Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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. Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant: it would simply indicate that I had misjudged her book. The real point was whether there are practical differences between bourgeois environmentalism and a radical environmental program. I´ve nowhere said - and, to my knowledge, neither has she - that oeour practical task is to campaign in favor of corn ethanol, or unplanned growth of biofuel ingeneral, or fracking, or the carbon tax, or cap and trade, or Michael Bloomberg, etc. You wrote of the fundamentally sound program of the bourgeois environmentalists, and of the supposed lack of any but an abstract alternative. Then you are offended when I refer to their program concretely. And you seemed to have forgotten what you wrote about Bloomberg just a few messages back. However, we seem to have come to an impasse with this discussion. So I will try to continue on the issue of bourgeois vs. working class environmentalism in another way. In particular, I think that it is important for the militant environmental movement to have a clear and public assessment of the key figures and institutions of bourgeois environmentalism, such as Al Gore and the IPCC. As a contribution to a discussion on this, I will post in a separate thread an assessment of the recent IPCC Synthesis Report. 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
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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. * 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
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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. * Marv Gandall wrote: Sorry, I donTMt think it can be completely ruled out, except by dogmatists, that oeif solar and other alternative energy prices continue to fall in line with advanced technology and more widespread adoption, and become more cost-effective and safer than environmentally destructive forms of energy, thereTMs no reason to suppose todayTMs capitalists would not do what previous generations of capitalists have done and move to superior forms of energy. Which, as I noted, is not to say such a development is inevitable or even likely. 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. My comment had nothing to do with the demands being raised by the mainstream environmental organizations, We were discussing whether the presence of former Mayor Bloombeg in climate marches was a matter of concern. In this regard, you said that not all capitalists outside the coal, gas and oil industries are wedded to fossil fuels and unconcerned about their disruptive and potentially catastrophic effects. Bloomberg is a prominent spokesperson of this growing wing of the bourgeoisie. So the issue is what we can expect from Bloomberg and this growing wing of the bourgeoisie that is concerned about the potentially catastrophic effects of fossil fuels. What I have advocated is that various bourgeois environmentalists, such as Al Gore, have done a service in raising the dangers ahead, but have advocated measures that lead to ruin. This is true even of the UN's IPCC. It is necessary therefore that the militant wing of the environmental movement take up opposition to the bourgeois program, such as market methods, and promote a better environmental program. 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. although I did earlier pose the question on this thread, which remains as yet unanswered: 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. 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. The environmentalist and naturalist Timothy Flannery, in his book The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth, realized that comprehensive environmental planning would lead to a great deal of overall economic planning. He remarked that this planning would lead from one field of the economy to another. He was scared of this, and called it a carbon dictatorship. But this meant that he was unwilling to see that market fundamentalism
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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 24, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Eugene Coyle eugeneco...@igc.org wrote: This post by Joseph Green, well done, points out to me what narrow silos we work within. I have been unconsciously assuming that people on Pen-L would know about the close links between the big environmental groups like NRDC and EDF with the giant corporations whose behavior they are actually abetting. In the world I work in, the behavior of the big environmental groups is common knowledge, though many of the people I work with still try to cooperate with them in one way or another. On Nov 23, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Joseph Green jgr...@communistvoice.org wrote: [Marvin Gandall wrote] Not to mention, on a more serious note, that not all capitalists outside the coal, gas and oil industries are wedded to fossil fuels and unconcerned about their disruptive and potentially catastrophic effects. Bloomberg is a prominent spokesperson of this growing wing of the bourgeoisie. If solar and other alternative energy prices continue to fall in line with advanced technology and more widespread adoption and become more cost-effective and safer than environmentally destructive forms of energy, there's no reason to suppose today's capitalists would not do what previous generations of capitalists have done and move to superior forms of energy. It's not an inevitable development, but neither can it be ruled out. …Yes, even today a section of the bourgeoisie is concerned about the environment, and more will be in the future. But establishment environmentalism has put forward futile marketplace solutions. Indeed, it's measures aren't simply weak or inadequate, but some of them have made things worse. […] Sorry, I don’t think it can be completely ruled out, except by dogmatists, that “if solar and other alternative energy prices continue to fall in line with advanced technology and more widespread adoption, and become more cost-effective and safer than environmentally destructive forms of energy, there’s no reason to suppose today’s capitalists would not do what previous generations of capitalists have done and move to superior forms of energy.” Which, as I noted, is not to say such a development is inevitable or even likely. My comment had nothing to do with the demands being raised by the mainstream environmental organizations, although I did earlier pose the question on this thread, which remains as yet unanswered: Concretely, is there much difference in the demands favoured by the established environmental organizations and the left-wing of the environmental movement? I'm not referring to the customary differences of strategy, nor the theoretical differences about whether it is possible to achieve the necessary reforms short of a sweeping change in capitalist property relations. “What are the ‘acceptable’ demands that…the eco-socialist movement would reject, and what ‘respectable’ environmental groups are advancing these?” _ 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
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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 11/22/14 9:31 AM, Carrol Cox wrote: The fact that former Mayor Bloomberg could join the climate march ought to generate some caution. [Louis Proyect wrote] I agree with Carrol. We need a communistic climate change movement led by fighting detachments of an aroused proletariat. [Marvin Gandall wrote] Not to mention, on a more serious note, that not all capitalists outside the coal, gas and oil industries are wedded to fossil fuels and unconcerned about their disruptive and potentially catastrophic effects. Bloomberg is a prominent spokesperson of this growing wing of the bourgeoisie. If solar and other alternative energy prices continue to fall in line with advanced technology and more widespread adoption and become more cost-effective and safer than environmentally destructive forms of energy, there's no reason to suppose today's capitalists would not do what previous generations of capitalists have done and move to superior forms of energy. It's not an inevitable development, but neither can it be ruled out. Carrol Cox's opposition to the environmental movement is completely wrong, would doom the left to impotence, and would increase the danger of environmental collapse. But it's also wrong to be complacent about the bourgeois wing of the environmental movement. Yes, even today a section of the bourgeoisie is concerned about the environment, and more will be in the future. But establishment environmentalism has put forward futile marketplace solutions. Indeed, it's measures aren't simply weak or inadequate, but some of them have made things worse. * There's the corn ethanol fiasco. This is an example of a section of the bourgeoisie realizing it can make a profit from certain measures, and it has been a fiasco. * There was the promotion of biofuel from palm oil. This has helped accelerate the devastation of the rain forests. * There is cap and trade, which was a fiasco in Europe under Kyoto. * There is the carbon offset program, which isn't simply weak or ineffective, but has done environmental harm in various ways. * There is the promotion of nuclear power by various bourgeois environmentalists. * There is even the promotion of geo-engineering, which promises disasters of its own. Why let global warming destroy the planet, when the bourgeoisie can do it directly with geo-engineering? * And so on... One of the positive points of Naomi Klein's book was the chapter on Big Green, the large bourgeois environmental organizations. These organizations even have financial deals with the fossil fuel companies. The more I see the issue of bourgeois environmentalism avoided in this discussion, the more I appreciate that Naomi Klein devotes some attention to it and is angry about it. Another useful exposure of bourgeois environmentalism is in the book Green gone wrong: Dispatches from the front lines of eco-capitalism by Heather Rogers. She shows, for example, concretely how various fair trade plans, supposed to be ecologically friendly, don't help either the small peasant producer or the environment. Neither Klein nor Rogers have a clear plan on how to build an effective section of the environmental movement consciously independent of Big Green. But their books help show why this is needed. The left must not simply participate in the environmental movement, but build up a working-class section of the movement, which doesn't simply cheer the bourgeois environmentalists on, but has a separate program for what measures need to be taken in order to effectively fight the environmental crisis. So far, even the more radical and militant section of the environmental movement, a section which has carried out many excellent actions, generally won't directly take on Big Green and has connections with the bourgeois environmentalists through Al Gore or various foundations, etc. Even the section that criticizes market measures in general, generally supports the carbon tax as supposedly something else. This amounts, in practice, to a tacit alliance with the market fundamentalism of the bourgeois environmentalists. Such environmentalists as Timothy Flannery (who was a Green Party activist at one time, but I don't know what has become of him) worry about planning being a carbon dictatorship (Flannery's term). The major emphasis on setting the carbon price is an attempt to avoid the carbon dictatorship through a price mechanism; it is a tacit alliance (and sometimes an open and direct alliance) with bourgeois environmentalism; and it means evading the need to fight neo-liberalism. (The one correct thing about Shane Mage's
Re: [Marxism] [Pen-l] NYRB review of Naomi Klein
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 22, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote: On 11/22/14 9:31 AM, Carrol Cox wrote: The fact that former Mayor Bloomberg could join the climate march ought to generate some caution. I agree with Carrol. We need a communistic climate change movement led by fighting detachments of an aroused proletariat. Not to mention, on a more serious note, that not all capitalists outside the coal, gas and oil industries are wedded to fossil fuels and unconcerned about their disruptive and potentially catastrophic effects. Bloomberg is a prominent spokesperson of this growing wing of the bourgeoisie. If solar and other alternative energy prices continue to fall in line with advanced technology and more widespread adoption and become more cost-effective and safer than environmentally destructive forms of energy, there's no reason to suppose today's capitalists would not do what previous generations of capitalists have done and move to superior forms of energy. It's not an inevitable development, but neither can it be ruled out. By Carrol's logic, leftists should never have thrown themselves into the great struggles of our time waged by trade unionists, blacks, gays, women, and opponents of the war in Vietnam because in each case liberal politicians and clergy were invited to march with demonstrators, who were, in the main, supporters of the Democratic Party. I think Carrol's tendency towards abstention flows from what is, IMO, his underlying view of the ruling class as diabolically monolithic and all powerful, with the more perniciously clever Democrats the greater evil. Go back and read his many posts on any number of subjects and you will see this theme expressed again and again. _ 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
