Working Class Politics and Green politics

[Vanguard1917]

There is a conflict between environmentalist demands and working class demands.

The environmentalist movement demands reductions in consumption. Green organisations argue that we are consuming too much. Many Greens in the West call for the introduction of a system of rationing in order to reduce what we consume. Working class people in the West are said to be consuming too much: they're fat and bloated, driving cars, going on too many low-cost holidays abroad, using up too much electricity, and generally living unsustainable lifestyles. In other words, greater prosperity for ordinary working class people is seen as a problem.

For working class people, such fashionable anti-consumerism is just another way of telling workers that they should settle for less. But greater material affluence is something which the working class movement has been fighting for for over 150 years. The labour movement demands higher wages and better living standards. Working class people want to be richer: they want more disposable incomes to spend on increasing their living standards. In short, they want to increase their consumption.

So the question i want to ask is this: is the labour movement in the West environmentally sustainable?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

In principle I don't see a conflict.

From the greens perspective, it's consume less or we all perish. If this is really the case (And by all means argue the toss on this) then preventing an environmental catastrophe is paramount.

By comparison to the survival of our species, nothing else matters, including working class demands. Increased consumption doesn't mean shit if we all die, but if that increased consumption is sustainable, and won't impact us, then it's fine.

-Alex

[StartToday]

I think that the working class should want to be educated when choosing what to consume. Because in the end, poor choices that affect the environment will be most severe to them. Smog, contaminated water and food sources, fast and junk food (which exacts quite a toll on the environment and on industry employees)... all of these things take away from the overall health of the working class much more than the upper classes. The working class will have a harder time getting quality (or any) healthcare to deal with these problems. So I think it's safe to say that the green and labour movements are both striving for better standards of living for the lower classes (although the green movement is about the benefit of all living things, not just the workers).

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

One thing i have noticed is that working class people are concerned about state schools, hospital services and state pensions.

Middle class people are concerned about environmentalism because they don't have to worry about state schools, hospital services or state pensions.

Why is it, we get concerned about environmental issues when we cannot even, in over 150 years, destroy capitalism.

I mean, rational planning of our economies are the only way to solve global environment problems, nothing else is going to work.

Just trying to solve the environment problems without smashing capitalism is infinitely harder, and we have floundered at smashing capitalism so far.

The only good thing that comes from environmentalism is potential recruitment into revolutionary organisations.

[Demogorgon]

Is anyone else suffering from a feeling of Deja Vu here?

I am not a Green. The closest I have ever come tot he Green movement is drinking with a friend's fiancee who is a member. I am a socialist thrugh and through, the interests of the working class come first. But how on earth is it in the interests of the working class to throw away ong term sustainable prosperity for short term gain? You have never explained this.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+May 15, 2007 12:45 am--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ May 15, 2007 12:45 am)One thing i have noticed is that working class people are concerned about state schools, hospital services and state pensions.

Middle class people are concerned about environmentalism because they don't have to worry about state schools, hospital services or state pensions.
[/b]

Well working class people are also more concerned with Clean drinking water, prevention from diseases that spreads because of pollution etc. So environmental pollution is also a concern for working class people too not only to middle class majority of whom might even be a working class.


Why is it, we get concerned about environmental issues when we cannot even, in over 150 years, destroy capitalism.

Because there is more possibility of Capitalism destroying the whole whole world along with humanity majority of whom are workers and peasants for whom the communists claim to fighht for.



I mean, rational planning of our economies are the only way to solve global environment problems, nothing else is going to work.

Is it what capitalists are doing right now ?



Just trying to solve the environment problems without smashing capitalism is infinitely harder, and we have floundered at smashing capitalism so far.

That is my major criticism of Environmental movement. It has managed to create a big market and organisationsa like Greenpeace,WWF have became big corporations themselves.



The only good thing that comes from environmentalism is potential recruitment into revolutionary organisations.

I agree with this more or less. But the right communist strategy would be aggravate the struggle against the Capitalism everywhere and driving it to the obvilions and save the Humanity majority of whom are working class.

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

Siruthuli (http://www.siruthuli.org/index.html) - this is the local environmental group that I use to volunteer for. Could vanguard1917 or BCS identify what middle class background does it have and how the works of this organisation calls for deindustrialisation or says workers to consume less or calls for end capitalism and go back to feudal ages ?

On the contrary it calls mainly for capitalists to cooperate with it activities which I see as more of the weakness and shortsightedness of all environmntal organisations.


Demogorgon
Is anyone else suffering from a feeling of Deja Vu here?

Add me to the list. And wherever Vanguard1917 starts his rant about green movement I would post this article (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/g/r.htm#green-movement) which is a Marxist analysis of Green Movement its origin,impact etc.

And yet another article which stresses the need for working class alternative to contemporary environmental groups.

Why green is red: Marxism and the threat to the environment (http://www.isj1text.ble.org.uk/pubs/isj88/mcgarr.htm)

[apathy maybe]

Just a quick fuck you to Vanguard1917 and a quick also,

All environmentalists should be also socialists. Socialism is the only way to get the environmentalist demands.


One example I like to use is the washing machine. Capitalists would have us each have our own washing machine, which then sits unused most of the time. Socialists would have us share that washing machine, thus reducing the number of washing machines needed. Thus reducing the pollution and waste and so on.

Thus, environmentalists should be socialists. And Vanguard1917 should stop extrapolating from some environmentalists to all.

[apathy maybe]

Environmentalists do have a problem with massive amounts of consumption yes. Those who are also socialists (like myself) notice that most of that consumption is made by the rich. It isn't so much the majority of working class, so much as the upper classes. What working class person owns a Lear Jet for example?

Environmentalists also want to raise the standard of living for many of the worlds poorest people (hint, not talking about people in the overdeveloped nations (and yes I do think that they are over developed, get over it)). Many of the worlds poorest people are forced to cut down forests to simply survive (to obtain wood for example). Environmentalists would raise their standard of living so that they are not forced to destroy the natural environment simply to survive. The introduction of local electricity generation, of bio fuels or whatever.


The point here is that once more Vanguard1917 is talking out of his arse (I know he doesn't always, I have seen posts that do make sense...). Environmentalists are not the evil boggy men that he attempts to paint them as. They simply care about the environment, which isn't such a bad thing.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

What is overdeveloped?


overdeveloped nations (and yes I do think that they are over developed, get over it))

ive have never heard that term before really.

[apathy maybe]

That's 'cause as far as I know I am the only one to use the term, though actually, a quick search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=overdeveloped+nation) using[/url [url=http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=overdeveloped+world]Google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=overdeveloped+country) turns up a number of webpages.

I know I'm going to ramble a bit here, and I will try and come back tomorrow and reply more clearly, but in the meantime bear with me.

When I talk of overdeveloped countries, I mean those places that use an excessive amount of resources or similar. This article (http://asp.african-institute.org/articles.asp?Indeks=18) gives the example of water.

Most of the so called "First World" Countries (the capitalist countries, for those who don't know, the Second World was the "communist" (now ex-communist) countries and the Third World was the neutral and underdeveloped countries (including China, India most of the rest of Asia (including the "Middle East"), Africa and Central/South America) are included in this overdeveloped category.

Another possible term is "post-industrial", though this is not really accurate, if you take it to mean that most of the dangerous and dirty industrial jobs (sweat shops) have been exported then it works. (Australia is a good example of a "post-industrial" country, though it still manages to also have a "third world" style of resource extraction economy.) Bah, I'm really rambling now ... I'm going to bed.

[Vanguard1917]

This is very interesting to say the least. The environmentalists here are a lot more open about this issue than i thought that they would be.

One member has explicity said that he does not want raised living standards for Western workers:


Environmentalists also want to raise the standard of living for many of the worlds poorest people (hint, not talking about people in the overdeveloped nations (and yes I do think that they are over developed, get over it)).

Another member has said implied that lowering living standards is necessary to protect workers in the long-run (from environmental catastrophe):


I am a socialist thrugh and through, the interests of the working class come first. But how on earth is it in the interests of the working class to throw away ong term sustainable prosperity for short term gain?

One member suggests that working class people need lessons in 'choosing what to consume':


I think that the working class should want to be educated when choosing what to consume. Because in the end, poor choices that affect the environment will be most severe to them. Smog, contaminated water and food sources, fast and junk food (which exacts quite a toll on the environment and on industry employees)...

Is there some agreement, then, that working class living standards in the West are high enough - i.e. Western workers should not fight for greater material prosperity?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:56 pm

One member suggests that working class people need lessons in 'choosing what to consume':


Right then, if we are going to twist words like that. Evidently it is entirely legitimate for me to say "Vanguard1917 is determined to destroy the long term prosperity for workers". Maybe I can even campaign for your restriction on anti-worker grounds.

Seriously though, what do you suggest? How do you intend we achieve long term prosperity? Closing your eyes and pretending the problem is not there is not going to solve anything.

[apathy maybe]

Demogorgon, want to start a thread in the CC? We'll see who has more supports hey, those who want to destroy the Earth in the long run for the benefit of the "workers" (read corporations) in the short term, or those who would rather look after the Earth for the long term, whilst still keeping a high standard of living (though more efficient use of technology and resources).

Vanguard1917 is determined to destroy the long term viability of the planet for the short term benefit of corporations (though he claims that it is for "the workers").

Vanguard1917: Who benefits if everyone has hummers? Would it be, I don't know, the oil companies and General Motors? Who loses? The people who have to live in the cities with shit loads of smog and pollution (from those hummers), the people who live in coastal regions when the the sea levels rise and hurricanes and other storms get more intense because of global warming, the native people in areas where there is oil (e.g. the Ogoni people of the Niger Delta). (For those who didn't know, Vanguard1917's 'label' used to be "hummers for all".)

You see, it is perfectly possible to be an environmentalist and support workers and workers rights. But it appears you are a support of corporations rather then workers or actual people...

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It's really amazing how the environmentalists use BULLYING in order to confront VG1917

He clearly does not support oil companies or corporations, unless, i suspect, they are owned and controlled by workers in the context of socialism. Like i do.

People are not going to roll back in any significant way, their living standards because some liberals cry over dead dolphins.

They are only going to change to a greener solution *IF* the green solution is cheaper, better and easily available.

[apathy maybe]

What? The environmentalists are bullying poor little old Vanguard1917? You have got to be fucking kidding me. He is the own equating all environmentalists with anti-humans and anti-workers.

I am simply showing the consequences of Vanguard1917's position. That is, it benefits no one but corporations, despite what he may think.

(Oh, and another problem with hummers for all, think of the fucking traffic congestion if everyone had a hummer...)

[Demogorgon]

Nobody is bullying Vanguard1917, we are just sick of the same bloody thread being made on a near weekly basis.

Claiming being interested in long term benefit over short term benefit is anti-worker is ridiculous.

If certain scientists are correct, real environmental trouble could come by the time I am in my fifties and that will have severe repercussions on the economy. Can anyone tell me why I should have to spend the last few decades of my life significantly worse off simply for a few years of short term gain before then?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is there some agreement, then, that working class living standards in the West are high enough - i.e. Western workers should not fight for greater material prosperity?


My view is that the "baseline" living standards in the developed world is high enough, but that the the distribution is uneven in the extreme and becoming more so (the widening gap between rich and poor), whereas in the developing world this unevenness is also present but the baseline living standard is much degraded.

Think for example, of all the resources and work that are currently used by commercial and government interest and could therefore be potentially "unlocked" in the course of a transition to classless society.

I think VG's problem is a tendency to conflate the wacky ELF/ALF/EF! side of the environmental movement (which have risen to prominence due to more widespread acceptance of the more reasonable environmental ideas) with the more sensible demands of the environmental movement.

I also think there is a tendency among environmentalists to conflate a high quality of life with wasteful consumption - for example, abolishing the car (an entirely inefficient and unnecessary form of private transport) would be one of the main goals in increasing quality of life for everyone.

A decent railway system should, I feel, be the backbone of a sustainable technological society. But expecting us to all become vegetarians (or even vegans!) and not conduct medical tests on animals is going too far.

[apathy maybe]

As an environmentalist, I think I basically agree with your position. People in the "west" tend to have a very high standard of living compared to every other era in history and compared to the majority of the people in the world. Yet I think that it is a standard that is sustainable (even if 6 billion people live at that standard), providing a few things happen.

One is more efficient technologies (LED and compact fluorescent rather then incandescent bulbs for example...), more efficient transport (and less transport... why are we shipping industrial goods from China around the world again? That's right... Capitalism...) and so on.

Getting rid of the car as the main means of private transport is something that should happen (and would require a redesign of our cities, among other things).

Socialism is also (in my opinion) essential to having a sustainable standard of living. I've used the example of the washing machine before, but the car is another good example. People don't tend to use their cars 24 hours a day, rather they use them two or three times a day (drive to work, drive home, drive to a film or the shops). In the mean time, the car is sitting unused. A socialist economy would be much more efficient (we also see the rise of "car pooling" in capitalist countries today).

On the issue of veganism/vegetarianism one of the main reasons for many people to be vegan or vegetarian is the cruelty that is caused to animals. A lot of this cruelty is caused by, you guessed it, capitalism... Trying to make the most money, for the least cost. With out the profit motive, I'm sure that a lot of the problems in the corpse industry will disappear.

[Coggeh]

People don't tend to use their cars 24 hours a day, rather they use them two or three times a day (drive to work, drive home, drive to a film or the shops).

In fairness your going to have to have your own car or at least 1 for ever 2houses , what about driving too work you leave you car there don't you ? plus driving too school rush hour is basically on at the same time the 9-5 thing what happens when two people are working in different places at the same times ;) ... (i like the washing machine example more :) )


Getting rid of the car as the main means of private transport is something that should happen (and would require a redesign of our cities, among other things).

I agree , alot more emphasis should be put on clean public transport .


Another thing i'd like to point out is all this blame being put on the working class and the average joe , "don't drive so much" "Don't use cheap travel" "don't use deodorant so much" if the government gave a rats ass about these things they'd cut them at their source by banning products that harm the environment ,by keeping nationalized airlines fuel effiecent and as eco-friendly as possible.

I'm sick about these ad campaigns of recycle and re-use by government bodies while their doing nothing themselves to tackle the problem .

[jaycee]

the point to make here is that there is no possibilty of raising workers living standards or stopping the environmental problems without overthrowing capitalism. Living standards in the West and all areas of the world have been in general decline since the 70's and capitalism cannot offer any meaningful reforms in its period of decline (the world economy is only surviving one mountains of debt as it is).

It is therefore a false choice to make, the only possiblity for raising living standards or dealing with the environmental crisis which capitalism has dragged the world into is communism on a world scale.

[Vanguard1917]

I think VG's problem is a tendency to conflate the wacky ELF/ALF/EF! side of the environmental movement (which have risen to prominence due to more widespread acceptance of the more reasonable environmental ideas) with the more sensible demands of the environmental movement.

Not at all. It's the mainstream enivronmentalists who concern me - they're the ones who are campaigning for the introduction of reactionary policies and getting their voices heard. In fact, environmentalism now plays a central part in ruling ideology. The environmentalists outlook informs government policy-making: from the economic and social policy of the government to the micro-policies of local councils.

[apathy maybe]

Care to respond to my case on why hummers are bad?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Coggy+--> (Coggy)In fairness your going to have to have your own car or at least 1 for ever 2houses , what about driving too work you leave you car there don't you ? plus driving too school rush hour is basically on at the same time the 9-5 thing what happens when two people are working in different places at the same times ;) ... (i like the washing machine example more :) )[/b]

There's no need for cars at all... ever heard of a thing called public transport? And we can save a hell of a lot of fuel by transporting good by rail and shipping it as opposed to using trucks and planes.

Reinvigorating and expanding our canal systems would also be a good idea.


Vanguard1917
Not at all. It's the mainstream enivronmentalists who concern me - they're the ones who are campaigning for the introduction of reactionary policies and getting their voices heard. In fact, environmentalism now plays a central part in ruling ideology. The environmentalists outlook informs government policy-making: from the economic and social policy of the government to the micro-policies of local councils.

While I agree with the statement that environmentalism plays a part in ruling class ideology, I feel that it is being used more as a way of gaining votes and generating cash rather than being used to foist outright reactionary policies on the general populace.

[Vanguard1917]

There's no need for cars at all... ever heard of a thing called public transport? And we can save a hell of a lot of fuel by transporting good by rail and shipping it as opposed to using trucks and planes.

People generally want to get to where they're going as quickly and efficiently as possible. Public transport has its place but individual transport does, too. We need to improve the former but we need to improve the latter as well. We need to call for more government investment in transport, which needs to include the construction of more roads. We also need to call for much more investment in energy. If there are problems of energy shortages, we need high-tech solutions to these problems. For example, more innovation around nuclear power and hydroelectric power (forms of energy which do not emitt greenhouse gases). But environmentalists are against these things; they're against large-scale and forward-looking solutions to the problems facing society. Their solution to everything is to introduce more measures to reduce the consumption and living standards of ordinary people.

[LSD]

I don't usually find myself on the same side as Vanguard, but I must confess that I cannot help but find something undeniable despicable about first world "environmentalists" telling the third world that its attempts to stop starving are "destroying the planet".

That said, I don't think we can dismiss global warming and other environmental dangers quite so quickly as Vanguard suggests we do.

It just strikes me as far too unlikely that it's all a massive "conspiracy" to enforce some nebulous "green" agenda. For one thing, I don't think there's anywhere near a coherent "green" agenda to enforce; and for another, I don't think the environmental movement is either organized or powerful enough to perpetrate the kind of "swindle" detractors accuse them of.

It's also a little too coincidental that, with very few exceptions, everybody speaking out against global warming is either on the pay of big business or ideologically inclined to parrot their line.

And when 90% of scientists are saying one thing and it's only CATO and the AEI saying something else, I don't think it's that hard to figure out which one is probably on the level.

Are there extremist elements to mainstream environmentalism? Of course, but the fact that primitivists and other anti-industrial types are eager to take advantage of global warming does not mean that global warming does not exist.

I don't have the background or education to determine for myself what the evidence says, but as a matter of common sense I don't find it that difficult to imagine that pumping millions and millions of tons of chemicals into the atmosphere might just have an effect.

The third world has every right to develop and we must oppose those "greens" who would try and stop them in the name of "saving nature". But at the same time, there's no reason not to support environmental "market hampering", especially in the first world which can more than afford it.

There is an unfortunate masochistic streak to a lot of contemporary environmentalism, but the reality is that private citizens are not generating most of the world's polution.

Things like mandatory recylcing programmes only serve to victimize the average worker instead of placing the blame where it really belongs, on corporate production.

Similarly, efforts to dissuade the undeveloped world from fixing its very real problems in the only way that's ever proven effective only worsens the potential impact of an environmental crisis.

You want to reduce population levels? Great, but you know what's the only way to get people to stop having so many children? Industrialization. 'Cause as long as they're starving farmers, they're going to keep pumping out babies. Give them education and a tertiary economy and you give them alternatives.

But trying to avert disaster by freezing the world as it is today just freezes inequality and disparity. India and China are going to develop. No matter what "greens" may think of it, it's virtually inevitable.


So the question i want to ask is this: is the labour movement in the West environmentally sustainable?

Quite possibly, at the very least it would seem to be incompatible with notions of "environmental sustainability" as they are presently constructed; but those notions are political, not scientific.

Again, the real problem here is not the science, the numbers are going to show what they show. The problem is the people who are far too vested, either financially or ideologically, in their respective positions to concede an inch of ground, as it were.

And as long as the environmentalist movement maintains this absurd masochistic millenialism, it's never going to be an ally of the workers' movement.

Because workers aren't fighting to "save the planet" or anything else so narcististically grandiose. They're fighting to survive. For that day, for the next, and for the one after that.

And telling them that there's nothing to fight for, that the world is collapsing all around them and that all that's left is to "go back to nature" isn't going to motivate them to struggle, it's going to invite surrender.

That's what millenialist cults do, after all, they engender despair.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD) I don't usually find myself on the same side as Vanguard, but I must confess that I cannot help but find something undeniable despicable about first world "environmentalists" telling the third world that its attempts to stop starving are "destroying the planet".[/b]


LSD

The third world has every right to develop and we must oppose those "greens" who would try and stop them in the name of "saving nature".


I hate to repeat asking this question LSD but really you think Greenpeace is forcing third world government from Building Nuclear reactors ? Or Japan is a poor country who has to solely rely on Whaling to feed its people ? Or France is a struggling third world country who was building some Nuclear power station in Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls ? Or Royal Dutch shell's operations in association with the Nigerian Military Junta was really in the interests of Nigerian poor people ?



You want to reduce population levels? Great, but you know what's the only way to get people to stop having so many children? Industrialization. 'Cause as long as they're starving farmers, they're going to keep pumping out babies. Give them education and a tertiary economy and you give them alternatives.

Kerala Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_Model)

Your thoughts about this LSD ? And to my knowledge as I have stated already in other thread which Vanguard1917 started to spout his agenda population is not a problem. and for other points you have made also.(really Vanguard1917 is turning us all in to broken tape recorders).


For example, more innovation around nuclear power and hydroelectric power (forms of energy which do not emitt greenhouse gases). But environmentalists are against these things;

But most of the opposition to Nuclear Power is not from Environmentalists but from imperialist governments.The real reason for limitations of them in third world countries is general unaffordablity of running it and lack of men and Raw materials.

Green did not bomb and destroy Iraq's nuclear facilities it was done by Israel. And greens are not the main vocal opponents of the Iran's Nuclear programme it is the Imperialists.

And only Greenpeace have actively campaigned against Nuclear power and it is mostly against the Atmospheric and Underwater Nuclear Testing.

Regarding hydro electricity it in itself have a hell a lot of problems. And not all rivers can be used to generate Hydroelectricity and it is not efficient in all aspects. And building dams does destroy not only forests but also cities and villages and if the greens fight for the compensation for those who lived there, i don't think it is opposing the dam project but fighting for social justice.

[Vanguard1917]

That said, I don't think we can dismiss global warming and other environmental dangers quite so quickly as Vanguard suggests we do.

I'm not actually suggesting that. I'm not denying that global warming is happening. Temperatures have indeed risen in the last 150 or so years - by around 0.6-0.8 celsius.

All i'm suggesting is that this does not warrant slowing down development. In fact, if anything, we need to step up development. The very straightforward fact is that the better developed we are economically, the better equiped we are to deal with environmental threats.

Indeed, it is the industrially underdeveloped parts of the world - whose economies are over-reliant on backward agricultural production - which are the most vulnerable to changes in temperature.


It's also a little too coincidental that, with very few exceptions, everybody speaking out against global warming is either on the pay of big business or ideologically inclined to parrot their line.

If you look a bit closer, this is not what is actually happening. In reality, big business is increasingly reluctant to associate itself with 'climate-deniers'. Appearing green has become a priority for big business.

There is a lot of money being pumped into the field of climate science. This relatively small field of science has grown enormously and artificially in the last few years due to disproportionate funding by Western governments.

But, contrary to popular belief, this money is not going to 'climate-deniers'. If you're a scientist looking want funding, the last thing you should do is go against the current environmentalist orthodoxies.


It just strikes me as far too unlikely that it's all a massive "conspiracy" to enforce some nebulous "green" agenda. For one thing, I don't think there's anywhere near a coherent "green" agenda to enforce; and for another, I don't think the environmental movement is either organized or powerful enough to perpetrate the kind of "swindle" detractors accuse them of.

That's not my argument at all. It's not a conspiracy. Green groups are not actually causing the rise of environmentalist attitudes. Green groups have always existed. But it is only under certain social and economic conditions that the environmentalist outlook rises to prominence.

Today, the rise of environmentalism in the West is caused by two main factors:

1) Capitalist stagnation. Environmentalism provides convenient excuses for capitalism's lack of economic dynamism. Environmentalist slogans like 'sustainable development' make a virtue of capitalist stagnation.

2) The retreat of the working class movement and the collapse of the working class-oriented left. With no working class movement, there is no section in society putting forward a progressive alternative to capitalism. As a result, criticisms of capitalism are increasingly reactionary in content.

These are characterised by their low opinion of working class people. There is a general anti-working class attitude central to environmentalism. In the past, socialists saw the working class as the solution to the world's problems. Scratch the 'leftwing' surface of today's environmentalism, and it becomes obvious that environmentalists see ordinary working class people as the problem.

Whereas socialists saw workers demanding more (more wages, more affluence, more disposable incomes, better living standards, etc.) as something progressive, environmentalist see this as grave cause for concern.

In fact, the last thing they want is workers having more material prosperity.

More wealth = more consumption = more carbon emissions

That's how the environmentalist imagination works.

-----------


You want to reduce population levels? Great, but you know what's the only way to get people to stop having so many children? Industrialization. 'Cause as long as they're starving farmers, they're going to keep pumping out babies. Give them education and a tertiary economy and you give them alternatives.

By the way, this is a terrible way to put forward the case for industrial development: if you want less people on earth, support development!

Whatever happened to a putting forward a positive case for development? That we should support economic development worldwide because it will allow more human beings to live longer, healthier and safer lives than ever before, and that this is a bloody good thing. After all, it is estimated that if today's best Western industrial and agricultural practices were used worldwide, the third world alone could sustain 32 billion people.

[socialistfuture]

the division is capitalist divide and conquer tactic me thinks