Climate Camp

[Plymouth Pilgrim]

As an Anarchist and environmental activist I was at the recent Climate Camp here in the UK, at the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station down in Kent.

I was very impressed with the camp in general, and the efforts made to keep it as organised as possible and to keep the police off the site (taking a personal role in helping keep plod off-site on a couple of occasions. The camp was a major effort for all concerned and one that I, personally, was proud to be a part of.

I was wondering what the general consensus (if any consensus is to be had) was about the Climate Camp movement which seems to be spreading out into other aras of the world such as Australia and Germany as well as the UK.

I've also heard some rather worrying rumours that our old friends the SWP were at the camp 'incognito' and have been sniffing around the environmental movement in general and the Climate Camp in particular. Obviously, I'd want the SWP kept as far away from the Climate Camp as possible as they'd probably try and either take it over for their own purposes and, if that were not possible, try and ruin it out of either sectarian reasons and/or spite.

Anyway, what do Revleft members reckon about the Climate camp movememnt in general?

[Vanguard1917]

Anyway, what do Revleft members reckon about the Climate camp movememnt in general?


In general a reactionary, anti-development grouping which calls for belt-tightening policies in order to enforce a reduction in living standards and consumption.

Nothing positive or progressive going on there at all, imo.

[KurtFF8]

In general a reactionary, anti-development grouping which calls for belt-tightening policies in order to enforce a reduction in living standards and consumption.

Nothing positive or progressive going on there at all, imo.

There's nothing wrong with advocating a green economy. That said, there's also nothing radical about advocating a green economy (at least not "radical" in the "radical leftist" sense).

You can easily have a green capitalist economy where capitalists use the environment to further the interests of capital. We can actually see this happening now in the US where many corporations are "going green" and making profits off of the desire of the country to go green.

This is why the left needs to make it clear that we need a socialist green economy. And yes the capitalist mode of production certainly did lead to many environmental problems, but look at the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the WWII - late 80s period: not the best environmental record.

While the current green movement was certainly started by the left, it is currently being hijacked by non-socialists. The left needs to make it clear that along with environmentally friendly economic changes must come socialist changes.

[Vanguard1917]

There's nothing wrong with advocating a green economy.


Of course there is, when 'advocating a green economy' means calling for reductions in living standards and mass comsumption.

Who needs the bosses to attack living standards when you have environmentalists doing it and passing themselves off as 'radical' at the same time?



there's also nothing radical about advocating a green economy (at least not "radical" in the "radical leftist" sense).



Damn right.

[Plymouth Pilgrim]

Of course there is, when 'advocating a green economy' means calling for reductions in living standards and mass comsumption.

Who needs the bosses to attack living standards when you have environmentalists doing it and passing themselves off as 'radical' at the same time?



Damn right.

Has it occurred to you that, given that we face almighty issues concerning sustainable development, maybe some limited (or perhaps not as limited) reductions in living standards and mass consumption might, and possibly will, turn out to be absolutely necessary?

One thing is for sure, in a world of rapidly depleting resources change, and perhaps very significant change at that, will certainly be necessary if we are to preserve our planet while continuing to exist as a species.

And environmentalists are perfectly capable of being radical, by the way.

[JohannGE]

Anyway, what do Revleft members reckon about the Climate camp movememnt in general?

I wouldn’t expect a Revleft consensus on the Climate Camp movement any more than I would expect one on anything else.

Personaly I don’t believe it is possible to address the threat that climate change poses without the abandoning of capitalism. In my opinion to campaign for an genuinely environmentally sustainable economic system is to campaign for an end to capitalism itself. Even if some of the campaigners, and apparently, some of their opponents, don’t realise it.

I think the cooperative organisation involved in campaigning and a growing awareness of the vested interests driving climate change, will inevitably have a positive effect on the radicalisation of many people who have not and might never be reached by more traditional forms of political radicalism.

To suggest that the environmentalist stance is in some way negated by the hypocrisy of corporate greening is plainly unsound. Do we stop fighting for universal health care or housing because capitalism pays lip service to them? Do we stop fighting for workers rights because they allow us to have unions?

Nor do I see any problem with those addicted to excessive consumption having to tighten their belts if that is what is necessary. Even without the threat of the destruction that climate change threatens, if we are truly socialists, then the more affluent inhabitants of the world should be prepared to accept reducing living standards until the last hungry child is saved from starvation or preventable disease.

Perhaps Marx or Proudhon or whoever our own personal political guru may be didn’t suggest that environmental protection was a priority. But they, geniuses as they might well have been were not in possession of the crucial knowledge of the damage our exploitation of the environment is doing. We all now are and surely must accept that 19c dogma allow itself to be modified by 21c knowledge.

Who needs capitalists to destroy the planet when you have radical leftists doing it and passing themselves of as socialists at the same time?

[Vanguard1917]

And environmentalists are perfectly capable of being radical, by the way.

Obviously they cannot be, if they're advocating 'reductions in living standards and mass consumption'. That's not 'radical', but deeply reactionary.



Has it occurred to you that, given that we face almighty issues concerning sustainable development, maybe some limited (or perhaps not as limited) reductions in living standards and mass consumption might, and possibly will, turn out to be absolutely necessary?



Not for a single moment.

[GX.]

Do increased disease, droughts, water shortages, and the end of the relatively mild climate patterns which have existed throughout all of human history constitute a reduction in the "standard of living"? Or, do we have to continue widespread ecological destruction, with all of its horrible consequences, in order for people to live comfortably, ignoring in the process all the dire predictions of the scientific community? The latter position seems 'deeply reactionary' to me, and more than that, just plain stupid.

[KurtFF8]

Vanguard, can you show me where environmentalists (take primitivists) advocate a reduction in standards of living, especially for workers?

They tend to argue for alternate technologies that are eco-friendly, not a reduction in standards of living. And where they do argue against consumerism, they tend to be arguing against the culture of consumerism that most other leftists argue against anyway.

You're going to have to show more how exactly envrionmentalists and arguging for an environmentally sustaniable economy is aruging for a decrease in standards of living.

[bailey_187]

full of hippies

[Vanguard1917]

Vanguard, can you show me where environmentalists (take primitivists) advocate a reduction in standards of living, especially for workers?

They argue that there is too much mass consumption and they call for it to be lowered through measures like rationing.

Show me where environmentalists don't rally against increases in mass consumption.

[JohannGE]

They argue that there is too much mass consumption and they call for it to be lowered through measures like rationing.

Would you consider wealth redistribution to be rationing? Do you use the word mass to mean the quantity consumed, or the people consuming it? It seems to me that it is only the few doing the mass of the consumption.

I would rally for increased consumption in many places and a reduction in the places where the consumption is already obcenely excessive. It's for their own good they are becoming increasingly obese. :)

It's initialy about where and by whom the mass consumption is being consumed. One thing for sure is that we can't all have our standars raised enough to let us consume like a failed banker.

[GX.]

So, vanguard, I take it by your silence that you do support a reduction in the standard of living? How about the millions of people who have already seen a dramatic reduction in their quality of life through the irrational over-consumption of capitalism by overfishing, deforestation, climate change, and just the general destruction of ecology? Oh, I forgot, quality of life is directly proportional to the amount of consumption (then the optimal standard of living would require immediate consumption of all available energy and resources).

[GX.]

full of hippies
Why did you bother to post such an asinine comment? That's not even a complete sentence!

[bailey_187]

Why did you bother to post such an asinine comment? That's not even a complete sentence!

^^Think i have identified a hippy here guys

[Pogue]

^^Think i have identified a hippy here guys

lmao

[Vanguard1917]

Would you consider wealth redistribution to be rationing? Do you use the word mass to mean the quantity consumed, or the people consuming it? It seems to me that it is only the few doing the mass of the consumption.

No, mass consumption means the consumption of the wider public, i.e. that of the masses.

And the point of their rationing is not to redistribute goods, but to lower or keep low the consumption of all, i.e. to set limits to mass consumption.



I would rally for increased consumption in many places and a reduction in the places where the consumption is already obcenely excessive. It's for their own good they are becoming increasingly obese.


Which places do you have in mind? Working class communities in the West where people are seemingly 'becoming increasingly obese'?



One thing for sure is that we can't all have our standars raised enough to let us consume like a failed banker.


The aim of socialism has always been to raise the living standards of the poor to those of the not so poor. When environmentalists moan that the average living standard in the West is already too high, you know that it's not 'rich bankers' that they are targetting with their eco-policies, but ordinary working class people, who eat too much, drive too much, buy too many household appliances, go on too many holidays and have too many kids.



How about the millions of people who have already seen a dramatic reduction in their quality of life through the irrational over-consumption of capitalism by overfishing, deforestation, climate change, and just the general destruction of ecology?


Care to provide evidence for your claims?

Because i can certainly provide evidence that industrial development, in places where is has taken place in the developing world, has lifted literally hundreds of millions of people from the worst levels of poverty that they previously experienced. Of course, they remain poverty-stricken; but it was worse prior to development, not better.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

While this envrio stuff might be very nobel etc (might be im not sure)

Im pretty damn sure if your going to go though the trouble of organizing something like that you may as well do it over something more important to the class struggle (such as a block of flats that are being demolished)

[JohannGE]

No, mass consumption means the consumption of the wider public, i.e. that of the masses.

And the point of their rationing is not to redistribute goods, but to lower or keep low the consumption of all, i.e. to set limits to mass consumption.

You speak for all environmentalist do you?
The only limit I would wish to set would be the one necissary for sustainability. Yet to be defined I think.




Which places do you have in mind? Working class communities in the West where people are seemingly 'becoming increasingly obese'?.

Yes, if that were to prove neccisary to acheive sustainability.


The aim of socialism has always been to raise the living standards of the poor to those of the not so poor.

All depends where you draw the line then.


While this envrio stuff might be very nobel etc (might be im not sure)

Im pretty damn sure if your going to go though the trouble of organizing something like that you may as well do it over something more important to the class struggle (such as a block of flats that are being demolished)

Demolition of a block of flats... Demolition of the environment of the planet... Now let me think about that one.......

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Demolition of a block of flats... Demolition of the environment of the planet... Now let me think about that one.......

Let me think which one your going to be able to change shit with.


Let me think about that one................



Communists are not people who do nice things to be nice but rather people whom have an end goal (communism)and any task they complete or attempt to complete as part of the movement should be aiming towards that end goal.

[JohannGE]

Let me think which one your going to be able to change shit with.

Let me think about that one................

I am sure that you will come to the conclusion that the destruction of the planets ecology will produce change beyond any we have experienced before. Certainly beyond that produced by the demolition of a block of flats.

Environmentalists are not concerned with being nice. They are concerned with our survival. Without which all other goals become irrelevant.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I am sure that you will come to the conclusion that the destruction of the planets ecology will produce change beyond any we have experienced before. Certainly beyond that produced by the demolition of a block of flats.

Environmentalists are not concerned with being nice. They are concerned with our survival. Without which all other goals become irrelevant.



You cannot do shit about it because all you do is occupy land. That wont effect shit.

btw DOOOOOOOOOOOOM :rolleyes:

[ls]

The only limit I would wish to set would be the one necissary for sustainability. Yet to be defined I think.

No environMENTALISTS have certainly defined it, by causing mass panic in already crappy Capitalist economies not only do you give them more reason to advocate their bollocks slight modifications of their policies (and people will buy them up like lambs to the slaughter), but you also just cause panic where it is not necessary and further unneccesary suffering of people by not using resources where we need to to help people.



Yes, if that were to prove neccisary to acheive sustainability.

But where does it end? You don't speak for all environmentalists either but your views are already pretty bad, imagine the more 'radical' ones...



All depends where you draw the line then.

Here is our problem.


Demolition of a block of flats... Demolition of the environment of the planet... Now let me think about that one.......

Well well well I thought the line was waiting to be drawn? Just goes to prove the point that you have already drawn it for us, we reject your crap 'necessary evil' impositions of restraint on people where it is not definitely needed.

[Coggeh]

As an Anarchist and environmental activist I was at the recent Climate Camp here in the UK, at the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station down in Kent.

I was very impressed with the camp in general, and the efforts made to keep it as organised as possible and to keep the police off the site (taking a personal role in helping keep plod off-site on a couple of occasions. The camp was a major effort for all concerned and one that I, personally, was proud to be a part of.

I was wondering what the general consensus (if any consensus is to be had) was about the Climate Camp movement which seems to be spreading out into other aras of the world such as Australia and Germany as well as the UK.

I've also heard some rather worrying rumours that our old friends the SWP were at the camp 'incognito' and have been sniffing around the environmental movement in general and the Climate Camp in particular. Obviously, I'd want the SWP kept as far away from the Climate Camp as possible as they'd probably try and either take it over for their own purposes and, if that were not possible, try and ruin it out of either sectarian reasons and/or spite.

Anyway, what do Revleft members reckon about the Climate camp movememnt in general?
I lol'd at the SWP comment :lol:

Anywho. My opinion of the Green movement is not very cordial at best , personally i differ from many people on this site and in my own organisation about the environmental movement .

Firstly , I don't want to start this in a big debate way but I'm unsure of the anthropogenic effects on climate change and it seems like one day this just popped up and everyone is on the bandwagon . Tell how revolutionary or even practical is it to camp outside a Coal-fired power station ?:confused:

Tell me after your done trying to get it shut down will you start a campaign to make sure every single worker has a job after ?

And do you support the green taxes , the carbon tax on vehicles too ? to me it seems like a BS excuse to take more taxes from workers.

The green movement is littered with untruths ,the issue of recycling is another one it takes more energy to recycle most items (bar aluminuium ) than it does to create new items . Also we are not running out of landfill space their was an EPA study in America that was proved wrong about this and just thrown out . The amount of energy gained from landfills excedes the amount of energy saved in recycling . In short it does more harm than good to recycle .

[JohannGE]

No environMENTALISTS

Thats enough, you are obviously far too wise for me. I am convinced!

:D

[Vanguard1917]

You speak for all environmentalist do you?
.

I'm referring to the bulk of the environmental movement -- i.e the environmental movement as it exists in the real world, rather than 'environmentalism' as it may exist in the way that you may to choose to define it for yourself.

Environmentalism as it exists in the real world seeks to lower, or keep low, the consumption levels of all.

And so do you, as you display in the rest of your post (see below).



Yes, if that were to prove neccisary to acheive sustainability.



So the bosses and the state, or indeed environmental activists, should be free to make working class people poorer as long as they use the justification and excuse that it's 'necessary to achieve sustainability'?

In what sense is that progressive? To me, it's fundamentally reactionary.



All depends where you draw the line then.



According to the line that you draw, the working class is the problem and needs to have its living standards lowered in order to achieve 'sustainability'.

You provide apologism for attacks on working class living standards, at a time when it's already being assaulted by the economic downturn, a time when we need to be condemning poverty more than ever.

Hence the essentially anti-working class nature of environmentalist ideology.

[Hit The North]

I lol'd at the SWP comment :lol:



But it's true. Senior members of our central committee have been donning wigs and Afghan coats, painting flowers on their faces, throwing peace-signs and chewing blades of "grass" (or whatever else these hippie environmentalists get up to - group sex, I shouldn't wonder). And why? BECAUSE WE WANT TO CONTROL THEIR MOVEMENT.

Only don't tell anyone. ;)

[brigadista]

So, vanguard, I take it by your silence that you do support a reduction in the standard of living? How about the millions of people who have already seen a dramatic reduction in their quality of life through the irrational over-consumption of capitalism by overfishing, deforestation, climate change, and just the general destruction of ecology? Oh, I forgot, quality of life is directly proportional to the amount of consumption (then the optimal standard of living would require immediate consumption of all available energy and resources).


which people? please explain?

[GX.]

^^Think i have identified a hippy here guys
Nope. I don't douse myself in patchouli, I don't wear hemp or have dreadlocks, I'm not vegan and I think weed is overrated. But, I think you've mistaken this for the Chit Chat forum.

[GX.]

Because i can certainly provide evidence that industrial development, in places where is has taken place in the developing world, has lifted literally hundreds of millions of people from the worst levels of poverty that they previously experienced. Of course, they remain poverty-stricken; but it was worse prior to development, not better. Okay, but you're missing the fact that environmentalism isn't a rejection of industrialism or mass consumption in toto. Certainly, that would be true of primitivism and variants of "deep" ecology. But, the radical socialist perspective argues that capitalism leads to destructive and wasteful patterns of growth, and that development can be accomplished through much more sustainable means if capitalism is overthrown. It seems like you've set up this false binary, where you either have to be an environmentalist who wants to send us back to the stone age, or you have to be totally unconscious of environmental issues.

[JohannGE]

Hence the essentially anti-working class nature of environmentalist ideology.


I think that campaigning for a gloriously fundamentalist ideological march to the grave is infinatly more so.

"You go your way I will go mine"

[Vanguard1917]

I think that campaigning for a gloriously fundamentalist ideological march to the grave is infinatly more so.

"You go your way I will go mine"

What do you mean?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

He thinks were all going to die and its our responsibility to stand outside kingsworth power station and not to fly anywhere.


Doom squad.

[GX.]

I'm not even sure what this "climate camp" is but that kind of thing is pointless and looks rather silly. Doesn't mean showing concern for the environment is inherently reactionary as vanguard thinks.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm not even sure what this "climate camp" is but that kind of thing is pointless and looks rather silly. Doesn't mean showing concern for the environment is inherently reactionary as vanguard thinks.

That's not what 'vanguard' thinks at all.

[butterfly]

Yes you do, and you express it at every opportunity you get.

[ls]

He thinks were all going to die and its our responsibility to stand outside kingsworth power station and not to fly anywhere.


Doom squad.

Yeah or by the white cliffs of Dover as they go under into the seaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (repeat a till fade).