This is excellent, Gar! On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Gar Lipow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/what-naomi-klein-got-right-and-wrong-in-her-2014-book-this-changes-everything/ > > Short URL http://bit.ly/15Luflh > > Naomi Klein’s book “This Changes Everything” (Simon & Schustter, 2014) on > the link between the climate crisis and capitalism has outraged critics > raging from Big Green to some socialists. > > Naomi Klein is right on just about everything critics are calling her out > about. When, to the horror of Big Greens, she names capitalism as the > villain, she is right. Given that NO capitalist nation has come close to > making the changes solving the climate crisis will require, why the hell > shouldn’t she point out that something drastic is wrong with capitalism? > > Nor, contrary to milquetoast “progressive” prudishness, is her > straightforwardness alienating to popular majorities. Conservative > tactician Frank Luntz warns conservatives not use the terms “capitalism” or > “market”, because both are unpopular. Calling out capitalism is a good way > to reach ordinary people, as well as being intellectually rigorous. > > She is also sensible in paying little attention to the horror of some left > critics that she fails to turn to socialism. Nations that were considered > socialist, both by themselves and by most of the world, had truly horrible > records on environmental issues which matched their records on human > rights. Cuba, the one partial exception, was more or less forced into > partial sustainability by having to manage an island economy under a set of > sanctions that could more accurately be described as a state of siege. > > Nobody can be right about everything. I am not going to spend much time on > what Klein does right, because she has ably (and my opinion devastatingly) > repeatedly answered her critics. Instead I’m going to focus on one area of > disagreement. I hope this won’t discourage anyone from reading her book. > This disagreement is not over something critical to her case. And who > knows? Maybe I’m the one that is wrong. > > One wrong turn Klein takes, in my opinion, is the emphasis on what she > calls “extractionism” – non-reciprocal dominance relations with the earth > and natural resources. In simpler terms it means taking from the earth > without returning anything to it. It makes sense to look for a common > factor between the competing camps that managed to converge in > shortsightedness, and triumphalist disregard of continued human dependence > on natural systems. Naomi Klein traces “extractionism” back to Francis > Bacon and the dawn of the enlightenment, and sees it as a commonality > between capitalism or socialism – a deep flaw at the root of both. > > Focusing on this particular form of shortsightedness treats it as both > more recent and more fundamental than it really is. For example, the > destruction of the Cedars of Lebanon was a long slow process that began > with Gilgamesh’s Babylon, was continued by other ancient empires, including > Egypt, the Phoenicians, and the Romans (interrupted by a brief attempt at > conservation under Hadrian). The destruction of what little remains of > those once great forests continues to this day. > > Silphium, a plant widely considered by the ancient world (not necessarily > correctly) to be effective as both a contraceptive and an aphrodisiac, was > wiped out under Roman rule. This was due to overfarming, which eroded the > soil within the small microclimate band in which it grew, and to grazing > animals upon > silphium to impart a special flavor to their meat. > > The commonality between the nations once widely considered socialist, the > capitalist nations of today, and the great empires of the ancient world is > far more fundamental than disrespect for the natural world. That > commonality is severe inequality. I won’t cite well known statistics about > inequality in the capitalist world. But it should be understood that the > nations once widely considered socialist, even in their prime, also were > severely unequal societies. That inequality was partially a matter of > effectively unequal incomes, due to unfair rationing systems and unequal > access to special stores and facilities. But that economic inequality, > though real, was nowhere as great as that of conventional capitalist > nations. > > A much stronger source of inequality in those nations was a lack of > democracy and unequal access to political power, including a monopoly on > most investment and management decisions by a tiny elite. The ancient > empires were also strong top-down hierarchies, mostly slave societies, and > ruled by kings, emperors, priesthoods, nobles or some combination. > > Severe inequality leads to social self-destructiveness and > shortsightedness in a number of ways. The most obvious is that severe > inequality means that elites can reap the benefits of socially destructive > behavior while ensuring the costs are borne by others. But that does not > explain extreme shortsightedness; for example, continued climate disruption > which will ultimately harm the children even of the rich and powerful. > > Part of the explanation is that severe inequality generates hubris. An > elite that is routinely shielded from the negative effects of the decisions > its class makes has trouble grasping the very idea of unavoidable > consequences. It explains a great deal about climate denial. Denying the > climate crisis is not just a matter of propaganda. As Klein’s book points > out, because any meaningful solution to the climate crisis threatens at > least some of the power currently held by elites, there is a real tendency > among some portions of that elite to believe that the crisis is not real. > > Another tendency of powerful elites is to identify their own interests > with those of society as whole, to see themselves as “the society” or “the > people” or “given the right to rule by the gods” or whatever. To weigh the > interests of others against their unimpeded power is absurd and > shortsighted. What on earth does everybody think would happen if their > supremacy were not properly respected? > > That explains something of the disrespect for nature. It is not that > elites don’t enjoy nature. Capitalists today, party bosses in > once-considered-socialist nations in the past, and God-Kings in the more > distant past have or had villas, lodges, and sometimes palaces in > breathtakingly beautiful places. But nature is and was something that they > encountered in well-controlled fragments. They may or may not have heard > about, but seldom directly experienced their environment as a great web in > which they are embedded and upon which they depended. > > The great royal and aristocratic hunting parties of pre-capitalist > societies reinforced this. They set out in great gilded crowds accompanied > by servants or slaves carrying portable luxuries. Beaters would drive game > towards them. Slaves or servants would handle any part of the work of > hunting that elite found unpleasant, and gave assistance to ensure the > success of the hunt. Expensive animals, horses, dogs, hawks or falcons > (depending upon the culture) also helped ensure success – usually bred and > trained in very different manners than the work animals used by commoners > who hunted as a way to make their living. Great royal or aristocratic hunts > helped weaken elite emotional comprehension of dependence on the natural > world. > > Only in comparatively egalitarian cultures is the experience of > vulnerability to nature universal. In truth we ARE all vulnerable to > nature; but it is in those cultures where wealth and power are roughly > equal that it can become part of the culture to think of the effect of > actions on “the seventh generation”. It is not that egalitarian cultures > cannot be shortsighted – merely that they don’t have to be. > > Similarly, a real appreciation of how small we are compared to the > environment in which we live is much harder to achieve for elites. When > everything belongs to an elite, that includes the natural world. It is not > the awe of the mystic that elites lack, but the awe of the scientist. That > awe comes from two pieces of knowledge: the web of life upon which we > depend is fragile; although we know many ways we can disrupt the ability of > that web to sustain us, we are deeply ignorant of other devastating > consequences of disruption that almost certainly exist. > > People who are not elite in unequal societies can make the opposite > mistake. Given how uncertain life is for the vast majority, it can seem as > though their means of livelihood are deeply fragile compared to the > strength and robustness of the natural world. To loggers and fishers > embedded within a deeply unequal society, who have absorbed its values, it > can seem as though the forest will never run short of trees and oceans > never cease to team with fish. Worrying about such things can appear to be > a silly elite pretence, not a real consequence in the real world. > > I think that downplaying the importance of inequality has a long history > among leftists, at the very least, dating back to Marx. Marxism is often > thought of as an egalitarian ideology in aspiration, regardless of its > results in practice. But Marx was often scathing in his critiques of > equality as left aspirations. Marx argued that since people are not > identical in either ability, need or desires that equality was neither > possible nor desirable among people. This was in part word play against > opponents he had little respect for. There was, however, a serious purpose > behind it. > > While Marx saw popular demands for equality as positive when part of > popular struggle, he also thought it had little place in serious analysis. > He saw equality as a remnant of capitalism, like formal rights – something > to move beyond. At best equality in a certain sense was instrumental, > necessary for people to become freer in a certain stage of development. But > he saw a focus on equality, even viewed as an instrument of freedom, as a > stage that could be moved beyond in a truly advanced society. The > arrangements that were a better way of living than capitalism happened to > be more egalitarian than capitalism in practice. But they were better > because they were more suited to human beings, not because they conformed > to some idea of equality. In modern terms we might say that Marx thought > equality a spandrel, like the white color of bones. > > But just as contempt for formal rights has produced nightmarish results, > so has insufficient respect for equality. I won’t argue whether equality is > directly needed or is entirely instrumental. Either way equality is > absolutely necessary; if it is merely an instrument, it is an instrument we > cannot discard. Not seeing this is part of the reason why so many Marxists > have been willing to tolerate states where one-party rule ensures dominance > – even if by a different 1% than under conventional capitalism. > > Contempt for equality is by no means universal among Marxists. > Interpretations of Marx vary widely. But contempt for equality is part of > many important strains in Marxist thought. > > And it is not only Marxists who downplay the need for equality. A great > many flavors of leftist, including non-Marxist socialists and modern social > democrats, see inequality as something that can be compensated for without > needing to radically undermine it > > The approach of many modern social democratic and labor parties is to > support extensive social services – education, health care, old age > pensions, paid for almost entirely by taxes on the working and middle > classes, while leaving the rich nearly untouched. They seek to compensate > for the effects of inequality without threatening or even mildly weakening > the capitalist class. Again, it is not universal but widespread. > > Note, by the way, that Naomi Klein does not make this mistake. Whatever > her views on the ultimate direction struggle should aim at (I suspect > agnostic) she realizes that struggle against climate change cannot be > non-threatening to the rich and powerful. Any solution involves > confrontation between the capitalist class and the rest of us – between the > 1% and the 99%. She truly does appreciate the importance of the struggle > for equality to the struggle for a solution to the climate crisis. What I > hope she will come to appreciate: inequality is also at the root of the > shortsightedness and emotional disconnectedness from the natural world that > she calls “extractionism”. > > *Please note: Naomi Klein did give me a blurb for my 2012 book “Solving > the Climate Crisis Through Social Change”. I disclose this in the interests > of transparency, though I don’t believe it affected my critique.* > > > https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/what-naomi-klein-got-right-and-wrong-in-her-2014-book-this-changes-everything/ > > Short URL http://bit.ly/15Luflh > > -- > Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow > Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com > Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/ > Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
