Working Class Politics and Green politics

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?

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 - 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.

Quote:

---

Demogorgon

---

Add me to the list. And wherever Vanguard1917 starts his rant about green movement I would post this article 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

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.

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.

What is overdeveloped?

ive have never heard that term before really.

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

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:

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

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

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?

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.

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...

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.

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...)

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?

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.

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.

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 :) )

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 .

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.