Environment and revolution

[jake williams]

Are there environmental emergencies that need to be dealt with immediately, via "market solutions" if this is all you can get, or is workers taking power more important than any currently-faced environmental crisis?

In short, is there any environmental issue which diverts immediate attention from workers taking power? I don't want arguments that suggest this is the only method to save the environment, because short term, look, solutions can exist even within a "mixed economy" context. The poll is deliberately dichotomous, and I'd like folks to take sides.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

the working class is who the enviorment hurts the most if they were in conrol and we did away the copatarions that put us in chains and trash the earth this would help fix the enviorment

[piet11111]

we need workers control before anything substantial can be done because capitalism will not let the costs of environmental protection cut into their profits.

[jake williams]

we need workers control before anything substantial can be done because capitalism will not let the costs of environmental protection cut into their profits.
I'm asking partly because of the growing community of people whom one might most directly call ecocapitalists - the right wing of the environmentalism, or more accurately, people who believe in capitalism but support environmentalism. I think there are roughly two segments of this population. The first, basically, makes windmills. It's the category of people who think they are going to make out like bank for investing in green technology. The second category is a little more farsighted. These are people who sincerely believe in environmental crises and further believe that they threaten capitalism itself - that action on the environment is urgent in the interests of rescuing global capitalism. Increasingly, this is a major segment of the environmentalist movement, and it's this that is allowing "environmentalism" to become more mainstream, much more so than it was even 5 years ago.

A lot of these people sincerely believe in saving the environment, albeit for themselves. For that matter, a lot of workers aren't especially concerned about the environment (the picture isn't as bleak as a lot of propaganda suggests, but there isn't zero conflict). I'm asking how we deal with this discrepancy, partly how much does it exist, but more importantly, because there's certainly some, how do we decide when it comes to it. I will say that I would rather concede workers' rights than see a workers' government destroy the environment and itself. The question really is whether or not this is what we're faced with, and while I sincerely don't know which way to turn, there are reasons of immediacy which suggest at least addressing and considering the issue.

[Sendo]

The struggles should be (and in nature are) the same struggle. People campaign for quantitative gains like minimum wage hikes and quantitative gains like environmental restrictions. But we need qualitative change, too. Higher wages do not make wage slavery un-slavery, and national parks do not curb fundamental problems in capitalism.

I wrote a paper on this for college. In Mexico, the indigenous comune' regained forest cover while the national parks slowly made concessions. Sustainable forestry and non-capitalist economies ARE ESSENTIAL.

**********

Also, from my ignored topic on the great book by James O'Connor:

..He shows that capitalism is not just unsustainable for its exponential growth, but is also unsustainable for the reason that as capitalism makes resources scarce, centralizes, causes urban congestion, creates overproduction crises, and destroys the ability of nature to recycle waste it raise its own input costs. The result is increased abuse to workers and the environment (including not just pretty forests, but soil, air quality, resources, health, water supplies, and so forth)....

He also discusses the efficiencies of socialist economies and defends the Soviet bloc. He writes that the Soviet bloc's environmental problems were chiefly from inferior technology, a Cold War need to "catch up" very quickly, and central planning. Central planning can serve some good, but he advocates an interdependent network of localities, given how much more damaging one big power plant can be compared to several smaller ones. The soviet system also tended to isolate technocrats and the like from democratic movements and even other state enterprises, causing some degree of externalizing of costs.

Other than recent events like the sharp increase in global warming, the exploitation and cause of new waves of natural disasters (though covered well in "Shock Doctrine"), and developments in Cuba's post-Soviet economy, the strides in solar and lithium technology, it stands the test of time quite well. While he uses much of traditional Marxist texts and scientific bits and news bits, it is largely a long fleshing out of his own understanding of ecology and Marxism and argumentative, and much less of rehash, research, or journalism. There are some chapters that investigate California's environmental history and some analysis of William Cronon and those who criticize him from the left (trad. Marxists), though.

his focus on a theoretical summation of "Externalization" (dumping one's waste on other parties) is totalizing. I don't think he was wrong to call Marx's Capital incomplete for not using material analysis of the production conditions (labor and land, in loose terms). I might go as far to say that his work is as essential as Capital and could rightly be a successive volume. The book unfortunately is really low on the radar, but I can't recommend it enough.

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

[jake williams]

I don't think capitalism is or will every be sustainable. But I think there are people who believe that there are emergencies, alright, immediate changes we have to make in a few decades or a hundred years, in order to save global capitalism. In the short term - within the timeframe that these very crises are an immediate concern - this may be true. And if it is, and these crises are real, and we need to avert them in order to save functional human life, I think it would be worth it to accept concessions in the short term in order to have workers left alive.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

we are not going to die off any time soon, futher more after the greed capitlitic pigs absore all it can out of the working class from makint these greeen things, to counter what they have done, what will they do purpusely polute the enviorment so they can take our resourses to fix it. the capitalistic system liseitn to money not the earth. workers are more apat to help the enviorment also becuase they do not have the resuorses to avoid situation. polution poultions the nieghborhood of the working class. first we must revolt, then we can fix what the captalist pigs have created.

[Sendo]

Yep, there's whole industries dedicated to emergency and disaster rescue and insurance. The disasters not only give profits but further empower capitals and further increase risk of disasters. The disasters are no longer just economical, they are increasingly of an environmental and economic nature simultaneously now. Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine becomes incredibly relevant when she discusses Katrina. Now tie that into increasing floods/droughts/storms brought on by global warming in just the past four years and you go, wow, is civilization gonna survive the next century.

It'd be almost funny if the whole world as we know ended up like Atlantis. The big cities like Shanghai, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, New York, LA, others (sorry my geography is such crap) all become flooded and abandoned. States collapse and barbarism takes hold. Tribes retaining language and basic knowledge of crafts and farming tell stories of great and dead civilizations that lie in ruins just below the water at certain coastlines. The inner mainland cities will have been ransacked or rendered unusable as happened with the Roman ruins, of course. A few thousand years later we see a group of people building the first warships....

Well, that's just my wild imagination, but hey anything's possible.

[Vanguard1917]

Interesting question. For environmentalists, 'the environment' comes before everything else. After all, without the world, we're all fucked. That's how greens win arguments these days... through doom-mongering. Either we reign in our ambitions of further progress, or we die. Forget about workers' revolution, the environmentalists can't even bring themselves to support basic improvements to living standards. Mass consumption as a result of increased prosperity is poisoning the earth, apparently.


It'd be almost funny if the whole world as we know ended up like Atlantis. The big cities like Shanghai, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, New York, LA, others (sorry my geography is such crap) all become flooded and abandoned. States collapse and barbarism takes hold. Tribes retaining language and basic knowledge of crafts and farming tell stories of great and dead civilizations that lie in ruins just below the water at certain coastlines. The inner mainland cities will have been ransacked or rendered unusable as happened with the Roman ruins, of course. A few thousand years later we see a group of people building the first warships....

Well, that's just my wild imagination, but hey anything's possible.

No, that's your personal eco-fantasy; in the real world, there's nothing to indicate that such a scenario will ever take place.

The truth is that we are today more capable of dealing with natural disasters than ever before in human history, especially in the developed world. As a result of economic development, we have more and more resources to protect us from the destructive aspects of nature. Whether capitalist governments will allow us to access those resources is, of course, another matter, as Katrina showed. But the problem is not that we are in any way more vulnerable to nature today, in any absolute sense; the opposite is true. The aim of a socialist society would be to take this progress even further.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No it isn't.

A: It's important to note that the environment is only important insofar as it impacts on humans; revolution would bring far more benefits to our species than a few floods being prevented.

B: Capitalism as a system is not designed for environmentalism. If you are concerned about the environment because of it's long-term impacts on human society, your best bet is in a worker's democracy, not a liberal capitalist one.

-Alex

[black magick hustla]

Interesting question. For environmentalists, 'the environment' comes before everything else. After all, without the world, we're all fucked. That's how greens win arguments these days... through doom-mongering. Either we reign in our ambitions of further progress, or we die. Forget about workers' revolution, the environmentalists can't even bring themselves to support basic improvements to living standards. Mass consumption as a result of increased prosperity is poisoning the earth, apparently.

You are right to the extent that enviromental campaigns are pretty worthless in as much that only after socialism we would be able to deal with the enviroment, for the destruction of the enviroment is part of the capitalist imperative,

However, any professional ecologist and weather physicist will tell you that there is a quite realistic possibility of enviromental disaster. I would rather believe them than some anonymous guy in the forum always posting about how we should continue consuming every kind of unnecessary, worthless commodity.

[butterfly]

Environmental conscioussness is up there with class consciousness now. You'll see many more people gaining the latter as a result of the former, however the movment can't be united if those concerned about the threat are labelled primitivists devoid of regard towards workers struggles.
I believe people should be reducing their level of consumption...does this mean I belong in the opposing ideologies section?:crying:

[Plagueround]

The two are intertwined. You won't be able to create a sustainable environment under capitalism...the interest of the people are constantly undermined by profit motive. To truly "fight for the environment" you must be a socialist/communist.

[Lynx]

Environmental advocacy is forced to work within the current system. After a revolution they would begin to work within the socialist system.

[Lynx]

Environmental conscioussness is up there with class consciousness now. You'll see many more people gaining the latter as a result of the former, however the movment can't be united if those concerned about the threat are labelled primitivists devoid of regard towards workers struggles.
I believe people should be reducing their level of consumption...does this mean I belong in the opposing ideologies section?:crying:
I believe they should too - rampant consumption is a capitalist demand.

[Comrade B]

During a revolution, I think all things to fix up the environment would be undone. I voted no because I value revolution more than environmentalism, but I don't see a revolution for a long time in my country. I would think that it is important for people to protect the environment to assure that earth can sustain human life.

[Vargha Poralli]

Contrary to what VG1917 spits working calss and farmers are the one's who are most affected by the environmental problems and they are the spearheads against pollution that is made by the industries because it is they who breathe unclean air and drink poisoned water.

And those who think environmental campaigns are worthless just shows how much out of touch with the class politics they are. Fight against the envirmnetal degradation is coupled intrinscally with fight against the capitalism and Imperialism.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

working calss and farmers are the one's who are most affected by the environmental problems


But they are also the ones most affected by green politics - The banning of DDT to fight malaria is a good example of this; we literally put the environment above human lives in this instance.



And those who think environmental campaigns are worthless just shows how much out of touch with the class politics they are. Fight against the envirmnetal degradation is coupled intrinscally with fight against the capitalism and Imperialism.


Baseless assertion.

-Alex

[piet11111]

And those who think environmental campaigns are worthless just shows how much out of touch with the class politics they are. Fight against the envirmnetal degradation is coupled intrinscally with fight against the capitalism and Imperialism.

i disagree because capitalism as a system does not have some sort of over-arching leadership its everyone for themselves so even if 1 capitalist goes "green" there would still be countless others that wont and try to take over that slice of the market with their more polluting products.

and they will be able to take a larger market share because very few people are able to pay more for the same thing and that is assuming green capitalists are as green as they say.

environmental protection can only work if all production of goods goes "green" and in the capitalist free-for-all i do not see that happen on a global scale.

[Vargha Poralli]

But they are also the ones most affected by green politics - The banning of DDT to fight malaria is a good example of this; we literally put the environment above human lives in this instance.


Oh great !!!:rolleyes:

Number one DDT was never banned for Public Health use only for Industrial Use and number two it was not as efficient against malaria as it used to be.More safer and efficient drugs are also available for Malaria control so there is no need to shed tears for DDT manufatucring companies whose bottomline is affected because of the Ban.

And human life is valuable that is the reason to fight against the destruction of environment on the earth which is the only thing which supports it.



Baseless assertion.

-Alex
Here's a more solid base (http://marxists.org/glossary/events/g/r.htm#green-movement)


i disagree because capitalism as a system does not have some sort of over-arching leadership its everyone for themselves so even if 1 capitalist goes "green" there would still be countless others that wont and try to take over that slice of the market with their more polluting products.

Replace "green" with High Wages and "Polluting" with Cheap and you get stupidity of your idea.

[Vanguard1917]

I believe people should be reducing their level of consumption...does this mean I belong in the opposing ideologies section?:crying:

As an environmentalist, you believe that the masses should have lower levels of prosperity. As a socialist, i believe that capitalism is a flawed system precisely because it holds back material progress.

So, yes, believing that living standards should be lowered is radically contrary to my worldview.



Number one DDT was never banned for Public Health use only for Industrial Use and number two it was not as efficient against malaria as it used to be.


Tell that to the millions of people who have died and suffered from malaria as a direct consequence of West-driven anti-DDT hysteria.

Putting birds and insects before human life = dangerous business

[butterfly]

How are living standards defined? Isn't the current standard going to decrease through lack of action or over-construction, than say a self-imposed reduction?
For example we previously had in place water restrictions, however recently, for lack of security the State government has focused it's attention on the construction of a desalination plant. Less attention is paid to the river systems which means that many farmers lack the fertile land required to produce enough food for the masses, leading to more transporation, more pollution, more desertification.
Prehaps water supply is a bad example as it touches on the most basic of 'standards'...but this is what we are facing.
Reduction to avoid a worse sceario not to lower the standard of living.

[Vargha Poralli]

Tell that to the millions of people who have died and suffered from malaria as a direct consequence of West-driven anti-DDT hysteria.

As a matter of fact Malaria had started to rebound long before DDT was banned mainly because of vector resistance to DDT, which started to develope a decade before ban of DDT in for industrial purposes. And it was not only because of vector resistance but also because of multiple problems identical to third world nations.

For example in India... (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8926025?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed)


Putting birds and insects before human life = dangerous business

Same way putting profits before human life = very dangerous business.

[piet11111]

Replace "green" with High Wages and "Polluting" with Cheap and you get stupidity of your idea.

ok i will lets see


i disagree because capitalism as a system does not have some sort of over-arching leadership its everyone for themselves so even if 1 capitalist goes high wages there would still be countless others that wont and try to take over that slice of the market with their cheaper products.

oh wow yet another thing the capitalist class as a whole would never do on their own guess that was exactly my point.
the capitalists have to be removed for environmentalism and communism to happen.

[Vanguard1917]

Prehaps water supply is a bad example as it touches on the most basic of 'standards'...but this is what we are facing.
Reduction to avoid a worse sceario not to lower the standard of living.

Your example of water supply, and the fact that you call for restrictions on water use, show the backwardness of your perspective. Building more desalination plants is a very good solution to water shortage problems. As is water companies fixing the holes in their pipes; in Britain, for example, most water waste happens as a result of leaks in Thames Water pipes.

Instead of highlighting these problems and calling for rational solutions, environmentalists are more interested in calling on individuals and households to alter their behaviour and lifestyles. As a Malthusian ideology, environmentalism blames the masses (in this case, mass consumption of water) for the problems of the system. And due to its tendencies towards puritanism, environmentalists are more concerned with lecturing the public on how to live.


As a matter of fact Malaria had started to rebound long before DDT was banned mainly because of vector resistance to DDT, which started to develope a decade before ban of DDT in for industrial purposes. And it was not only because of vector resistance but also because of multiple problems identical to third world nations.


Nope, the effective global ban on DDT gave way to drastic increases in malaria cases throughout much of the world, as most people, even those who were once at the forefront of anti-DDT campaigns (e.g. the World Health Organisation) now admit.

This has been discussed a number of times on revleft. See, for example, this recent thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/uganda-allowed-spray-t83948/index2.html

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Oh great !!!

I don't know what that means or what that adds to the discussion.



More safer and efficient drugs are also available for Malaria control so there is no need to shed tears for DDT manufatucring companies whose bottomline is affected because of the Ban.



I am a socialist - please don't imply that I'm shedding tears for the profits of the DDT manufacturers. I'm concerned with human life here. Now, if you cared to learn something about the situation you're presuming to teach me about, you'd know that the ban on DDT has led to preventable deaths on a massive scale. Estimates range from hundreds of thousands to far, far higher figures. From a self-identified sympathiser to the environmental movement, Nicholas Kristof:

Environmentalists were right about DDT's threat to bald eagles, for example, but blocking all spraying in the third world has led to hundreds of thousands of malaria deaths.

Or in an article from the national geographic:


Soon after the program collapsed, mosquito control lost access to its crucial tool, DDT. The problem was overuse—not by malaria fighters but by farmers, especially cotton growers, trying to protect their crops. The spray was so cheap that many times the necessary doses were sometimes applied. The insecticide accumulated in the soil and tainted watercourses. Though nontoxic to humans, DDT harmed peregrine falcons, sea lions, and salmon. In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, documenting this abuse and painting so damning a picture that the chemical was eventually outlawed by most of the world for agricultural use. Exceptions were made for malaria control, but DDT became nearly impossible to procure. "The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children."


As for your point about DDT being only partially banned, this is true; but if you look at the history of the ban, almost all green organisations, like Greenpeace and the WWF were pushing for an absolute ban. Because, of course, lives in the third world are expendable when it comes to protecting the environment.



(http://www.anonym.to/?http://marxists.org/glossary/events/g/r.htm#green-movement)
Here's a more solid base (http://www.anonym.to/?http://marxists.org/glossary/events/g/r.htm#green-movement)
(http://www.anonym.to/?http://marxists.org/glossary/events/g/r.htm#green-movement)

Your "solid base" says it all. The origins of the green movement are in the "Club of Rome", which is made up of "leading capitalist businessmen, politicians and economists, such as Britain’s Tory PM Ted Heath". Apart from that, the article, whilst interesting, did nothing to show that environmentalism is inextricable from class politics.

-Alex

[Comrade Pumblechook]

Saving the enviroment is more important than the class struggle in the immediate future, we can have a revolution in the future, but we need to take action on global warming now.

However the best, if not only, way of saving the enviroment is a planned economy, which ties in nicely with revolution. :cool:


It's important to note that the environment is only important insofar as it impacts on humans

I disagree, I think the enviroment is in itself worth saving. Humans aside, it is worth adapting our life styles to save say, the rainforests or polar bears, not just because of their effect on humans, but also because of their natural beauty, and their place in the evolutionary process.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Saving the enviroment is more important than the class struggle in the immediate future, we can have a revolution in the future, but we need to take action on global warming now.

However the best, if not only, way of saving the enviroment is a planned economy, which ties in nicely with revolution.


Well then this is a contradiction; if you think the best and possibly only way to save the environment is a planned economy, class struggle is syonymous with, rather than secondary to, "saving the environment".



I disagree, I think the enviroment is in itself worth saving. Humans aside, it is worth adapting our life styles to save say, the rainforests or polar bears, not just because of their effect on humans, but also because of their natural beauty, and their place in the evolutionary process.


I'm not sure what you mean by "their place in the evolutionary process". It's fine to protect the environment for the sake of it's natural beauty; but only because it's enjoyable for us as humans to experience that beauty, and not because "nature" is an important entity in it's own right.

What would you say if it comes to a clash between environment and human welfare? The DDT discussion above is a good example of this. I think that a socialist should always fall on the side of humans.

-Alex

[butterfly]

Actually Vanguard I was highlighting how short-term solution's can lead to very big problems, the butterfly effect. Without naturally accumulated water stores our eco-system's begins to crash and food production becomes the issue.
I believe environmentalism and socialism are compatible, there just need's the smallest display of realism on the socialist's behalf.
Vanguard you havn't taken in my point so i'll repeat... reduction to avoid a worse scenario not to intentionally lower the standard of living.

[butterfly]

Actually Vanguard I was highlighting how short-term solution's can lead to very big problems, the butterfly effect. Without naturally accumulated water stores our eco-system's begins to crash and food production becomes the issue.
I believe environmentalism and socialism are compatible, there just need's the smallest display of realism on the socialist's behalf.;)
Vanguard you havn't considered the point or rebutted so i'll repeat; reduction to avoid a worse scenario, not to lower the standard of living.

[butterfly]

Because water is so basic let's consider the rhetoric of cars

[Vargha Poralli]

am a socialist - please don't imply that I'm shedding tears for the profits of the DDT manufacturers. I'm concerned with human life here. Now, if you cared to learn something about the situation you're presuming to teach me about, you'd know that the ban on DDT has led to preventable deaths on a massive scale. Estimates range from hundreds of thousands to far, far higher figures. From a self-identified sympathiser to the environmental movement, Nicholas Kristof:

Environmentalists were right about DDT's threat to bald eagles, for example, but blocking all spraying in the third world has led to hundreds of thousands of malaria deaths.

So the broken tape recorder's rhetoric had indeed been very effective.

DDT's ban was never the reason for rebound of malaria. Vector resistance to DDT had made it obsolte and that is the main reason for the rebouns of malaria.You have ignored the fact that DDT was never banned for public health usage and was continued to be used for vector control and just put the blame on the nevironmental movement.You have also ignored my source about the malarial control effects in India which details the problems of malarial control in the third world.

And DDt is not the only answer to vector control there are many more available for it. Even DDT is not effective in alll Tropical regions where the musquitos have developed resistance for it. So when costs outweigh benefits it is idiotic to just spend everthing on it.

DDT ban myth (http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm).


Your "solid base" says it all. The origins of the green movement are in the "Club of Rome", which is made up of "leading capitalist businessmen, politicians and economists, such as Britain’s Tory PM Ted Heath". Apart from that, the article, whilst interesting, did nothing to show that environmentalism is inextricable from class politics.


yeah it did say the very important thing hich you have missed


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.
.......
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.

[Vargha Poralli]

ok i will lets see



oh wow yet another thing the capitalist class as a whole would never do on their own guess that was exactly my point.
the capitalists have to be removed for environmentalism and communism to happen.

So we say the same thing.
I cannot wait it communism is reached to breath clen air and have clen drinking water. I have to fight to get them so i will fight for it.

Just saying that capitalists need to be removed for environmenatlism and communism and ignoring the major struggle against the capitalists is definitly not going to help the our movement. If you take a look at major struggle against capitalist onslaught of environment it is the workers and farmers who does it most.

and the question of the poll is not right. The struggle to protect out environment from destruction is a part of our struggle.It is neither more important or less important.

[Vanguard1917]

DDT's ban was never the reason for rebound of malaria. Vector resistance to DDT had made it obsolte

Well, if you actually look at the evidence, you will see that this is simply not true.

South Africa, for example, banned DDT in 1996 (and tried other pesticides), which led to malaria cases increasing by a thousand percent. When DDT was re-introduced, the numbers radically reduced. The effectiveness of DDT in fighting malaria is also seen if you look at figures for throughout South America and parts of Asia, as i highlighted in the thread i linked earlier.

This is why countries (e.g. Uganda and Tanzania fairly recently) are repealing their DDT bans and using DDT for residual indoor spraying programmes against malaria. The sheer effectiveness of DDT in fighting malaria really does speak for itself. This is why the World Health Organisation reversed its 30-year anti-DDT policy in 2006, and it now admits that DDT needs to play a 'major' role in anti-malaria programmes. Even environmental groups that were at the forefront of campaigns to have it banned in previous decades - e.g. Environmental Defense, Sierra Club, the Endangered Wildlife Trust - now endorse DDT.



You have ignored the fact that DDT was never banned for public health usage and was continued to be used for vector control and just put the blame on the nevironmental movement.


DDT was banned in various countries as a result of pressure from Western international organisations. One way the ban was enforced: imperialist organisations like USAID made banning DDT a precondition for receiving economic aid, as the governments of Bolivia and Belize have admitted.

And, of course, as everyone knows, it was Western environmental organisations who were in the vanguard of movements to get DDT banned.

[Comrade Pumblechook]

Well then this is a contradiction; if you think the best and possibly only way to save the environment is a planned economy, class struggle is syonymous with, rather than secondary to, "saving the environment".

Yes, class struggle is the best way to save the environment. However taken as seperate issues in the short term, the environment takes priority. But as the two work together, yes i agree that the two are currently syonymous.


I'm not sure what you mean by "their place in the evolutionary process".

I meant that as humans are effectively above evolution now, as we alter ourselves far faster than evolution ever could, for evolution to continue it is essential that the natural world remains. This isn't the main reason, but it is a reason seperate from just what pleases humans.
If a clash between welfare and the enviroment occurs, I feel that normally the human need is greater. However, I don't feel we should always fall on the side welfare, you need to look to the long term effects on the enviroment. It could be the case that the risk to the environments future outweighs the current human cost. Thousands of lives now could safe-guard millions of lives in the future.
I agree that peoples needs come before the environment, but that doesn't mean that saving the environment is pointless from a non-human point of view.

[Comrade Pumblechook]

Also, were in the short term a way of saving the enviroment, seperate from the class struggle, to be found, I believe that takes priority.
If nothing else, for the sake of future class struggles.

[Sendo]

vanguard, the lives of birds do not supersede human lives. The health of humans and the existence of biodiversity is what's at stake. I'd rather not see us use industrial solutions to life's problems to get a quick buck. Especially when chemicals become less and less effective over time and when they cause health problems for humans (cancer). If all the birds die, it's not some minor problem; it means we have no natural predators of pests like crop-eating bugs. It'll cause
a host of ecological probelms that will make the Earth uninhabitable. If we lose trees, for example, we disrupt the water cycle.

If we disrupt the water cycle we have droughts which are only fixed with more energy spent towards irrigation and desalinization (Vanguard, do you not realize how much energy this takes?). We also have floods, which destroy fields and homes. And there's the lovely irony that our pollution-filled world can cause thirst in a time of flood. Despite the fact that on your rooftop you're surrounded by rainwater, you can die of thirst because of all the shit that's on the streets and lawns around you.

[Forward Union]

Urm. This is a false question.

I don't have an analysis of class and an analysis of the environment. But a class analysis of the environment.

[MarxSchmarx]

The environmentalism versus classism debate is the best modern analogy of the old "should we as socialsits defend bourgeois liberalism over fascism/feudalism" debate.

One way of thinking about this problem is to imagine the alternative - suppose "Green capitalism" more or less worked. Do a thought experiment.

Suppose, for example that the Toyotas and GMs of the world produced electric cars, that the Gasproms of the world were carbon neutral, that non-DDT, market-based distribution of say mosquito nets actually solved the malaria problem, and that recycling was as much a capitalist "public good" as roads and fire fighters. But that everything else that pisses us off about capitalism still existed - massive social inequities, surplus value, smashed unions, etc... Not unlike a modern bourgeois liberal state where some basic rights are pretty secure.

However, we must ask ourselves: would such a society be acceptable at all? Of course not - the environmental crisis was a far way off in Marx's day, and capitalism was still hell. It is still hell, and will always be hell. As these pages will attest I am as much an ecologist as the next guy, but "environmental reformists" are the worst kind of all. Calls to prioritize saving the planet over saving the working class are like calls to save the bourgeois revolution against feudal reaction and fascism. Yes, they are necessary struggles, but we need to reject them for their reformist tendencies and their built-in potential to compromise away the class struggle.

Just as "bourgeois freedoms" are only ultimately secured by the class struggle, so too is environmental sustainability only secured by victory in the class struggle.

[Sendo]

Moot point. Green capitalism is simply impossible. All the hybrids in the world couldn't save us.

[Comrada J]

It's probably been more or less argued here, but under socialism we simply won't be so crazy about consumerism. 4x4s and big, wasteful households and other decadent/unsustainable objects and practices will no longer be trendy. The issues are the same. You don't need to 'choose one'.

[paolo22]

Check this site out, green-revolutionary.com

it's a site that combines left politics and envirment issues... also promots self sufficiency with solar, wind and turbine anergy, to power hydroponic gardens to grow your own food, socialism should promote this!

[ZeroNowhere]

Saving the environment and workers' revolution are the same thing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Moot point. Green capitalism is simply impossible.

I think it's far too early to make such statements.

[butterfly]

Please do care to enlighten me. So far it has failed miserably. Scientists worldwide are pulling their hair.

[Pogue]

Communism will remove environmental problems.

[paolo22]

Exactly, if communism was ever set forth; All conflict of interest would be eliminated in the industrial administration.

That basically means nobody would benefit from the environment, and the 'economy' wouldn't crash due to it's reduction.

On the contrary; technology and quality production would flourish. In current capitalism, so many brands of the same technology is created that most resources go into peripherals that are ridiculously redundant if looked at by a tech perspective.

In the workers revolution it would be popular to create the most compatible world, and to have technology that could be upgraded instead of replaced. This would ease the load on the work force while saving the environment drastically.

Once we start to think about the Oil industry under this topic, it's almost comical.. First of all, fossil fuels would be ridiculous, theres no need to transport mass amount of flammable liquids... anyone who thinks so is not up to date with technology, or is profiting from this primitive industry. New electric only technologies could be applied, they would be produced and distributed on a massive scale for quite some time, but eventually the workload would decrease as the population sustains itself with this source, than all that is left is upgrading, maintenance.

Green technology would be absolutely fundamental for a commune society, especially if the societies aim is progress and reduced workload instead of current expansion and profitability.

For more information on Green Revolution ideas, visit me at Green-Revolutionary.com

[butterfly]

The ideas continue to contend with each other, despite efforts to reconcile them. That is due to the runoff effect and the small amount of time we have to avoid that, if we can avoid that.
From what I understand, civilisation will struggle to hold itself together if we hit 3-4 degree's, adaptation is near impossible.

[Drace]

I would think the way to fix the envriomental problems is a revolution...

[butterfly]

I would think the way to fix the envriomental problems is a revolution...
I would agree, but isn't revolution organic?
In the meantime why not support market solutions that encourage a large-scale transition if this bennefits the cause of worker's revolution in the future?

[jesper]

In my opinion worldwide communism would probably remove most environmental problems, like deforestation, due to poverty, and the problems of overpopulation, since it is clear that the more evolved, (this especially applies to education levels), the less children are being born. A planned eonomy would certainly also improve the environment, due to focusing on human needs and being environmental friendly, instead of a free market that focuses on profits.

However i voted that environmental solution are more important than class struggle, because i would rather live under "green" capitalism, than not live at all or seeing the system we are living under destroy the environment for future generations.

[Delirium]

I don't think that we can begin to seriously solve our enviromental problems without first revolution. Capitalism is a system of perpetual economic growth, the goal being producing and consuming more than the previous year. The earth is a place with finite resources and population capacity.

Environmental destruction is just yet another very good reason we have to have socialist revolution. Not to say that can only address environmental issues after the end of capitalism. Valuable thing can be done now too.

[Yazman]

The idea that capitalists or corporations will ever put the environment as a higher priority than profit is one of the most ridiculously naive ideas I have ever heard.

The entire system of capitalism exists to generate profits in the most efficient manner possible. If it turns out that environmental concerns are able to generate profit more efficiently then perhaps capitalists will have some concern for that; however it will never be their main concern.

Revolution is more important.

[The Author]

Short term, is the environment more important than workers' revolution?

No. Workers' revolution is the only real way that the environment can truly be saved. The concept of private property and the profit motive have to go out the window if the environment is to be saved, and only through socialism and communism is this possible.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't think that we can begin to seriously solve our enviromental problems without first revolution. Capitalism is a system of perpetual economic growth, the goal being producing and consuming more than the previous year. The earth is a place with finite resources and population capacity.

Environmental destruction is just yet another very good reason we have to have socialist revolution. Not to say that can only address environmental issues after the end of capitalism. Valuable thing can be done now too.

We need a socialist revolution so we can produce and consume less? No thanks.

[butterfly]

Agreed, revolution is the only definitive solution, however I don't see revolution as taking place on a large enough scale within the next few crucial decades, (Please prove me wrong), and therefor generally support 'market solutions' in the meantime, as well as activism and advocacy directed towards the cause.
The ETS or CPRS is absolute bullshit though, so is geosequestration.