******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
On Nov 25, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Joseph Green <jgr...@communistvoice.org> wrote: > Some capitalists already produce corn ethanol or palm oil as biofuels. Far > from denying this, I have pointed it out repeatedly in this discussion and in > articles. And this is an example of capitalists moving to a fuel which is not > directly a fossil fuel. Yet it ended up having a destructive effect. > > I have also discussed Kyoto and why it failed, and Kyoto is an example of > bourgeois enviornmentalism. > > Capitalist firms may be required to produce in environmentally-safe ways. > This will involve a constant conflict between the logic of market forces and > the regulations imposed on them. If things are left to market forces, then > progress will be too slow to prevent disaster, and will be constantly > interrupted by fiascos such as the repeated fiascos with biofuels. > > Capitalist economies have changed from one form of energy to another. But the > changes in the past have never brought in the type overall environmental > planning that is now needed to avoid environmental catastrophe. And to > describe the change from one form of energy to another as a change to a > "superior" form, begs the question of what type of "superiority" one is > referring to. I agree that efficient energy is not necessarily cleaner energy. But in this case, solar, wind, and tidal power are also cleaner. It seems to me the issue is whether these new forms of energy become more cost-effective (taking into account also the cost of increasingly disruptive climate events on production) so as to lead to their widespread adoption by capitalists in sufficient time to avoid “environmental catastrophe”. I would say this is at least as likely (or unlikely) as the overturn of the existing social system. There’s always been a fear on the far left that to acknowledge the possible self-reform of the system - which has surprised Marxists and other anticapitalists predicting capitalism’s imminent demise many times in the past - is to promote illusions that things will take care of themselves and that mass pressure is unnecessary. One doesn’t follow from the other, however. >> […] > > You raise that it's possible that the capitalists may implement a superior > form of energy. But if this possibility is to become a reality, they need to > forced to do this via regulations, regulations based on overall environmental > planning. And only the working masses have the class interest to provide this > pressure against them. On a practical level - about the need for mass pressure and the environmentally safe regulation of the economy - we agree. On a theoretical level - that it is only the working masses which have a class interest in avoiding natural catastrophes, we don’t - but it is more important to agree on practical than on theoretical questions. >> "Concretely, is there much difference in the demands favoured by the >> established environmental organizations and the left-wing of the >> environmental moon vement? > > This is an important question. It seems to me that the militant wing of the > environmental movement has undertaken many important actions. And we see, as > pointed out in Klein's book, that if it weren't for the militant wing of the > movement, the establishment environmentalists would give up on outright > opposition to anti-fracking, as shown in Klein’s book. I completely agree. Pressure from the militant wing has always been necessary to drive movements forward.. > Part of the militant section has denounced some of the market measures. And > so on. > > But the problem is that the militant wing has not separated decisively from > bourgeois environmentalism. This is seen in that even that section of the > movement which says it opposes market measures, doesn't realize that the > carbon tax is a market measure. It is also seen in the reluctance to put > forward the need for overall planning. > > […] > > One of the key issues is whether it is possible to achieve the needed reforms > in cooperation with Bloomberg and the corporations, or whether one needs to > oppose the corporations and market fundamentalism. It concerns whether one > demands, not just regulations and planning, but the end to the privatization > of the government. Without a change in the way government agencies are now > run, regulation and planning would be jokes. It concerns whether there is a > demand that planning take into account mass livelihood as a goal alongside > environmental goals, or imagines that green jobs in itself will solve the > social issues. It concerns whether planning is done financially, or material > planning is involved. And so on. This sounds like the kind of abstract left boilerplate I’ve been accustomed to hearing when leftists who want to “separate decisively” from the liberal/social democratic leadership of a trade union, environmental, civil rights, or other mass-based organization are unable to identify a clear and coherent demand or set of demands to counterpose to fundamentally sound programs. The real points of division are typically the specific content which is put into the demands as well as the determination of the strategy to realize the program. I expect your proposal for “not just regulations and planning, but the end to the privatization of the government…that planning take into account mass livelihood as a goal alongside environmental goals…and so on” would not separate you, as you wish, from liberal environmentalists who would mostly agree with you. In that sense, your reply doesn’t so much contradict as confirm my impression (which is not at all offered as criticism, BTW) that there is “concretely, not much difference in the demands favoured by the established environmental organizations and the left-wing of the environmental movement”. Your position on the carbon tax appears to be the sole programmatic departure from the views of the mainstream and also, it would appear, from the militant wing of the movement to which Naomi Klein and Gar Lipow belong. What are the other unspecified “market measures” incorporated in the programs of the major groups which you would like to see shelved? _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
