A fundamental dilemma facing activists
As a green, the life and work of Rudolf Bahro (1935-1997),
has inspired me. But his life has also illustrated the
dilemma we all face about whether or not we believe industrial
capitalism is here to stay and we must work with it, or we
must oppose it, even if there is not yet any viable
alternative. This fundamental dilemma goes back to the
shallow/deep distinction made by Naess in 1972. How we
resolve this dilemma determines what kind of ecological
politics we can pursue.
Bahro, a founding member of the West German 'Die
Gruenen', in 1980 was elected to the Federal Executive. For
him, green politics was about capturing people's
consciousness, not accumulating votes. By 1985 he had resigned
from the Party. His resignation statement noted how the Greens
did not want to get out of the industrial system: "Instead of
spreading consciousness they are obscuring it all along the
line." Bahro particularly repudiated the continuing
justification of animal experimentation by the green party.
For Bahro, industrialized nations needed to reduce their
impact upon the Earth to one tenth of what it was.
"Development" was finished. Like the Norwegian deep ecology
philosopher Arne Naess, Bahro had a biocentric, not human-
centered world view. Unlike Naess, Bahro was steeped in the
culture of the left. Another important contribution of Bahro
was that he came to see the necessary link between
environmental and green politics and spiritual
transformation, although he lost his way on this path. (For
an evaluation of Bahro, critique, and defense of his
contributions, see the section on him in Green Web Bulletin
#68, "Ecofascism: What is It? A Left Biocentric Analysis.")
Within the environmental movement, the resolution of
this dilemma can result in two different paths: managerial
or radical environmentalism. Reforms that shore up industrial
capitalist society or reforms that subvert this society. If
we stand as environmentalists or greens in opposition to
industrial capitalist society, then we cannot accept "status"
awards from that society such as environmentalists accepting
awards from provincial or federal departments of the
environment. In any environmental issue I have been involved
with, such departments work with the Earth destroyers, not
defenders. We who oppose industrial capitalism, seek to promote
a totally different kind of social recognition.
Natural capitalism
One way of prolonging the life of industrial society was
through the propagation and acceptance of the concept of
'sustainable development.' Helga and I went to the "1st
Planetary Meeting of Green Parties" in Rio, May 30/31, 1992 as
observers, and the statement coming out of that meeting
endorsed sustainable development. But sustainable development
is now old hat.'
The latest "offering," to encourage activists to
continue working with and not in fundamental opposition to
this society, is to be found in the 1999 book _Natural
Capitalism_, by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L. Hunter
Lovins. This book, by its title, suggests that capitalism
is "natural", and that Nature can be treated within a
capitalist framework. The authors see the solutions to the
environmental crisis as bringing Nature within this
accounting framework. This assumes that forests, seas, wild
animals, etc. have "prices," not, as in deep ecology,
intrinsic values. Also, that the inherent growth/profit/
consume- oriented capitalist economic model should be worked
with, and not opposed as fundamentally anti-ecological. The
authors aim to show through their many examples that
"resources" (I do not myself use this term) can be saved,
more profits can be made, growth can continue, and employment
can increase if we start "costing" Nature. This is the
ultimate anthropocentrism!
There are lots of interesting examples in this book, of
waste being eliminated and more profits being made. The book
also speaks of "human capitalism", although this is a
secondary focus, where "responsible government" is combined
with "vital entrepreneurship". Curitiba in Brazil, is used as
an example of this human capitalism. _Natural Capitalism_
acknowledges that natural capital is rapidly declining and
becoming a limiting factor on continued growth. Increasing
population is taken for granted by the authors. Generally in
this book, there is a much more progressive view of
capitalism, in alleged harmony with Nature and with a social
conscience. So this is against Thatcherism or Reaganism. But
the fundamental questions remain for the activists' dilemma.
Can one reform capitalism? Is it here forever? Or do we work
from the position that we must create an alternative?
I just finished reading Naomi Klein's book which came out
this year, _No Logo: Taking Aim At the Brand Bullies_. She
takes a stand on a fundamental dilemma that I am concerned
with. Her book shows how "branding" works - the loss of public
space, secure work, etc. and the current fight-back by
activists around the world. I recommend her book although her
focus is much more on the social justice side than the
environment. Also, she ultimately accepts globalization and
capitalism. Klein argues that activists should "embrace
globalization but seek to wrest it from the grasp of the
multinationals." I myself cannot accept this, even though
there is at present no alternative economic model.
Right ecocentrism
Within deep ecology, there is a position I have called
"right ecocentrism," that is, resolving the fundamental
dilemma in the direction of working within the industrial
capitalist system, and accepting the market economy. I know
a number of right ecocentrists and we cooperate on activist
mutual-interest work. Right ecocentrists agree with left
biocentrists on the ecological and ethical side, but seem to
believe that an ecocentric society can be implemented within
the existing society. Hence one sees a kind of "retreatism",
that is, a movement away from the radical and subversive
essence of deep ecology to an acceptance of capitalism,
private property and an economic growth framework. Appeals are
often directed to decision makers within the system. An
example of a deep ecology philosopher who I would characterize
as a right ecocentrist would be Michael Zimmerman. He accepts
the market economy, and has importance because he is the
senior editor in an anthology of environmental philosophy
essays which is now in its third edition.
Val Plumwood has noted, "the danger from deep ecology's
political naivete comes from capture by the liberal right."
But Plumwood also points out that deep ecology "has the
potential to develop more radical answers." Val Plumwood was
the original Crocodile Dundee who Hollywood turned into a
man. Her very interesting essay is called "Deep Ecology,
Deep Pockets and Deep Problems: A Feminist Ecosocialist
Analysis" and is in a book which just came out, called
_Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of
Deep Ecology_, edited by Katz, Light, and Rothenberg. Of the
14 essays in this book, two are excellent and two others are
worthwhile to read. A major problem seems to me that deep
ecology academics too often appear to write and publish for
themselves and not for the radical ecology movement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the Green Web Home Page at:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~greenweb/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
