Savage Capitalism: an Ecosocialist Alternative

[blindpig]

Contemporary Marxism has been late in relating to the looming environmental crisis, ceding ground to the ecologists and the Green parties in the latter part of the 20th century - at least as far as the urgency of the situation is concerned. It is now time to reassert that not only is the defence of the environment firmly located in the Marxist tradition, but that it is only through such a critique that a lasting and adequate solution to the ecological crisis will be found.

snip

This new phase of capitalism forces an inevitable conclusion – only by a total transformation in politics and production, in other words a transformation of our social relations, can a sustainable future for humanity be established. We are facing the biggest crisis of human civilisation ever. No previous crisis has ever posed the existence human civilisation so directly. Revolutionary answers are needed, qualitative answers which go way beyond the standard ‘no to’ slogans of daily campaigns, and point the way to an eco-socialist alternative.

snip

What does it mean to call Socialist Resistance ‘Ecosocialist’ ? To define ourselves by the term ecosocialist does not mean dropping our commitment to anti-imperialism and anti-capitalism, feminism and the rights of the oppressed, anti-racism, etc. Nor does it mean a radical version of the Green Party: rather it is a recognition that capitalism cannot solve the problems posed by climate change and global warming as, by its very nature, it is based on production for profit not need, regardless of the impact on the planet. It is therefore either ‘Ecosocialism or Barbarism’.

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1311

[blindpig]

1. Only Socialism will do

We need to have a global perspective, understanding revolution and revolutionary transformation as a world process. Ecological issues must fundamentally be dealt with on a world scale. But that can only happen on the basis of a social and economic system—socialism—that does not treat the environment simply as a means by which to accumulate wealth.

snip

Economic calculation under socialism is not guided by profit but by social need, achieving rational balances between industry and agriculture, reducing gaps between town and country, factoring in the short-run, medium-term, and long-term, etc. And socialist planning is able to take into account non-economic factors: like health, the environment, alienation that people may experience from jobs. And all of this must be consciously serving the advance of the world revolution towards a communist world.

http://www.rwor.org/a/052/lottaonevironment.html

[DrCory]

29. Is this Democratic Underground?...

"And all of this must be consciously serving the advance of the world revolution towards a communist world."

...or Communist Underground? Please take this garbage somewhere else.

[4waterfalls]

31. i suggest you think again

its time to get out from under your desk.This isnt the 1950's...and the red commie scare has been proven to be a load of bollocks.The world is rapidly deteriorating under this mad capitalist agenda.Some things just were not meant to be capitalistic...the most essential things in life should never be subjected to capitalism.Listen to what people are saying..look what this modern corporate empire is doing to the world,and admit that at least some things need to change.Break out of your status quo chains..and your limited world view paradigm.This isnt rhetoric,it is a serious request.

[blindpig]

2. from the Ecosocialist Manifesto:

We reject all euphemisms or propagandistic softening of the brutality of this regime: all greenwashing of its ecological costs, all mystification of the human costs under the names of democracy and human rights. We insist instead upon looking at capital from the standpoint of what it has really done. Acting on nature and its ecological balance, the regime, with its imperative to constantly expand profitability, exposes ecosystems to destabilizing pollutants, fragments habitats that have evolved over aeons to allow the flourishing of organisms, squanders resources, and reduces the sensuous vitality of nature to the cold exchangeability required for the accumulation of capital. From the side of humanity, with its requirements for self-determination, community, and a meaningful existence, capital reduces the majority of the world's people to a mere reservoir of labor power while discarding much of the remainder as useless nuisances. It has invaded and undermined the integrity of communities through its global mass culture of consumerism and depoliticization. It has expanded disparities in wealth and power to levels unprecedented in human history. It has worked hand in glove with a network of corrupt and subservient client states whose local elites carry out the work of repression while sparing the center of its opprobrium. And it has set going a network of transtatal organizations under the overall supervision of the Western powers and the superpower United States, to undermine the autonomy of the periphery and bind it into indebtedness while maintaining a huge military apparatus to enforce compliance to the capitalist center We believe that the present capitalist system cannot regulate, much less overcome, the crises it has set going. It cannot solve the ecological crisis because to do so requires setting limits upon accumulation—an unacceptable option for a system predicated upon the rule: Grow or Die! And it cannot solve the crisis posed by terror and other forms of violent rebellion because to do so would mean abandoning the logic of empire, which would impose unacceptable limits on growth and the whole “way of life” sustained by empire. Its only remaining option is to resort to brutal force, thereby increasing alienation and sowing the seed of further terrorism . . . and further counter-terrorism, evolving into a new and malignant variation of fascism. In sum, the capitalist world system is historically bankrupt. It has become an empire unable to adapt, whose very gigantism exposes its underlying weakness. It is, in the language of ecology, profoundly unsustainable, and must be changed fundamentally, nay, replaced, if there is to be a future worth living. Thus the stark choice once posed by Rosa Luxemburg returns: Socialism or Barbarism!, where the face of the latter now reflects the imprint of the intervening century and assumes the countenance of ecocatastrophe, terror counterterror, and their fascist degeneration.

http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Ecosocialist.html

[Radical Activist]

3. Communist nations have terrible environmental records.

Marxists always present their world socialist/communist revolution as the answer to ALL problems no matter what they are. This looks like the latest attempt to jump on the bandwagon of a popular movement.

[blindpig]

4. kinda funny...

given your avatar, and all:shrug: A fashion statement, eh?

Kinda puts the hammer to your credibility.

Ya might try reading the links, the answer lies therein.

[Radical Activist]

6. Not really.

What damages credibility is that you used my avatar as an excuse to not respond to my point. Your trite rebuttal was predictable and pointless.
Che did something. He wasn't another middle class socialist intellectual who sat on his ass arguing about what a real socialist is and who argued what 100 years ago about a theory that typically leads to dictatorship.

[blindpig]

7. Oh

You mean that Che who fought and died to bring to friution "a theory that typically leads to dictatorship"?

Here's what that 'dictator' and comrade of Che has to say:

"We have seen concern with the environment grow - we have seen and measured climate change here in Cuba: the change in sea level, we've seen and measured it here in Cuba, pollution, we've seen and measured that, too, here in Cuba. And the truth is, in our country there's a growing awareness of the environment. People are being educated: we have TV programmes constantly broadcasting information and oreintation; all our children have been educated in the subject, and today they're the primary defenders of the environment."

and

"Well, I'd tell them that the consumer society is one of the most frightening, terrifying inventions of capitalism today in this phase of neoliberal globalization....That economic order and those models of consumption are incompatible with the world's limited resources and the laws that govern life and nature. They also clash with the most elementary principles of ethics, culture and the moral values created by mankind."

Fidel Castro, from My Life

Which side are you on?

[Kitty Herder]

8. LOL You gave me a good laugh with that comment and that avatar!

:spray: :rofl:

[blindpig]

5. who do you want making the decisions?

We in the Workers International League are convinced that only a socialist movement, led by working people, is capable of meeting the challenge of environmental destruction. Only when the economy is collectively owned and democratically operated will the possibility of a collective decision-making process become a reality. With all the relevant information at our disposal, all members of society will be able to discuss and debate which way forward and then determine policy by voting. Socialism means that the majority will rule in the interests of the majority, and a healthy, vibrant environment is in everyone’s interests.

http://www.marxist.com/capitalism-environment-global-warming121007.htm

[blindpig]

9. Social planning is a necessity

The fundamental argument of this document has been that so long as decisions about production and technology remained in the hands of corporations producing blindly for an unknown market, and driven by competition to cut costs and maximise immediate profits, the crisis will remain. Effective environmental protection requires overall social planning, including the ability to set limits to production of certain items, and to use social wealth to subsidise branches of industry that would necessarily operate at a loss for a considerable period given the costs of serious antipollution measures. The subordination of investment decisions to social needs rather than private profits will be essential if production and transport systems are to be restructured to create a sustainable society.

Moreover, given that the degradation of the biosphere is a global problem, such social planning will necessarily have to be international as well as national. It can begin to be tackled at the local or national level but really effective gains require an internationally coordinated effort.

Real social planning is attainable only if key enterprises are denied absolute control over investment. Because the volume of investment is necessarily limited, its distribution among different sectors must be fixed in accordance with socially determined goals, even though that means priority is given to investments in areas, like pollution control technology, that are not profitable for individual enterprises.

http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/Chapter6.htm

[blindpig]

10. Production organized by socialism

Socialism offers a way of living that isn't dominated by profit, greed, exploitation, ever-increasing wasteful production and environmental damage. The real democratic running of society, where people have control over economic decisions, would make a big difference.

Production could be organised so that materials are re-used, waste is almost eliminated and what waste is produced would be treated. We could use technology and science to understand the world better, so that human activity becomes more in line with the flows of natural systems.

The economy would be organised to meet people's needs for now and the future, so environments would be protected. In other words, a socialist world would have diverse, healthy and attractive environments where people and other life would flourish.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Environment.htm

[blindpig]

11. It's capitalism or a habitable planet

There is no meaningful response to climate change without massive social change. A cap on this and a quota on the other won't do it. Tinker at the edges as we may, we cannot sustain earth's life-support systems within the present economic system.

Capitalism is not sustainable by its very nature. It is predicated on infinitely expanding markets, faster consumption and bigger production in a finite planet. And yet this ideological model remains the central organising principle of our lives, and as long as it continues to be so it will automatically undo (with its invisible hand) every single green initiative anybody cares to come up with.

Much discussion of energy, with never a word about power, leads to the fallacy of a low-impact, green capitalism somehow put at the service of environmentalism. In reality, power concentrates around wealth. Private ownership of trade and industry means that the decisive political force in the world is private power. The corporation will outflank every puny law and regulation that seeks to constrain its profitability. It therefore stands in the way of the functioning democracy needed to tackle climate change. Only by breaking up corporate power and bringing it under social control will we be able to overcome the global environmental crisis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/feb/02/energy.comment

[Pavulon]

12. To many people..period

we have systems that has allowed the human population to a point that could be beyond carrying capacity. It does not matter what system is used this reality is here.

So unless there is a plan to kill a billion or two people it will remain.

There are steps to mitigate the damage. Immediate push to convert all power grids to nuclear and all transportation to a renewable source are viable.

That is the revolution, that and my guess that the system will re balance its self with a repeat of the black plague.

We are overdue for a natural pandemic.

[Two Americas]

13. circular argument

Of course human problems could be solved by eliminating humans. Eliminate the sufferers, and no more suffering. But this presupposes some who are not to be eliminated, some who will be doing the elimination of this suffering, so that they can enjoy the benefits of there being fewer humans and less suffering. The speaker of these doctrines always covertly includes themselves in this class of observer and problem solver, among those who will survive, and it is implicit that those slated to be eliminated are some vaguely defined group of "others" - the ones whose existence is causing the "too many humans" situation, presumed to be the root cause of "our" problems. Who is the "we" who have this problem and presume to be the ones to solve it? If we eliminate all humans, who will there then be left to care or value or even observe the earth that be imagine we have then saved? Or are some to be eliminated and others not, and upon what basis will that be determined?

[Pavulon]

16. That is a great question for h59x

or the mechanism used by flu. I am not suggesting elimination.

There is no such thing as sustainable development. It is destructive and will continue to have a negative impact.

[Two Americas]

18. no one ever does

No one ever does directly or overtly suggest "elimination." They merely talk about the problems caused by too many of "them" and then let things take their course hint hint.

Since the more developed a country is, the lower the birth rate and population growth, your new argument about "development" contradicts itself.

The next time my roof leaks, I think I will burn the house down. That should eliminate the leak.

[Pavulon]

19. Carrying capacity is a real thing

not some contested scientific theory. There are to many of us, period. The depletion of fish, sea turtles, and other species under crushing pressure from overpopulated nations.

The system will self correct and kill us if we keep fucking it up.

[Two Americas]

21. sure

So?

The system is always self-correcting. I am not understanding your point, maybe. Humans will always leave a footprint.

[arundhatiroyfan]

22. The poor would most likely be picked for elimination

My guess is net worth would decide whether you "deserve" to live in a society or not. But that is wrong thinking. I understand where people who believe it to be the right thing to do are coming from, but it ultimately leads to a rightwing dictatorship imo. The Germans in the Third Reich used a similar argument when uttering the intention to get rid of ill and poor people: "Kill them and we can live a good and full life".

[blindpig]

24. As is so often the case

the question is, "who decides?". If it ain't the people it is tyranny.

[bobbolink]

32. And, even if it's "the people", there isn't much concern for poor folk, even among the poor, In the

US, that is.

Some other countries are different.

Here in the US, most want to dream of being in the top 2%, so I wouldn't be trusting of those "deciders".

Sad to say. :(

Great thread!

:hug:

[4waterfalls]

15. who gets to live?

thanks to capitalism,given your suggestion that some of us must go..only the rich and a few of their slaves will survive.
I propose that the hard working poor will not go quietly into that good night...

[Pavulon]

17. you misread..

i am not suggestion eliminating anyone. However overpopulation is a critical problem. No ism will fix that.

But if you need to kill 20 million Stalin would be your man.

[blindpig]

27. While population is a serious consideration

capitalism is a critical problem. As far as population is concerned the question is 'who decides'. Do you want the swine who control our civilization to decide, with the racism, sexism and classism that would implictly entail? If there is any deciding to be done shouldn't it be the people, all of the people, doing it?

[4waterfalls]

14. profits before people=capitalism

global problems will never be resolved within the paradigm of profits before people.I dont even think there is a desire to fix "problems" when they create more profit in themselves...
do capitalists think povert is a problem/ probably only when welfare comes into into the picture..or god forbid..the dreaded free health care.
Corporate welfare on the other hand..
remember Tesla...and google videos on the blocking of US patents for alternative fuel sources..

[malaise]

20. Bookmarking to read tomorrow

Looks very interesting. Thanks

[blindpig]

23. Profit system wrecks climate

The answer lies in the fact that no individual capitalist wants to bear the cost as it would reduce their competitiveness and profits, and no capitalist government wants to impose substantial costs on its home industries if it impairs their competition with other industries worldwide. So each government talks down the dangers. The major powers are playing Russian roulette with the planet.

snip

Faced with the inaction of capitalist governments, the "urgent action" will have to be taken by the working class and oppressed masses of the world, moving in their billions out of absolute necessity, and pushing aside the national ruling elites.

Capitalist half-measures and IPCC deadlines will inevitably fail to do what is necessary. Spreading the idea of a socialist alternative is essential, as the only alternative to capitalism that will be able to reverse the effects of global warming.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/campaign/Environment/3420

[blindpig]

25. Critical times

The environmental movements across the world carry with them the baggage of the societies from which they emerge. Generally, in the advanced capitalist countries they display a strong lack of class consciousness — a product of the wider de-politicised social context. This can result in a focus on individualistic solutions, mysticism, criticisms of consumption rather than the way production is arranged, concerns about overpopulation, and so on. The Eco-socialist Network aims to address each one of these “detours” and to present people with material arguing against what we consider are serious diversions that are paralysing the environmental movement.

snip


For example, Cuba has roughly double the growth rate of other countries in Latin America, and yet is recognised by the World Wildlife Fund as the only country in the world with sustainable development. It’s an example of the fact that it’s not development per se that’s the problem, but capitalist development. This is a real lesson for the Western environmental movement, which often argues for a decrease in development and living standards in the developed world. Given thoroughly democratic, community economic planning, there’s no reason why we can’t have wealth for all and a healthy, thriving environment, right across the world.

snip

The key antidote to this is a strong environmental, anti-corporate movement independent of the electoral process. This will tend to mean opportunism and expediency — the great bugbears of progressive movements in advanced capitalist states — are far less salient factors. Having a critical mass of people with a socialist analysis, which includes a really good grounding in historical understandings too, is central to building such a movement.

http://www.criticaltimes.com.au/news/co-socialism-feasible-environmental-solutions/

[chaska]

26. Thanks. Looking forward to reading this tonight.

[blindpig]

28. The rich consume and the poor suffer pollution

In 20 years, China has achieved economic results that took a century to attain in the west. But we have also concentrated a century’s worth of environmental issues into those 20 years. While becoming the world leader in GDP growth and foreign investment, we have also become the world’s number one consumer of coal, oil and steel – and the largest producer of CO2 and chemical oxygen demand (COD) emissions.

With the rise of globalisation, developed countries have transferred their industry to developing nations as a form of environmental colonialism. In China, pollution has been moved from east to west and from the city to the rural areas. The rich consume and the poor suffer the pollution. The economic and environmental inequalities caused by a flawed understanding of growth and political achievement, held by some officials, have gone against the basic aims of socialism and abandoned the achievements of Chinese socialism.

A significant number of people see a scientific view of development as simply a change in the mode of economic growth, even believing that establishing a resource-saving and environmentally-friendly society is merely a matter of technology. But that is only one aspect. The scientific view of development seeks a comprehensive and sustainable change of politics, economics, society, culture and theory – a transformation of civilisation. And so, the period between now and 2020 will be crucial in determining whether China can complete this transformation from traditional to eco-industrial civilisation.

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/493--The-rich-consume-and-the-poor-suffer-the-pollution-

[bobbolink]

33. That's been the history of the US, so why would China be any different?

The movie THUNDERHEART showed it clearly.... polluting and taking advantage of the poorest of the poor.. in that case, the Indians on the poorest rez....is seen as "progress".

:cry:

[blindpig]

30. Coming to terms with nature

Marx and Engels, and some of their socialist contemporaries and successors, paid attention to the damage done by capitalism to the environment, and Marx in particular was far ahead of his time in understanding the mutually constitutive relationship between society and nature. But until very recently these issues have not been a main focus of socialist thought, or practice; productivism often trumped other concerns – and by no means only on the part of Soviet or Chinese managers. Socialist theory and analysis have been primarily concerned with understanding the logic of capitalism and its successive forms of existence, the relations of class power which are indispensable to it, and ways of resisting and replacing it with something better. The idea that environmental problems might be so severe as to potentially threaten the continuation of anything that might be considered tolerable human life has been entertained, but usually only as a fairly remote, if frightening, possibility. It has rarely been treated as something potentially imminent, needing to be considered as a matter of urgency, nor has a legacy of irreversible ecological damage bequeathed to future generations been seriously ‘factored in’ to our thinking about the problems that any future socialist society will have to cope with.

But the speed of development of globalised capitalism, epitomised by the dramatic acceleration of climate change, makes it imperative for socialists to deal seriously with these issues now. It is true that scientists differ over the rate at which carbon dioxide emissions are leading to global warming. Some think that a ‘tipping point’ has already been passed at which a vicious circle of effects will from now on speed up climate change beyond anything that even drastic measures to reduce carbon emissions can ameliorate. Others think that the rate of change will be slower, although still faster than any measures like the Kyoto Protocol, or any technological breakthrough yet envisaged, can significantly affect. But even this more optimistic view implies potentially devastating consequences for hundreds of millions of people due to rising sea levels, changes in deepwater ocean flows, the loss of meltwaters from high mountain ranges, and droughts and floods affecting food production throughout much of the world. And while climate change is the most general, environmental effect of capitalist growth, it is far from the only one: the world is scarred by increasingly severe regional disasters due to the overuse of water, trees, and soil; epidemics caused by fast-mutating viruses and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, resulting especially from factory-farming; the concentration of toxins in the food chain -- the list is endless. The effects of all this are multiplied by the relentless urban concentration of the world’s population, more and more of it into desperately impoverished and dangerous slums. Our opening essay presents vivid images that capture a broad sample of all this from Haiti to China to the Arctic.

Capitalists and politicians everywhere now rhetorically endorse calls for global cooperation to reduce the threat to the biosphere. But the best general measure of capitalist behaviour is how financial markets fall when slower, let alone reduced growth rates are contemplated. And the best general predictor of government action is the interests of capital, both national and global, and the way electoral politics are grounded in growth-based consumerism. In the foreseeable future there will not be a genuine global policy to halt global warming; and as more and more states are tending to be reconstructed on the American neoliberal model they are progressively losing their capacity to plan effectively for a rational policy even at the national level, as our essay by Barbara Harriss-White on renewable energy in the UK makes painfully clear.

http://socialistregister.com/recent/2007