******************** 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. *****************************************************************
Despite your faint praise for Naomi Klein, all of what you harshly attribute to me below could be attributed to her as well. I’m more sympathetic to her point of view and activity than to yours, notwithstanding her public support for the Merkel government’s “bourgeois environmentalism” in Germany. I’ve nowhere said - and, to my knowledge, neither has she - that “our practical task is to campaign in favor of corn ethanol, or unplanned growth of biofuel in general, or fracking, or the carbon tax, or cap and trade, or Michael Bloomberg, etc.” My advice to you is to aim your fulminations elsewhere, and not use Klein as cover for your own ostensibly “more pointed” agenda, directed at the tendency which she above all represents. On Nov 27, 2014, at 1:32 AM, Joseph Green <jgr...@communistvoice.org> wrote: > Marv Gandall wrote: > >> 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. >> > > You reformulate things in a way that obliterates the difference between the > working class and bourgeois viewpoints. Bourgeois environmentalism recognizes > various dangers, and the best of its representatives have campaigned about > these dangers. But its proposals lead to ruin. And there are already fights > inside the environmental movement over a number of the bourgeois proposals, > such as cap and trade, natural gas as a transition fuel (which basically > means fracking), etc. In order to obscure the difference between the > different views among environmentalists, you ignore the concrete examples I > have given of what bourgeois environmentalism has advocated in practice. You > ignore that the policies that the bourgeois environmentalists advocate have > led to one fiasco after another, such as the corn ethanol fiasco, the > acceleration of destruction of rain forests, the promotion of natural gas as > a transition fuel, the failure of Kyoto, the renewed promotion of nuclear > power, etc. > > You then say that we both are agreed on the practical issues. No, we are not > in agreement. I don't agree that our practical task is to campaign in favor > of corn ethanol, or unplanned growth of biofuel in general, or fracking, or > the carbon tax, or cap and trade, or Michael Bloomberg, etc. The > environmental demonstrations are a good thing, despite their present > ambiguity, but we need to take steps to improve the mass pressure for serious > environmentalism, and this includes criticism of the past fiascos in the name > of environmentalism and building up an environmental trend distinct from > bourgeois environmentalism. > > You defend "the growing wing of the bourgeoisie" that will supposedly take > proper environmental steps based on its financial self-interest; you defend > its representative Bloomberg; and you prettify market pressures. Basically, > you have the same position on practical steps as Al Gore and Michael > Bloomberg. One of the ways you defend them is by avoiding any concrete > consideration of the fiascos of bourgeois environmental, of the failure of > Kyoto, and of the exposures of "(bourgeois) green gone wrong", and then > complaining that I'm not concrete. > >>> 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 ... > > You complain about abstract boilerplate, while avoiding any concrete > discussion of the different policies put forward by bourgeois > environmentalism, of their result, and of the criticism of this policy. But > let's see. > > Is opposition to the privatization of the public schools just "abstract left > boilerplate"? Is opposition to the privatization of water just "abstract left > boilerplate'? And if not, then why is opposition to the privatization of the > government (including environmental regulation and enforcement), such as the > contracting out of regulation of industry to the very industries being > regulated, a mere abstraction? Why is opposition to fracking a mere > abstraction? Why is having plans formulated in physical terms rather than > financial a mere abstration? Why is demanding planning for mass livelihood a > mere abstraction? Why is agitation against the crimes of corporations a mere > abstraction? Etc. > >> 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. > > And so you seem to have concluded that it is wrong to separate decisively > from the "liberal/social democratic" forces; instead you accept their > program. Well, I can understand that some people have become tired of trying > to develop a better left alternative, especially given the present > theoretical and ideological crisis of the left, but the justification you > give for this is rather weak. > > Is "corn ethanol" a "fundamentally sound program"? Are "carbon offsets" a > fundamentally sound program? Was the creation of artificial pollution markets > via cap and trade a fundamentally sound program? Are natural gas (which is > almost entirely fracking in the US) and "clean coal" sound programs? Etc. > > The militant section of the environmental movement does have a problem making > a clear break with bourgeois environmentalism. This is a concrete point if > one examines what happened in the last round of mass environmental > demonstration. This problem is partly the lack of a clearer and more pointed > program, which is part of the theoretical crisis in the left. There is also > the growth of environmental concerns to new sections of people, which is > important but at first brings into the movement their previous standpoints. > There is the pressure from the revisionist trends that dominate the radical > left at this time. And, among other things, there is also the issue of > funding from > foundations, corporations, and the supposedly green "growing wing of the > bourgeoisie"; this has its effect as well. Naomi Klein's book wasn't clearer > theoretically than the militant section of the movement as a whole, but its > criticism of Big Green was one of its services to the movement. > > -- Joseph Green > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pe...@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _________________________________________________________ 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
