people's love for animals permit them to treat animals as objects without feelings or souls, to be used only as tools, or to be exploited, to be discarded, whether for reasons of usefulness or not, or to be tortured or destroyed for the same reasons."
link (http://enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0506/0506og.htm)

What we see, therefore, is that the fascist degradation of humanity went hand in hand with the elevation of 'Nature'.

[apathy maybe]

I've been told if I can't flame I shouldn't say anything at all. I won't flame (though my insults from the CC apply here as well).

Rather I should direct you to read about eco-anarchists or people such as Murry Bookchin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookchin ).

Also, your arguments sound like they are coming from a right-wing proto fascist group. As such, I think you should be restricted. I'll start working on getting the evidence and then I'll start a thread.

[The Feral Underclass]

So your argument is:

Nazi's had environmentalist idea's
Nazi's bad
Evironmentalism bad

What utter bullshit!

[Vanguard1917]

According to this book (http://www.amazon.com/How-Green-Were-Nazis-Environment/dp/0821416472), 'environmentalists and conservationists in Germany welcomed the rise of the Nazi regime with open arms', hoping that 'it would bring about legal and institutional changes'.

However, by the end of the 1930, 'nature and the environment became less pressing concerns as Nazi Germany prepared and executed its extensive war', which disapointed the Nazi party's environmentalist supporters.

The truth is that environmentalism played an important ideological role in petit-bourgeois politics before the world had even heard of 'Global Warming'.

[The Feral Underclass]

What is your point?

[Vanguard1917]

The Anarchist Tension, like i said in my first post:

While we can respond to this by simply saying 'just because the Nazis did it, that doesn't automatically make it bad', is it possible to pinpoint the particular social circumstances under which environmentalist ideas rise to prominence in society?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:26 am
The Anarchist Tension, like i said in my first post:

While we can respond to this by simply saying 'just because the Nazis did it, that doesn't automatically make it bad', is it possible to pinpoint the particular social circumstances under which environmentalist ideas rise to prominence in society?
Your historical study of environmentalism is poorly constructed and eludes ad hominem. Nothing you are saying has any relevance to contemporary environmentalist understandings. It's an interesting historical side note, but really, who cares?

Of course there is criticism to be had on the different praxis employed by the varying environmentalist camps. Had you suggested this for debate there would be something to talk about, but other than that I really don't see what your point is?

[Vanguard1917]

My point is that the main prejudices central to the contemporary environmentalist movement - anti-industrialisation and anti-urbanisation - are reactionary, and played a significant role in the ideology of the most reactionary movement of the 20th century.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:41 am
My point is that the main prejudices central to the contemporary environmentalist movement - anti-industrialisation and anti-urbanisation - are reactionary, and played a significant role in the ideology of the most reactionary movement of the 20th century.
Industrialising and urbanising the world without concern for the environment is equally reactionary.

There is a balance to be made regardless of your history lesson. That's a fact you're simply going to have to deal with.

[Vanguard1917]

Industrialising and urbanising the world without concern for the environment is equally reactionary.

But industrialisation and urbanisation are responsible for making the world more suitable for human inhabitation. Contary to the widespread Green misconception, the world has never been more suitable for human inhabitation that it is today. Therefore, from a human perspective, the environment is improving, not getting worse.

In any case, let's focus on this question: why are we seeing the rise of the same petit-bourgeois anti-modernity sentiments today that we saw in reactionary interwar Germany?

[chimx]

According to this book, 'environmentalists and conservationists in Germany welcomed the rise of the Nazi regime with open arms', hoping that 'it would bring about legal and institutional changes'.

German history isn't my forte, but if this is true, it does not speak to environmentalism generally. If anything, it shows the importance of coupling environmental activism with an understanding of production relations of the current historical epoch.

Nobody here is knocking technological advances. Everybody in this forum likes industrialization. What we have a problem with is class exploitation and issues of sustainability given current rates of capitalist consumption. It is the opinion of many of this boards members, as well as many scientists, that the current capitalist mode of production is not adhering to a model emphasizing sustainability.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:00 am

Industrialising and urbanising the world without concern for the environment is equally reactionary.

But industrialisation and urbanisation are responsible for making the world more suitable for human inhabitation. Contary to the widespread Green misconception, the world has never been more suitable for human inhabitation that it is today.
You mean for the western world? You can't honestly expect us to believe that those living in the third world are enjoying such 'suitability'? That would be absurd.

The assertion that the world is suitable for humanity to live on is dangerously naive and lacking any sense of coherence.


Therefore, from a human perspective, the environment is improving, not getting

Making up sound bites is not an argument.

There's no such thing as a "human perspective" existing separately to that of the overall environmental perspective. That is that the climate is being adversely affected by capitalist industrialisation and urbanisation.

In order to safe-guard the ability for humanity to continue it's progression as a species we must start taking into consideration the reality of this situation. Admittedly there is nothing that can be done until the destruction of capitalism, which of course will see a dramatic reduction of industry, but that's not to say we should dismiss environmentalism out of hand.

Unfortunately your attitude that we can continue to industrialise the world as we are now without limitation and regard for the environment is as anti-progressive as the argument that humanity should not industrialise at all.



In any case, let's focus on this question: why are we seeing the rise of the same petit-bourgeois anti-modernity sentiments today that we saw in reactionary interwar Germany?

I don't care about that discussion. It's irrelevant and pointless.

[Vanguard1917]

You mean for the western world? You can't honestly expect us to believe that those living in the third world are enjoying such 'suitability'? That would be absurd.

The assertion that the world is suitable for humanity to live on is dangerously naive and lacking any sense of coherence.

Concentrate and read carefully. I said that the earth today is more suitable for human inhabitation.

Progressives want to see rapid and large-scale industrialisation in the third world so that people in the third world can enjoy the high living standards that many in the first world enjoy.

Environmentalists argue that industrialisation in the third world should be restrained according to 'sustainability' qualifications which are to be set by international (i.e. Western) organisations.


Unfortunately your attitude that we can continue to industrialise the world as we are now without limitation and regard for the environment is as anti-progressive as the argument that humanity should not industrialise at all.

From a human perspective (i.e. the only possible perspective, since plants and animals don't have perspectives), the earth has never been in better shape than it is today. Industrial progress has made the world into a better place to live in for human beings. It may not have improved the earth from the 'perspective' of, say, the panda bear or the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard, but for humanity the earth has never been in a better condition than it is today.

This is proven by the fact that 6.5 billion human beings are living longer, healthier and safer lives on earth than ever before. That is the true measure according to which we should always judge the state of our natural environment.


I don't care about that discussion. It's irrelevant and pointless.

I think it's an highly important and relevant discussion.

The fact that the German environmentalists gave support to the Nazis shows us that supporting political reaction is the logical conclusion of the environmentalist standpoint.

The fact that the Nazis were founded on such petit-bourgeois anti-modernity prejudices (anti-industrialism, anti-urbanism, and a romanticisation of rural life) shows us just how reactionary such anti-modernity prejudices are.

Why are we again seeing this rise in anti-modernity sentiment in contemporary Western society? What are the social and historical conditions which are giving way to this rise?

[chimx]

This is proven by the fact that 6.5 billion human beings are living longer, healthier and safer lives on earth than ever before. That is the true measure according to which we should always judge the state of our natural environment.

You are making a mistake that countless bio-ethicists warn against. You are muddling the distinction between quantitative and qualitative judgements. Qualitative judgements are often subjective to the cultural values of a particular community. i.e.: not everybody feels a hummer adds quality to their life. This judgement in quality is a byproduct of an ethnocentric western bias that you are assuming is moral correct to force onto others.

As far are your ludicrous persistance in linking environmentalism to nazism, you have yet to address any of the points I have made. Perhaps I could simply this by asking you a question: do you desire ecological sustainability in a post-industrialized society? Please note, I'm not asking you if the current capitalist model is sustainable or not, just if it is a useful value.

[Vanguard1917]

You are making a mistake that countless bio-ethicists warn against. You are muddling the distinction between quantitative and qualitative judgements. Qualitative judgements are often subjective to the cultural values of a particular community. i.e.: not everybody feels a hummer adds quality to their life. This judgement in quality is a byproduct of an ethnocentric western bias that you are assuming is moral correct to force onto others.

OK, but can we at least agree that a long, healthy and safe life is desired by humanity in common, regardless of cultural or ethnic perspective?

If we can, then it is an empirical fact that people live longer, healthier and safer lives in modern industrial societies than in backward societies. That's why people in the third world want economic development.

Remember, in primitive societies, human beings lived to about 20 and half of all children born died in infancy. Before the 20th century, human life expectancy worldwide was around 30. At the end of the 20th century, world life expectancy was around 65. This progress is due to economic development.


do you desire ecological sustainability

Of course. Why would anyone desire ecological unsustainability?

'Sustainable development' is an environmentalist term, and it is designed to be indisputable. Who in their right mind would want economic development if the earth can't sustain it?

Another example: 'contaminated foods' - obviously something which everyone is going to oppose if that's what you're going to call GM technology. 'Over-population' is another example: population growth is obviously a bad thing if it's going to over-populate the earth.

These are all very clever environmentalist propaganda tricks, which we should all be wary of falling for.

[manic expression]

I hope everyone realizes that Hitler was NOT a vegetarian. I'm quite sure that it was a lie.

[chimx]

OK, but can we at least agree that a long, healthy and safe life is desired by humanity in common, regardless of cultural or ethnic perspective?

If we can, then it is an empirical fact that people live longer, healthier and safer lives in modern industrial societies than in backward societies. That's why people in the third world want economic development.


Generally people define quality along those terms, yes, but I'm not so sure every group is willng to make the necessary sacrifices for industrialization to occur in their communities. Maybe some are, but I don't think it is fair to assume that we, as westerners, are acting in what *they* perceive to be their communities best interests (I'm not sure if this is your opinion, but I have got the sense that you are implying this).


Of course. Why would anyone desire ecological unsustainability?

Excellent! I was very hopeful this was your answer. Great, we have established common goals: the terms on which we continue with our technological advancements: ecological sustainability! Now it is just a matter of establishing what is and is not sustainable, balancing sacrifice with gain, etc. We can get rid of blanket terms like "enviornmentalist" vs "anti-enviornmentalist" and work on a case-to-case basis. Positive steps!


'Sustainable development' is an environmentalist term, and it is designed to be indisputable. Who in their right mind would want economic development if the earth can't sustain it?

Well, frankly, those with capital interests. The environmental concern over things like global warming span over centuries, beyond our life times. Capitalism often tries to make gains in the short term, regardless of long term consequences. Oil reliance has set back work on sustainable electric transportation. Strip mining has caused massive ecological disasters due to excessive land exploitation. (I live next to the berkeley pit, trust me on this one...).

Obviously we all want the same thing: the removal of nonsustainable technologies with the replacement of sustainable technologies.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Vanguard
The fact that the German environmentalists gave support to the Nazis shows us that supporting political reaction is the logical conclusion of the environmentalist standpoint.
Um, no it fucking doesn't.
a coexisting with b at a point in history does not mean that a and b are inseparable, or that one of them directly leads to the other. In fact, not all the "a's" are the same- there are many different kinds of environmentalisn- something you seem to have great difficulty grasping.

You've just abandoned all logic with this thread- congratulations.

[Vanguard1917]

Generally people define quality along those terms, yes, but I'm not so sure every group is willng to make the necessary sacrifices for industrialization to occur in their communities. Maybe some are, but I don't think it is fair to assume that we, as westerners, are acting in what *they* perceive to be their communities best interests (I'm not sure if this is your opinion, but I have got the sense that you are implying this).

No, the people of the third world want development, but development is being denied to them by the global capitalist system. The whole reason why we want to replace the capitalist system with something better is because of capitalism's shortcomings in providing vitally necessary development in the impoverished parts of the world.


Excellent! I was very hopeful this was your answer.

My aim was to demostrate how empty Green slogans like 'sustainable development' are. If we take the slogan literally, no body can oppose it.

But, in practice, 'sustainable development' is an environmentalist codeword for calling for restraining development - something which i deeply oppose.


Obviously we all want the same thing: the removal of nonsustainable technologies with the replacement of sustainable technologies.

I'm not sure what you want, but i want to live in a world where 6.5 billion (and growing) human beings can live their lives free from the chains of material scarcity. For this to be realised as a living reality, we need to smash the capitalist system of production and replace it with a system of production which unleashes humanity's true productive potential.

I view urbanisation and industrialisation as the way forward for humanity. The point of this thread was to demonstrate that ideological opposition to urbanisation and industrialisation has historically not come from progressives, but from the worst reactionaries.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+March 20, 2007 04:49 am--> (Mujer Libre @ March 20, 2007 04:49 am)
Vanguard
The fact that the German environmentalists gave support to the Nazis shows us that supporting political reaction is the logical conclusion of the environmentalist standpoint.
Um, no it fucking doesn't. [/b]
It does in the sense that if you oppose industrialisation and urbanisation, then you want to take humanity backwards and you'll therefore support a political ideology which is against progress - i.e. a reactionary political ideology.

[apathy maybe]

As I thought I saw some sense finally shining through! And then I read your last two posts.

But anyway, do you think that Murry Bookchin (who's Wikipedia article I linked above) is a reactionary and compatible with fascism? This is very important.

You may claim that all environmentalists are reactionary, but when presented with examples, I would like to know your opinion specifically.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:21 am

You mean for the western world? You can't honestly expect us to believe that those living in the third world are enjoying such 'suitability'? That would be absurd.

The assertion that the world is suitable for humanity to live on is dangerously naive and lacking any sense of coherence.

Concentrate and read carefully. I said that the earth today is more suitable for human inhabitation.
Yes, I know that's what you said and I disagree with you as clearly the world is not more suitable for humans to live in.


Progressives want to see rapid and large-scale industrialisation in the third world so that people in the third world can enjoy the high living standards that many in the first world enjoy.

Environmentalists argue that industrialisation in the third world should be restrained according to 'sustainability' qualifications which are to be set by international (i.e. Western) organisations.

And this binary position is not at all helpful. There has to be a balance between both.



Unfortunately your attitude that we can continue to industrialise the world as we are now without limitation and regard for the environment is as anti-progressive as the argument that humanity should not industrialise at all.

From a human perspective (i.e. the only possible perspective, since plants and animals don't have perspectives), the earth has never been in better shape than it is today.

I'm not buying this "human perspective" nonsense at all. It's not a "human perspective" it's your perspective. The fact you are a human is not proof of an overarching perspective of humanity.


Industrial progress has made the world into a better place to live in for human beings.

It's made the lives of westerners more convenient, sure. Whether it is "better" is a matter of subjective opinion.

There are some major benefits to industrialisation, but there are also major drawbacks to it and hopefully after a revolution we will be able to find the balance between the two.


It may not have improved the earth from the 'perspective' of, say, the panda bear or the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard, but for humanity the earth has never been in a better condition than it is today.

Which is only true for a small section of the world.


This is proven by the fact that 6.5 billion human beings are living longer, healthier and safer lives on earth than ever before.

I don't see how that's proof? If it is true that 6.5 billion human beings are living longer, healthier and safer lives (which clearly they aren't. The death rate in many African countries is below 50 - The child morality rate in the UK for working class children has raised dramatically over the last ten years) it is because we have been able to prolong the inevitability. Living longer is not proof that we have better conditions, just that we have better ways of staying alive.


That is the true measure according to which we should always judge the state of our natural environment.

No it isn't.



I don't care about that discussion. It's irrelevant and pointless.

I think it's an highly important and relevant discussion.

Clearly.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+March 20, 2007 05:31 am--> (Vanguard1917 @ March 20, 2007 05:31 am)
Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 20, 2007 04:49 am

Vanguard
The fact that the German environmentalists gave support to the Nazis shows us that supporting political reaction is the logical conclusion of the environmentalist standpoint.
Um, no it fucking doesn't.
It does in the sense that if you oppose industrialisation and urbanisation, then you want to take humanity backwards and you'll therefore support a political ideology which is against progress - i.e. a reactionary political ideology. [/b]
How about wanting humanity to move forward to an era beyond endless industrialisation and urbanisation?

Also, interrogating the concept of industrialisation doesn't necessarily mean you oppose it. You sound like George Bush- "with us or against us!"

Also, TAT's post covers a LOT of what I'd want to say in more detail.

[Jazzratt]

Someone is playing the Hitler card...

Look, halting industrialisation is a disastrous thing but there is much evidence for anthropogenic global warming and certainly a lot of documented harm resultant from certain industrial techniques. The answer, clearly is not to do what the loony greens are suggesting and halt progress but neither is it what you and exxon-mobil have a hard on for: continuing to use inefficient and harmful industrial processes.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:41 pm
My point is that the main prejudices central to the contemporary environmentalist movement - anti-industrialisation and anti-urbanisation - are reactionary, and played a significant role in the ideology of the most reactionary movement of the 20th century.
Learn before you speak.

Environmentalists are not anti-industrialisation and anti-urbanisation. They just want clean, manageable, and sustainable development, production, and goods.

[ichneumon]

From a human perspective (i.e. the only possible perspective, since plants and animals don't have perspectives), the earth has never been in better shape than it is today.

5,000 years ago:

the middle east was lush and verdant. there were lions in europe.
the sahara was a thin strip, the sudan a temperate forest and the sahel a lush grassland
there was an extra meter of topsoil in the american midwest
many pacific islands that are now grassy lumps were covered in forest
the oceans were literally teeming with life

QUOTE: wikipedia, desertification


Overgrazing and to a lesser extent drought in the 1930s transformed parts of the Great Plains in the United States into the "Dust Bowl". The term desertification was not coined until around the mid twentieth century. During the 1930s, a considerable fraction of the plains population abandoned their homes to escape the unproductive lands. Improved agricultural and water management have prevented a disaster of the earlier magnitude from recurring, but desertification presently affects tens of millions of people with primary occurrence in the lesser developed countries.

Desertification is widespread in many areas of the People's Republic of China. The populations of rural areas have increased since 1949 for political reasons as more people have settled there. While there has been an increase in livestock, the land available for grazing has decreased. Also the importing of European cattle such as Friesian and Simmental, which have higher food intakes, has made things worse.

Human overpopulation is leading to destruction of tropical wet forests and tropical dry forests, due to widening practices of slash-and-burn and other methods of subsistence farming necessitated by famines in lesser developed countries. A sequel to the deforestation is typically large scale erosion, loss of soil nutrients and sometimes total desertification. Examples of this extreme outcome can be seen on Madagascar's central highland plateau, where about seven percent of the country's total land mass has become barren, sterile land.

Overgrazing has made the Rio Puerco Basin of central New Mexico one of the most eroded river basins of the western United States and has increased the high sediment content of the river. Overgrazing is also an issue with some regions of South Africa such as the Waterberg Massif, although restoration of native habitat and game has been pursued vigorously since about 1980.

The Desert of Maine is a 40-acre dune of glacial silt near Freeport, Maine. The desert was exposed by overgrazing and soil erosion, and continues to expand.

The most telling example of desertification occuring at the moment is in the Sahel, where the Sahara Desert is moving southwards at a rate of 5-10km per year

conclusion: the earth of 5,000 years ago was much more capable of supporting human life than it is today.

[Vanguard1917]

The death rate in many African countries is below 50

You mean that life expectancy in many African countries is below 50, and you're right. Sub-Sharan Africa is the only part in the world where we have seen drops in the level of life expectancy. This is largely related to the AIDS problem there.

But elsewhere, as this graph shows (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Life_expectancy_1950-2005.png), life expectancy is increasing.


The child morality rate in the UK for working class children has raised dramatically over the last ten years

Resorting to telling porkies now, are we? Child mortality for working class children has dramatically increased over the last ten years? Proof please.

According to my data (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/mdg-factsheets/childmortalityfactsheet.pdf), child mortality has decreased throughout the world from 1990 to 2004.


conclusion: the earth of 5,000 years ago was much more capable of supporting human life than it is today.

:lol:

[ichneumon]

one last try...

okay - nazi ideology is heavily based on darwinian theory. without darwin, there could be no master race. how does the rise of pro-darwinist teaching in modern america parallel the rise of nazi ideology? is creationism fundamentally progressive because it's anti-evolutionary?

you've basically stopped responding to logic and/or rationality, so i don't expect much. don't you think the left needs clear thinkers more than flag waving lunatics?

btw, you deliberately step on bugs, don't you? anti-life is a pathology.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:06 pm

The child morality rate in the UK for working class children has raised dramatically over the last ten years

Resorting to telling porkies now, are we? Child mortality for working class children has dramatically increased over the last ten years? Proof please.
A documentary on BBC two by BAFTA winning filmmaker Adam Curtis: "The Trap, What happened to our dreams" showed that the life expectancy of a child born in a working class area to a child born in a middle class area was massively disproportionate.

The claim that we all have a better standard of living etc is fallacious at best.

[Vanguard1917]

A documentary on BBC two by BAFTA winning filmmaker Adam Curtis: "The Trap, What happened to our dreams" showed that the life expectancy of a child born in a working class area to a child born in a middle class area was massively disproportionate.

I don't know about 'massively', but, yes, we all know that working class people are poorer than middle class people, and infant death is usually related to poverty.

But that's not what you said. You said that infant mortality was increasing in the UK for working class children. The opposite is true.


The claim that we all have a better standard of living etc is fallacious at best.

It's not fallacious at all. It's a fact that no other generation before us has had better living standards than we have now.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:32 pm
one last try...

okay - nazi ideology is heavily based on darwinian theory. without darwin, there could be no master race. how does the rise of pro-darwinist teaching in modern america parallel the rise of nazi ideology? is creationism fundamentally progressive because it's anti-evolutionary?

you've basically stopped responding to logic and/or rationality, so i don't expect much. don't you think the left needs clear thinkers more than flag waving lunatics?

btw, you deliberately step on bugs, don't you? anti-life is a pathology.
I really have no idea what you're saying.

[ichneumon]

In the 1980s the international working class suffered historic defeats - defeats from which it is yet to recover. With the help of a falling Soviet Union, we also saw the widespread discreditting of socialist politics. Contemporary Darwinism became mainstream from around the early 1990s, and it is now part of official ruling class ideology. What are the social conditions which gave way to the rise of the Darwinst movement?

the point being, modern darwinism has jack to do with nazi ideology or the politics of 1930's germany. welcome to the one and twenty. the INFORMATION AGE. our society is an order of magnitude more complex. furthermore, modern environmentalism arose out of hippie free love anarchist/communist thought - it is PROFOUNDLY anti-fascist.

what did you think i'd say? "busted! now me and my hippie earthgoddess vegan neopagan pothead friends don't have to hide our death camps any more! oh, joy!"

[Kia]

These questions seem (and quite possibly are) dimwitted but I'm trying to establish exactly where you stand on the whole "green movement".
From reading this thread and others..

1.I'm guessing that you believe that the current green movement is reactionary and created by the upper class (western world) in an attempt to either harm the lower classes or in some way produce more profit?

2.You believe that continual urbanization and industrialization is highly beneficial to humans and is/will progress us in the right direction?

3.You believe that the whole "sustainable development", "global warming" and switch to renewable resources will harm the lower classes and be a negative effect?

4.That early nazi ideology created the whole idea of modern environmentalism?

5.That today the left has been tricked into supporting nazi ideology (and now capitalist ones) and that the left has become full of reactionaries?

6.What do you believe is the cause of the current global warming (if it even is happening)? Co2? Air moisture? Natural trend?

7.Do you think we are running out of natural resources such as oil, coal, etc?

Simple Yes or No answers with a brief reason why will work just fine..ill toss in my 2 cents afterwards.

[Vanguard1917]

1.I'm guessing that you believe that the current green movement is reactionary and created by the upper class (western world) in an attempt to either harm the lower classes or in some way produce more profit?

I'm suggesting that the contemporary rise of the Green movement is a product of particular social conditions related to contemporary capitalist stagnation in the West.


2.You believe that continual urbanization and industrialization is highly beneficial to humans and is/will progress us in the right direction?

Industrialisation and urbanisation are central to human progress and human progress is a good thing.


3.You believe that the whole "sustainable development", "global warming" and switch to renewable resources will harm the lower classes and be a negative effect?

The implementation of Green demands will have a disasterous impact on human beings.


4.That early nazi ideology created the whole idea of modern environmentalism?

No, environmentalist ideas have always existed in the epoch of capitalism. But they only rise to prominence under certain social conditions.

In interwar Germany we saw, for reasons which need explanation, the rise of environmentalist ideas, and such ideas played a fairly prominent role in Nazi ideology.


5.That today the left has been tricked into supporting nazi ideology (and now capitalist ones) and that the left has become full of reactionaries?

I don't think that there is much progressive about mainstream leftwing politics today. 'Leftwing' is increasingly a political label devoid of any progressive content. This is related to the retreat of the working class from political life. What passes for 'leftwing' today is usually a set of various middle class prejudices.


6.What do you believe is the cause of the current global warming (if it even is happening)? Co2? Air moisture? Natural trend?

Whatever has caused the 0.6 celsius rise in temperature in the last 150 years, it does not warrant halting or slowing down economic development. In fact, history suggests that the better developed we are, the better able we are to deal with natural threats.


7.Do you think we are running out of natural resources such as oil, coal, etc?

There is oil and coal in Africa but environmentalists are trying to discourage Africans from exploiting their natural resources. Africa simply cannot develop if it is made to rely on wind and solar energy.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 10:44 am
But anyway, do you think that Murry Bookchin (who's Wikipedia article I linked above) is a reactionary and compatible with fascism? This is very important.

You may claim that all [some?] environmentalists are reactionary, but when presented with examples, I would like to know your opinion specifically.
So, still waiting for your response to my question about Bookchin. And eco-anarchist specifically. Do you think that they are reactionary and/or likely to turn fascistic if given the opportunity?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 22, 2007 04:39 pm
So, still waiting for your response to my question about Bookchin. And eco-anarchist specifically. Do you think that they are reactionary and/or likely to turn fascistic if given the opportunity?
If he was an anarchist then he's half way there already ;)

On a more serious note I believe that Vanguard's point, aside from all the Nazi stuff, is that proposals that slow down the rate of economic/industrial growth are inherently reactionary. It makes sense that if industralisation and urbanisation are progressive then moves to oppose them are reactionary.

Greens seek, often inadvertantly, to perserve the status quo whereby the vast majoity of the Earth's wealth is concentrted in the West. So while they are not actually "counter-revolutionary", their ideals are still in opposition to progress.

Wikipedia doesn't tell me enough about this lad but his apparant rejection of deep ecology and the more fashionable fads speaks favourably of him. Do you have a link to a summary of his work?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 07:49 pm
slow down the rate of economic/industrial growth are inherently reactionary. It makes sense that if industralisation and urbanisation are progressive then moves to oppose them are reactionary.
How is opposing capitalist industrialism reactionary?

Economic growth for who and in what context? What does "economic growth" mean? When the working class have taken control of the means of production all that we will produce is what we need.

Industrialisation and urbanisation are not necessarily progressive unless they are serving humanities needs. Capitalism industrialisation and urbanisation does not do that.

[apathy maybe]

The Anarchy Archives (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/) have a lot. See for example his collected works (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/BookchinCW.html).

Some works of interest (not all related to eco-anarchism or environmentalism) include:
Listen, Marxist! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/listenm.html), a polemic against authoritarian Marxism and a call for looking forward rather then back.
Yes!--Whither Earth First? (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/gp/perspectives10.html), a response to an Earth First! article attacking Bookchin. It also includes an interesting bit about Nazism.
What Is Social Ecology? (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecol.html), which, unsurprisingly, talks about what Social Ecology is.

You could also read The Murray Bookchin Reader (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/reader/intro.html) or browse about the Institute for Social Ecology (http://www.social-ecology.org/index.php)

(Oh and did anyone notice (I only just did) that Vanguard1917 Godwined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law) himself from the first post?)

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 07:00 pm
How is opposing capitalist industrialism reactionary?
There's a few arguments here. The most obvious one from the Marxist perspective is that industrialisation is well... progressive. Its the process that turns the peasantry into the proletariat. It was urban movements and collectives that gave birth to the communist/labour movement. This mirrors a more general tendency within society as standards of living and economic development improve with growing urbanisation.

With this industrialisation, this development, we'd still be mired in "rural idiocy". Cities are amazingly good at bringing people together and facilitating the spread of ideas. Really that's the whole point of this whole communist lark. Indeed you could argue that its the whole thrust of human development to date - every innovative or technological advance conspires to take the population further and further from the misery of the fields.

Those who wish to slow down this rate of progress seek to effectively cap or limit the spread of industrialisation. At its most basic level that means attempting to halt the development of non-Western nations. An environmentalist looks at the belching factories in China and shudders. In reality these factories are a symbol of progress that mark the emergence of an industrial society.

Its that last point that's key. We've seen peasant revolutions and we've seen them fail. We've seen what happens what happens when revolution occurs in semi-feudal or proto-capitalist societies. Without industrialisation there can be no progress.


Industrialisation and urbanisation are not necessarily progressive unless they are serving humanities needs. Capitalism industrialisation and urbanisation does not do that.Meaning that there has never been any progress made in history? Out of curiosity, what other form of industrialisation has there been and does this mean that society has not advanced in the past two centuries?

[Vanguard1917]

Good to finally see some sanity in this thread. ComradeOm, what do you think has caused the rise of environmentalist politics in the last 20 years or so? How can we explain it? What are the social conditions that gave way to rise of the contemporary Western middle class environmentalist movement?

[ichneumon]

Meaning that there has never been any progress made in history? Out of curiosity, what other form of industrialisation has there been and does this mean that society has not advanced in the past two centuries?

by industrialization you mean coal plants, soot on buildings a cm thick, child labor, black lung, etc? or do you mean sweatshops in burma, poisonous rivers, whole forests gone from rains of sulphuric acid, the dust bowl, etc?

many parts of industrialization are ugly and anti-human. is this the only way progress can occur, and what right do 1st worlders have to impose this vision on other cultures?

environmentalists want a kind of high-tech industrialization that avoids all that. we want modernization. and why not? is cuba industrialized? was it when the revolution happened? how's the standard of living there? india is flying directly into the information age, and it seems to work for them - why not, they have millions of well-educated english speaking people, why should they work in sweatshops and factories?

and, if you force the 3rd world to go through this historical process, how will they ever catch up? the industrial age is OVER. the information age is in full swing and the biotech age is being born. when will mozambique get to that? 2200? fuck that.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by ichneumon+March 24, 2007 07:47 pm--> (ichneumon @ March 24, 2007 07:47 pm)by industrialization you mean coal plants, soot on buildings a cm thick, child labor, black lung, etc? or do you mean sweatshops in burma, poisonous rivers, whole forests gone from rains of sulphuric acid, the dust bowl, etc?[/b]
And without those grim days we'd still be toiling in the fields. Progress is not always pretty and it is not always beneficial for all but it is still progress. Society moves forward and develops whether you like it or not. And frankly anything is better than peasantry.

In 19th century Europe, and in China today, people flooded into the cities. Despite all the disease, the long hours and the horrible conditions, the factories boomed and the cities swelled. Why? Because even with all of the above life in the city was still better than life as a peasant.


many parts of industrialization are ugly and anti-human. is this the only way progress can occur, and what right do 1st worlders have to impose this vision on other cultures?Impose it? Where did you get that idea. For decades the West actively sought to prevent the industrialiation of the underdeveloped world... fearing that its own industries would be threatened. Now nations in the Far East are queuing up for the manufacturing jobs that are rapidly becoming almost non-existent in the West. And still the peasants abandon their fields and travel to the cities in the millions.


environmentalists want a kind of high-tech industrialization that avoids all that. we want modernization.And in the West you're getting that. The industrial black spots of Europe and the US are almost gone. Manufacturing is largely limited to high-tech industries. But where has everything else gone? The answer of course is China. This "dirty" manufacturing has to be done somewhere. There it will contribute to the formation and development of an industrial society.

Incidentally with regards India, you're no doubt aware that the IT hubs are largely limited to a few major cities. Much of the country is still very much a peasant economy while other major industries include steel and pharma manufacturing. Of course the call centre business gets much media attention due to its simple novelty value.


Vanguard1917
Good to finally see some sanity in this thread. ComradeOm, what do you think has caused the rise of environmentalist politics in the last 20 years or so? How can we explain it? What are the social conditions that gave way to rise of the contemporary Western middle class environmentalist movement?At the most basic level, and I've no intention of going further than that, I'd imagine that much of the green movement is driven by the growth of the service sector with a dash simple nostalgia thrown in (the only people who want to return to the fields are those who have never known the misery of them). This in turn was the result of an awareness amongst capitalists of the savings that could be made by using Asian labour.

So as the Western economies were reconfigured and mass production began to move East*, suddenly a much smaller percentage of the population actually depended on these industries for a livelihood. So whereas 50 years ago a middle class manager might be employed in a steel mill he's now running a bank or sales office. As he casts around for a political fad (think animal cruelty, make poverty history, etc etc) the green movement is a natural choice.

Of course it has to be noted that in some localities large scale industry was a very real environmental blight that probably should have been addressed sooner. While these areas and factories were still a source of income for capitalists this would have been unthinkable. Now that they are merely shattered relics there are no objections to taking action.

I might as well mention though that I have absolutely no time for any Nazi comparisons. Whatever the characteristics of today's green movement, the policies of Nazi Germany have nothing to do with it.

*In the process devastating large industrial cities and regions.

[Vanguard1917]

I might as well mention though that I have absolutely no time for any Nazi comparisons. Whatever the characteristics of today's green movement, the policies of Nazi Germany have nothing to do with it.

I think that we should try to understand why environmentalist ideas featured fairly prominently in Nazi ideology. Was there a relationship between the Nazi degradation of human beings in practice and the Nazi elevation of Nature in theory? For example, when a man as indifferent to human life as Hermann Goring issues decrees for the protection of animals (refering to them as 'compatriots', 'co-workers' and 'comrades'), i sense that there is a relationship between a such a heightened view of animals and such a debased view of human beings. Can we also not see aspects of this devaluation of humanity in the contemporary environmentalist movement?

More importantly, though, i think that we need to be able explain why environmentalism rises to prominence in certain social conditions and not in others. You mention that the structural changes in some Western economies may have played a role (the growth of the service sector, for example). But i think that it was the decline of working class-oriented political movements which led to the rise of environmentalism - which is essentially a middle class movement of the West. The retreat of the working class movement was, in my opinion, one of the main preconditions for the rise of the environmentalist movement.

[ichneumon]

I think that we should try to understand why environmentalist ideas featured fairly prominently in Nazi ideology. Was there a relationship between the Nazi degradation of human beings in practice and the Nazi elevation of Nature in theory? For example, when a man as indifferent to human life as Hermann Goring issues decrees for the protection of animals (refering to them as 'compatriots', 'co-workers' and 'comrades'), i sense that there is a relationship between a such a heightened view of animals and such a debased view of human beings. Can we also not see aspects of this devaluation of humanity in the contemporary environmentalist movement?

why would this concept not apply to capitalism and people who exploit and kill animals?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:24 am
I think that we should try to understand why environmentalist ideas featured fairly prominently in Nazi ideology
Well the petit-bourgeois nature of the Nazi regime has long been recognised. Obviously a dictatorship of this class will be more receptive to the fads of the middle class. I believe that Himmler was interested in the occult while Hitler was a noted vegetarian and puritan. Of course any attempts to condemn the above on these grounds is essentially the reductio ad Hitlerum.

But it is interesting that environmentalism as an economic policy could only be carried out by such a petit-bourgeois regime where the interests of capitalists were not in the ascendancy. Does that mean however that the governments of today are petit-bourgeois? Of course not, the capitalists remain firmly dominant in society. What has changed however is the source of their profits. The Western capitalist class no longer has any real interest in maintaining the rusting factories that once represented their livelihood. Rather these operations are today conducted in the Far East.

So to my mind it is not the retreat of the working class movements that allowed the rise of environmentalism but rather the reconfiguration of the capitalist priorities and sources of capital accumulation.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
what do you think has caused the rise of environmentalist politics in the last 20 years or so? How can we explain it? What are the social conditions that gave way to rise of the contemporary Western middle class environmentalist movement?

I know this is not directed to me but what I am going to cut and paste is taken from Marxists Internet Archive which acts as my guide to study various issues from a Marxist perspective



Green (or Environmental) Movement

The Environmental Movement is a very diverse social movement characterised by relatively loose organisations of activists involving people in local activity around global environmental and natural issues, organised on a transnational basis and promoting a holistic, global and ethical world-view emphasising preservation of nature and restraint on economic development.

The Green Movement had its origins in 1968-73. In 1968 President de Gaulle of France demanded gold in exchange for US dollars, causing the cancellation of the convertibility of the dollar and throwing into disarray the post-war financial arrangements made at Bretton Woods in 1944. The dollar was devalued in August 1971 and ultimately floated in 1973. These events terminated the illusion of unending expansion solving the problems of poverty and plunged the world into a period of "stagflation" and social crisis in which capitalism had to reneg on its promise of growth and prosperity for all.

In 1968, responding to this global crisis, leading capitalist businessmen, politicians and economists, such as Britain's Tory PM Ted Heath, came together and founded the Club of Rome. The Club of Rome commissioned influential reports on problems of the global economy and the growing gap between "North" and "South", the most famous of which was published as Limits to Growth in 1972. Using computer modelling of global socio-economic trends and predicting the collapse of world order, widespread starvation and depletion of natural resources, should population growth, industrial expansion, and increased pollution continue, the report called into question expectations of endless economic growth and recommended zero population growth, a levelling-off of industrial production, increased pollution control, recycling and a shift from consumer goods to a more service-oriented economy.

Already in 1966, the British chemist James Lovelock had been invited by Shell to investigate possible global consequences of air pollution resulting from ever-increasing use of fossil fuels. In 1972, Lovelock came forward with the Gaia hypothesis, that the climate was driven by the biosphere just as much as climatic change controlled life on Earth, so that in effect the Earth must be regarded as a single living organism.

At the same time, due in part to the effects of the Cold War and McCarthyism, in part to changes in the nature of the labour process and in part by the inability of the USSR to cope with the modern labour process, and particularly following the betrayal of the French General strike and the crushing of the Prague Spring by Soviet tanks in 1968, there was a widespread loss of confidence in the working class as the principal social force opposing capitalism. This led to the development of a variety of new approaches to criticism of bourgeois society - "Consumerism" or Marcuse's One Dimensional Man for example. The new criticism of the dogma of unending economic progress offered by these global perspectives, attracted many radical young people who brought with them organisational ideas developed in the Peace Movement and Civil Rights Movement.

Friends of the Earth, the most longstanding and radical transnational Green organisation, was founded in 1969 and has branches all over the developed world. The more mainstream GreenPeace was founded in Canada in 1971 to oppose U.S. nuclear testing in Alaska and still has full-time staff protecting whales and exposing toxic waste dumps all over the world.

OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) decided at its 35th conference in Vienna in October 1973, to raise oil prices by 70 percent as a political weapon against the West for its support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War. Prices were raised another 130 percent in December, and a temporary embargo was placed on oil shipments to the US and the Netherlands. These actions generated the Oil Crisis which for the first time in human history, brought home to millions of people the realities of finite energy resources, in the form of escalating petrol prices. (And ever since the Middle East has been the focus of US imperialist aggression.)

Commodity price increases brought a great upsurge in the government revenues of the OPEC countries. Much of these revenues were invested back in U.S. banks which then had to find avenues for lending this cash at interest. In turn, the Western banks had to find an outlet for this inflow of cash, and as a result, a rash of white-elephant "economic development" programs were sold to other developing countries who soon found themselves saddled with unrepayable debts when commodity prices collapsed. These events brought out in sharp relief the insanity of the large-scale development programs promoted by the US and European powers and the impossibility of the developing countries to simply follow in the path of the already-industrialised countries.

Green issues were no longer the preserve of a few visionaries or dedicated animal lovers, but began to engage the consciousness of millions in the West, who had achieved development but now feared the excessive cost. Pretty soon, "Third World" countries began seeing the cost of "development" as whole ecosystems came under threat as a result of uncontrolled development. Transnational companies, forbidden from polluting their own backyards, used these countries as "dumping grounds" for the most poisonous industries and rode roughshod over attempts to regulate their destructive practices. As a result, the Green movement has embedded itself in the anti-imperialist movement across the world.

One of the first successful Green political parties was die Grunen, founded in West Germany by Herbert Gruhl, Petra Kelly, and others in 1979 by the merger of about 250 environmental groups. The Green Party sought public support for the control of nuclear energy and of air and water pollution, becoming a national party in 1980 and their first delegate to the Federal Diet in 1983. The program that they adopted called for the dismantling of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO, the demilitarisation of Europe, and the breaking up of large economic enterprises into smaller units.

An umbrella organisation known as the European Greens was founded in January 1984 to coordinate the activities of the various European parties, and by the end of the 1990 almost every country in Europe had a party known as the Greens or by some similar name. Green parties developed also in countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, and the United States.

The Green Movement should be distinguished from Neighbourhood, "Save Our Suburb" and other local-interest groups, which emphasise local priorities rather than the global priorities characteristic of the Green Movement; however, the Green Movement's focus on local action frequently sees it making common cause with local-interest groups.

Like all social movements, the Green Movement grew from being scattered groups of single-issue protesters, to being a world-wide movement with its own radical and mainstream wings each offering a broad view of the world.

The Green Movement was able and continues to engage hundreds of millions of people because it offers people a means of participating in day-to-day life - by recycling their own rubbish and so on, (something learnt from the Women's Movement); organisational methods (consensus decision-making, media-events, focus groups, etc) and non-violent protest tactics developed mainly by the Peace Movement were developed to an even higher level by the Greens, while terrorist tactics are employed by some extreme green groups.

The issues raised by the Green Movement were and remain genuine issues of life and death for humanity; the problems were posed to humanity for the first time in the early 1960s as a result of the gigantic expansion brought about by the post-war boom. No force existed capable of confronting this danger, and the Green Movement came forward to meet this challenge. It seems clear that neither the market nor bureaucratic states in which people have no democratic rights can resolve the problems of environmental destruction; in general the Greens have shown that the problem of preventing destruction of the environment is the same as the problems of poverty and freedom. People who do not have enough to eat or who are ignorant, will not and cannot prevent governments and corporations who are accountable to no-one for destroying Nature.

Marxists.org - Glossary of events :Green Movement. (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/g/r.htm#green-movement)

I am totally convinced by this analysis.

So vanguard1917 who thinks that the green movement is has been influenced by Nazi movement can you refute this analysis.

ComradeOm the article is more or less similar to your views but certainly it differs in the things I have underlined.

This is certainly a major and very important issue. ComradeOm certainly used Manifesto to justify blind Industrialisation.None of the works of Marx and Engels including Manifesto should have been used as a dogma.The worse thing you have done is using it to support the capitalists point of view.

One thing we have to remember is we want to create a different society in the future. That society whether it is a Marxist one or an Anarchist one or a Left communist one or a Stalinist one cannot be built if we don't act to prevent capitalists to destroy the planet we are living on.

And for the all the environmental degradations it is the workers and peasants who are going to pay a heavy price.

[Vanguard1917]

But it is interesting that environmentalism as an economic policy could only be carried out by such a petit-bourgeois regime where the interests of capitalists were not in the ascendancy.Of course not, the capitalists remain firmly dominant in society. What has changed however is the source of their profits.

The Nazi regime was not a petit-bourgeois regime; it was a bourgeois regime. In order to maintain its rule, however, the bourgeois Nazi regime required the support of the petit-bourgeoisie. The petit-bourgeoisie had also formed a large section of the Nazi party's class base during its rise to power. That's what accounted for the certain petit-bourgeois features of Nazi politics (for example, the passing of the 1933 Protection of Individual Trade Act, which was designed to protect small shopkeepers from the expansion of the big chain stores). But i think that petit-bourgeois ideas commonly play a role in ruling class ideology, even today. Ruling class politicians rely on the support of the petit-bourgeoisie, and petit-bourgeois ideas are given expression in ruling class politics.

But that does not explain which particular ideas are taken up, and which ideas are not. Why did environmentalism play a role ruling class ideology in 1930s Germany and not in 1950s Germany? Why is it playing the central role that it is today in the West, whereas it did not 30 years ago? There are certain social conditions which give rise to it. Class conditions.


So to my mind it is not the retreat of the working class movements that allowed the rise of environmentalism but rather the reconfiguration of the capitalist priorities and sources of capital accumulation.

Then how does that explain the rise of environmentalist politics within the left? Furthermore, how does it explain the fact that it was the left itself which pushed environmentalism on to the agenda in the first place?

The rise of environmentalism to the mainstream coincided with the retreat of the working class from political life in the 1980s and early 1990s. The retreat of the working class gave way to a vacuum in society. The middle class emerged to fill this vacuum. This explains why all of the much celebrated contemporary 'new social movements' (anti-globalisation, localism, environmentalism, animal rights, anti-GM, anti-road, anti-airport, NIMBYISM, etc.) are essentially middle class movements. The demise of working class-oriented politics has given way to the rise of political movements oriented to the Western middle class. A key feature of these movements is that they lack progressive content, and are more than often outright conservative.


So vanguard1917 who thinks that the green movement is has been influenced by Nazi movement

I don't think that, and i have no where suggested such a thing. Please read the thread. I have argued that environmentalism rises to prominence under certain social conditions and not under others, and that it has little to do with changes in the environment itself.

The rise of environmentalism as a political movement in society is not a product of changes in our natural environment but a product of chages in our social environment.

[rouchambeau]

Hug a tree for Hitler!

[Vargha Poralli]

I don't think that, and i have no where suggested such a thing. Please read the thread. I have argued that environmentalism rises to prominence under certain social conditions and not under others, and that it has little to do with changes in the environment itself.

I don't understand your point. Anyway I have provided a analysis of rise of Green movements by Marxists.org. Can you adress it ?


The rise of environmentalism as a political movement in society is not a product of changes in our natural environment but a product of chages in our social environment.

But the issues which are raised by the greens is greatly related to the life and death matters of workers and peasants.

The green movement rose to prminence because of the inability of the Communists to face the imperialism of new kind. Green movements whether you like it or not gained so much support from the people(not those who claim to rule/represent them) from a section of undeveloped world. Which has been addressed in two paragraphs in the quote i have provided. I repeat them if have not noticed.


Originally posted by Marxists.org

Green issues were no longer the preserve of a few visionaries or dedicated animal lovers, but began to engage the consciousness of millions in the West, who had achieved development but now feared the excessive cost. Pretty soon, "Third World" countries began seeing the cost of "development" as whole ecosystems came under threat as a result of uncontrolled development. Transnational companies, forbidden from polluting their own backyards, used these countries as "dumping grounds" for the most poisonous industries and rode roughshod over attempts to regulate their destructive practices. As a result, the Green movement has embedded itself in the anti-imperialist movement across the world.


AND


The issues raised by the Green Movement were and remain genuine issues of life and death for humanity; the problems were posed to humanity for the first time in the early 1960s as a result of the gigantic expansion brought about by the post-war boom. No force existed capable of confronting this danger, and the Green Movement came forward to meet this challenge. It seems clear that neither the market nor bureaucratic states in which people have no democratic rights can resolve the problems of environmental destruction; in general the Greens have shown that the problem of preventing destruction of the environment is the same as the problems of poverty and freedom. People who do not have enough to eat or who are ignorant, will not and cannot prevent governments and corporations who are accountable to no-one for destroying Nature.


If you want to destroy the Green movement you have to destroy the conditions that enabled that movement to gain prominence.

In short if the CP's had faced the problems brought up by the capitalists mode of productions which was faced by the green movement then there would have been no place for the latter.


What we have to do is to take the task those "Petty Bourgeoisie greens" have took up. We have to face and fight the real reason for the destruction of the environment in the only planet which could support Life - CAPITALISM.

[Vanguard1917]

g.ram, it is one thing to criticise companies who recklessly dump their waste with no regard for its effects on people. This is nothing new: communists have always made such criticisms.

But it is something altogther different to oppose industrialisation itself. The environmentalist movement is against the rapid and large-scale economic development which is vitally needed in the impoverished parts of the world. It sees such development as 'unsustainable'.


If you want to destroy the Green movement you have to destroy the conditions that enabled that movement to gain prominence.

Which are what? The conditions that gave rise to the contemporary Green movement have less to with pollution, climate change, etc. and more to do with the collapse of the working class-oriented left and the lack of any section in society putting forward a progressive alternative to current capitalist stagnation.

I repeat: the conditions which gave way to the rise of the Green movement are social, not natural environmental.

At a time when a dynamic working class movement was calling for a progressive transformation of capitalist society, there was less room for middle class condemnations of economic progress.

Today, with the radical retreat of the working class movement, there's ample room for such middle class prejudices to prosper. Furthermore, the rise of such middle class prejudices against economic progress (prejudices which are passed off as being somehow radical) is very convenient for today's stagnant capitalism.

After all, how can you be a danger to capitalism if you actively excuse - and inadvertently celebrate - one of its main defects: its inability to provide sufficient economic development around the world.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917) g.ram, it is one thing to criticise companies who recklessly dump their waste with no regard for its effects on people. This is nothing new: communists have always made such criticisms.
[/b]

Really. I don't say that communists don't "criticise" such actions. They do criticise but what is the use in it. Greens on the other hand fought against such actions so they got that popularity and more and more people are starting to rally behind them.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)But it is something altogther different to oppose industrialisation itself.[/b]

Who does it ? you have come to conclusion that industrialisation= good thing and anything that opposes industrilisation = primitivism. There are a hell a lot of reasons greens oppose some corporations in various issues. To my knowledge they are more concerned about the irregularity of industries in processing waste they usual;ly dump which normally pollutes to drinking water, air we breathe etc. They never oppose industrialisation just because it is industrialisation.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917


If you want to destroy the Green movement you have to destroy the conditions that enabled that movement to gain prominence.


Which are what?

Fighting capitalism. Abandoning reformism. Fighting for social justice in real life not in press releases.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
The conditions that gave rise to the contemporary Green movement have less to with pollution, climate change, etc. and more to do with the collapse of the working class-oriented left and the lack of any section in society putting forward a progressive alternative to current capitalist stagnation.

You are wrong in 2 things first the rise of green movement is because of pollution, climate change, etc. and number two pollution, climate change, etc. affects the lives of workers and peasants more than the capitalists.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917

I repeat: the conditions which gave way to the rise of the Green movement are social, not natural environmental.

But you must be really naive to say that. Yes it is social movement but it gained popularity because it faced the thing which Communists failed to face. The destruction ofnatural environment has a lot to do with the lives of workers.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
At a time when a dynamic working class movement was calling for a progressive transformation of capitalist society, there was less room for middle class condemnations of economic progress.

I don't who you call middle class ? don't they love capitalism and enjoy the fruits it brought them ?


Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Today, with the radical retreat of the working class movement, there's ample room for such middle class prejudices to prosper. Furthermore, the rise of such middle class prejudices against economic progress (prejudices which are passed off as being somehow radical) is very convenient for today's stagnant capitalism.

I don't know what you mean by retreat of working class movement. Green movement have started in the aftermath of the Oil crisis brought out by the OPEC countries. It has grown in popularity due to the inability of the Communist parties to face Imperialism of the new type. It has transformed from a group of animal lovers to a mass movement.

But their capability is nevertheless limited. They can just bring about temporary solutions to the global crisis brought about by capitalism.



[email protected]

After all, how can you be a danger to capitalism if you actively excuse - and inadvertently celebrate - one of its main defects: its inability to provide sufficient economic development around the world.

I really don't understand what do you mean by economic developement ..I again quote from the MIA's analysis for you again



Marxists Internet Archive

The issues raised by the Green Movement were and remain genuine issues of life and death for humanity; the problems were posed to humanity for the first time in the early 1960s as a result of the gigantic expansion brought about by the post-war boom. No force existed capable of confronting this danger, and the Green Movement came forward to meet this challenge. It seems clear that neither the market nor bureaucratic states in which people have no democratic rights can resolve the problems of environmental destruction; in general the Greens have shown that the problem of preventing destruction of the environment is the same as the problems of poverty and freedom. People who do not have enough to eat or who are ignorant, will not and cannot prevent governments and corporations who are accountable to no-one for destroying Nature.

[Vanguard1917]

you have come to conclusion that industrialisation= good thing and anything that opposes industrilisation = primitivism.

Yes, industrialisation is a good thing. Industrial development massively improves human life on earth.

For that reason, environmentalists who are hostile to industrial development, and wish to prevent it, slow it down or bring it to a halt - they are reactionaries.


To my knowledge they are more concerned about the irregularity of industries in processing waste they usual;ly dump which normally pollutes to drinking water, air we breathe etc. They never oppose industrialisation just because it is industrialisation.

Mainstream Western environmentalists are under the impression that third world people cannot have developed world living standards because it is 'unsustainable'.

These environmentalists argue that development in the third world should be restrained according to sustainability qualifications to be set by various international (i.e. Western) organisations.

Everyone knows that 'sustainable development' is a Green public relations codeword calling for restraining industrial development.

In my opinion, all calls to restrain industrial development in the parts of the world that need it the most is outright reactionary in a most shameful way.


But you must be really naive to say that. Yes it is social movement but it gained popularity because it faced the thing which Communists failed to face. The destruction ofnatural environment has a lot to do with the lives of workers.

This is Green ideology presented in quasi-socialist language.

'The destruction of the natural environment has a lot to do with the lives of workers'?

Natural destruction has 'a lot to do with' everyone. But it is material poverty which is the number one problem facing billions of human beings today - not some vague conception of 'natural destruction'.

In order to fight poverty, the people of the third world need rapid and large-scale industrial development. The environmentalists stand in the way of this.

I find it striking that the environmentalists want us to imagine all these highly fantastical and Hollywood-esque scenarios of environmental catastrophe and apocalypse. Yet, when some of us come out with the comparatively sober suggestion that it's possible to have first world living standards for the world's poor, they think that we're crazy!


climate change, etc. affects the lives of workers and peasants more than the capitalists.

Who does climate change affect the most? Impoverished and backward agricultural economies, that's who. Africa, for example, due to a severe lack of industrial development, is made to rely (in places, almost solely) on backward agricultural production. In order to protect themselves against the negative effects of climate change, Africans need to industrialise.

[ichneumon]

in all the years i've been around greens, i've never once heard one word about restricting development in the third world. greens want to change 1st world industry first, meaning you and your hummer. there's owens and his environmental hotspot issue, but that would involve pouring money into the developing world. did not the kyoto accords exclude all developing nations, giving the U$ an excuse not to sign?


you have come to conclusion that industrialisation= good thing and anything that opposes industrilisation = primitivism.

industrialization involves sweatshops, worker exploitation, child labor, etc - all the things marxism is designed to STOP. isn't it logical for a marxist to want a kinder, gentler development? afterall, do you really think india is going to have a communist uprising in the upcoming decades, seeing as how so far not one industrial nation has? this is not a black and white issue - and whatever you think, you do NOT speak for the third world.

[Vargha Poralli]

Well Vanguard1917 you are making the same points you have made to others.I don't think any third world country had to Industrialisie newly. they already have(most of them which has resources+labour). Greens are not fighting to stop industrialisation in any place to my knowledge. They are more fighting for stopping the malpractices that industries undertake keeping profit in mind not the welfare of people majority of whom are workers.

The Conditions that helped the rise of green movement are really much important for the welfare of workers and peasants. Opposing everything that greens movements fight for in the name of "progress" is hypocritical at its best. There is not meaning for progress without the welfare of the working class for whom you are fighting for.