Van Gelder's proposals are, in my opinion, the beginnings of what
socialism should look like. Nature and humanity must not be seen as
"others", they must be seen as identical. Class based societies
establish and maintain an exploitative relationship between humans and
nature (primarily for for the benefit of the capitalist class) and an
integral part of the "rational" reconstruction of a society under
Socialism is to establishing a harmonious or a non-exploitative
relationship between humans and nature. Van Gelder "theses" are ways
to begin thinking about doing this.
Too often, the discussion of sustainability has had a sinister subtext
- namely, the sustainability of profits. How can corporations continue
to make profits under vastly altered "environmental" conditions?
Simple answer: sell green technologies. What "sustainability" rarely
questions is the fundamental structure of the society. I am suggesting
that sustainability, as a harmonious relationship between humans and
nature as opposed to the continuous generation of profit, is impossible
under Capitalism.
CHAD
raghu wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Carrol Cox <[email protected]>
wrote:
> raghu wrote:
>>
>> You seriously want to suggest that
>> the whole world can live like this sustainably? And all this
is not
>> counting the hidden consumption involved in the process of
making
>> food, gasoline etc artificially cheap and plentiful.
>
> Detached from a political program (and organized forces) by which
this
> reduction can be arranged and controlled (distributed), to call
for it
> is (a) mere chatter and (b)offensive moralism -- even though you
are of
> course correct on the technical point. 7 billion people and
climbing
> cannot live like that. But that point by itself is utterly empty.
I am not sure what you are getting at, but I never suggested detaching
sustainability from a larger political program. Why is talking about
sustainability "offensive moralism"? By the same token, deliberate
silence on the subject should count as "criminal negligence", right?
Just to be clear I never once suggested that sustainability and
consumption reduction while keeping everything else the same is
feasible or desirable. But it seems to me that no one on the left wants
to talk about these 800 pound gorillas at all.
I strongly believe that sustainability should be an important part of
the discourse on the left. I also believe that there is a faction on
the left that is strongly opposed to including these subjects and
treats them like taboo. Why else would a Sarah van Gelder be compared
to a rapacious predator like Andrew Mellon?
Here's what van Gelder actually proposed (it is entirely puzzling to me
why any progressive will find any of this offensive, morally or
otherwise):
* Economic policies for the future must
assure that everyone is included, and that we lift up those at the
bottom. When we allow inequality to burgeon in our society, we create
crime and violence and hate, which damage everyone's ability to find
happiness. We can no longer afford nine-figure paychecks for CEOs and
double-digit returns on speculative investments. To paraphrase Gandhi,
we have enough for everyone's needs, but not for everyone's greed.
* The environmental overshoot game is up. The next economy must
function within the present production of our environment. We can no
longer afford to live off the bounty of the past, like the millions of
years of fossil deposits that make up today's diminishing oil reserves.
Instead we must turn to solar energy, wind, and other renewables, and
grow food and fiber by building the soil, not by dumping petroleum
products on it. We can't continue to use our atmosphere, oceans,
aquifers, and soils as dumps. No amount of "Runs for the Cure" will
solve the cancer problem if we continue to poison our food, water, and
air. And the climate is reaching a dangerous tipping point.
* We can no longer allow the money economy to grow like a cancer on
our society, until it takes over all facets of life. The economy needs
to serve people, communities, and the health of natural systems, not
the other way around. Instead of relying on footloose unaccountable
global corporations, we can turn to local and regional production to
serve our needs and provide sustainable employment, including small and
medium-sized businesses, co-ops, farmer's markets, and so on.
* As we do that, we'll get much clearer on real sources of
happiness. Research tells us that the sources of the good life are in
loving relationships, mutual respect, meaningful work, and gratitude,
and as we discover the power of these qualities, the lure of
advertising and materialism will no longer fool us. Overconsumption
will take its place alongside other passing fads.
-raghu.
--
"His credit rating is so bad that his junk mail comes postage due." -
Anonymous
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
|
