Environmentalism and Socialism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14696894
I was wondering what peoples' thoughts were to the relation between socialism and ideas of environmental sustainability (A vague and contested term).
Whether the implications of socialism are best founded in technology and social relations that are environmentally sustainable in their production and consumption or is environemtnalism something that isn't able to necessarily be fitted into a modern conception of such an economic model?
AND
Ways in which workers rights can be supported by and support environmentalist concerns.

Two sources which inspired this line of thought.
Global Political Economy, 4th Ed., Robert O'Brien & Marc Williams, p. 254
Different conceptions of development contribute to contending perspectives on sustainable development. Radical approaches reject capitalist development and argue that capitalism is responsible for both the creation and perpetuation of poverty and environmental degradation (Saurin, 1996). From this perspective, development requires rejection of the current international economic order, and a search for development models that emphasize small-scale, participatory development. In this view, the pursuit of economic growth can be counterproductive since such growth frequently stimulates policies that degrade the environment.

On the other hand, the dominant conception of sustainable development accepts the prevailing global political and economic structure, and locates development within the capitalist political economy. Within the dominant approach, economic growth per se is not a problem but an inescapable starting point. The report by the Trilateral Commission, Beyond Interdependence, states: 'Given the growth imperative evidence in the material poverty of much of human kind, the only reasonable alternative is sustainable development' (McNeil et al. 1991, p. v). As this report suggests, economic growth is necessary in order to eradicate poverty. The world Bank, which has adopted sustainable development as its goal, has argued that it is poverty which is responsible for environmental degradation. In this view, economic growth provides the instruments through which societies can address environmental degradation.

In this debate between different approaches to development, history has shown convincingly that it is not the economic system as such, but the importance attached to environmental values that is central. The radical critique is on firm ground when it draws connections between capitalist development and unsustainable modes of production and consumption. But it is surely on shaky ground when it assumes that a socialist (or non-capitalist) economic system automatically provides the conditions for sustainable practices. The evidence of the environmental disasters created b the communist regimes in central and Eastern Europe are stark reminders of the fact that environmental pollution was in many cases far worse under these regimes than in the capitalist west. The objection that these were not true communist states is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant because one can equally claim that Western states are not examples of true capitalism. But, more importantly, these regimes provide a counter to the claim that capitalism creates environmental degradation, since whatever we call their economic systems, they were certainly not capitalist.


Kaufman summarizes the origins of some greenies being middle class liberals who are detached from working class/labor concerns nad such their methods and perspectives are founded on environmentalism negligent towards them.
Ideas for Action, 'People, Nature, and Other Animals', Cynthia Kaufman, p. 205-206
In the 1980's, it was practically a common-sense assumption that environmental concerns and labor concerns were opposed to one another. In the Pacific Northwest, the issues were posed as a choice between the protection of spotted owls or the jobs of loggers. Laborers often took the side of the corporations that hired them i arguing that environmental constraints were bad for companies and therefore bad for the employment and wages of workers. This reflected the old business-labor accord, according to which what's good for business is good for labor.

Environmentalists, on the other hand, often framed their concerns as protecting an innocent nature against bad people. So the needs o people were not part of the equation.
It took the work of some very sophisticated organizers to begin to change that equation, Judi Bari, who was a member of the deep ecology environmental group Earth First! and an activist in the radical anarcho-syndicalist union Industrial Workers of the World, did important work getting environmentalists and labor activists to identify common interests, and helped each to understand and frame their demands in ways that would foster cooperation.

As a member of Earth First!, she was disturbed by the practice of tree spiking. She was a working-class person who didn't see the loggers as enemies. As she struggled within the organization to develop tactics that were not so hostile to loggers, she developed a deeper analysis that included a sense of the common ground that existed between environmentalists and the loggers.

She goes on to talk about a company that was clear-cutting at unsustainable rates and eventually was shutting down mills nad such, thus able to forge an alliance between greenies and workers about the bad practice of the timber company, with the environmental consequences affecting many of the workers where they lived.
#14697002
Well, the first thing to realize is that capitalism is incompatible with environmental sustainability because the tendency of the rate of profit to fall gives it a growth imperative that respects no limit. Capitalism has to grow or die, and on a finite planet, that means exhausting every resource it can in the pursuit of profit. So any kind of sustainable economic system will have to transcend the profit-driven economy of capitalism, and some kind of green socialism seems to be the logical step forward.

However, socialist regimes do not have the best track record on this, either. For the Soviet Union, the top priority was industrializing as fast as possible. This was no doubt necessary to catch up with the capitalist west, but its results for the environment were nothing short of catastrophic. On the other hand, environmentalists are now looking to Cuba as a model for sustainability. This was something Cuba did out of necessity, as the American embargo combined with the collapse of the Soviet Union brought them to peak oil quicker than any other country, and they've had to adapt to a post-petroleum economy. Urban gardening and fuel conservation have become major policy focuses, and as a result, they've managed to survive fairly well given the circumstances. Cuba has emphasized a decentralized approach to creating local self-sustaining economies, in sharp contrast to the kind of central planning for which Soviet-style socialism is known.

Forms of resistance against capitalism are trickier, as the tree-spiking example shows. When you're trying to block corporations engaged in environmental destruction, you are at the same time blocking workers who are employed by those corporations. At some level, there's not much you can do here. If you have to block a train carrying fossil fuels, then some workers are going to be inconvenienced. Hell, I've had the experience of blocking traffic during marches. But you'd be surprised at some of the solidarity people show. When people understand what you're doing and why, they can be remarkably sympathetic. And one thing about environmental direct action groups that is so effective is that they're able to lay out clear objectives and act in accordance with those objectives in a way that's difficult for the media to spin.

As far as supporting workers, there are on the one hand environmental hazards with certain jobs, and building solidarity with them by pushing for better working conditions is a key strategy. There are also arguments to make about the jobs that are displaced by environmentally destructive industries as they make once-fertile and useful land into a barren wasteland. But what's really needed is a dual power approach that builds an alternative infrastructure that is both environmentally sustainable and conducive to mutual aid.
#14697006
Based on my experience environmentalism is a religious ideology.

Do not get me wrong: environmental concerns are real and we need to find solutions. But environmentalists exhibit many unrelated traits:
  • They value animal welfare higher, at the expense of human welfare. This obviously opposes socialism and is closer from the religious right wing that prefers religious morale over human needs. And incidentally frequently value animal life higher than the average.
  • They usually consider Nature as something holy, sometimes conscious. Reducing the extent of human life and footprint is usually deemed positive by itself, rather than being justified by actual problems. Just like the religious right wing puts the obedience to God above everything else. This sometimes goes very far with some neo-ruralists who promote a third world life as an ideal to pursue.
  • They have poor expectations about the potential of technological improvements, a stark contrast with traditional socialism. Rather than looking up to science for answers, they tend to favor Malthusian approaches and are wary of science. Just like the religious right-wing.
  • They exhibit strong eschatological traits and love prophets that tell tales of the near end of the civilization (resource scarcity etc). Just like the religious right-wing. More generally their speeches and choices of words are plagued by references to death and destruction, and revenge of Nature.


Here is a good example: the carbon tax in France. Since a true carbon tax is impossible (it would require a world-level transparency about all financial transactions and production processes), environmentalists usually call for a mere tax over car fuels. Yet all analyses demonstrate this would have very little effect over the actual use of automobiles and therefore CO2 emissions, but it would have great consequences for modest households. Nevertheless, this is something that ecologists are adamant about because it is "morale" and even though there would be tens of better projects to put forward.
#14697117
I don't think environmentalism is necessarily connected to either socialism, capitalism, or any other economic system for that matter, though it can be. Personally I believe that we are at the point where the only solution(s) to our environmental problems will tend to be technological.
#14697126
Harmattan wrote:Based on my experience environmentalism is a religious ideology.

Do not get me wrong: environmental concerns are real and we need to find solutions. But environmentalists exhibit many unrelated traits:
  • They value animal welfare higher, at the expense of human welfare. This obviously opposes socialism and is closer from the religious right wing that prefers religious morale over human needs. And incidentally frequently value animal life higher than the average.
  • They usually consider Nature as something holy, sometimes conscious. Reducing the extent of human life and footprint is usually deemed positive by itself, rather than being justified by actual problems. Just like the religious right wing puts the obedience to God above everything else. This sometimes goes very far with some neo-ruralists who promote a third world life as an ideal to pursue.
  • They have poor expectations about the potential of technological improvements, a stark contrast with traditional socialism. Rather than looking up to science for answers, they tend to favor Malthusian approaches and are wary of science. Just like the religious right-wing.
  • They exhibit strong eschatological traits and love prophets that tell tales of the near end of the civilization (resource scarcity etc). Just like the religious right-wing. More generally their speeches and choices of words are plagued by references to death and destruction, and revenge of Nature.

I find that most of these tendencies describe a very small minority of the environmental movement. Most environmentalists are not animal rights activists. A somewhat significant minority are animal welfarists, but for the most part they tend to be more concerned about the health of the ecosystem as a whole, and their concern for individual species is based more on their role in the greater ecological balance.

The whole woo-woo attitude toward nature is really just a bunch of hippies that go to festivals and eat organic produce while singing about Gaia, and really has very little to do with most environmental activism. You're very unlikely to run into these people at a Sierra Club meeting. EarthFirst, sure, but that's a very radical contingent of the environmental movement, and has little to do with environmentalism more broadly. I do agree that the idea that the human ecological footprint should be minimized as much as possible is based on a faulty understanding of nature, and doesn't take into account the positive impact humans can have on the environment, but in practice, most of our industrial output is negative in terms of its effects, and should be minimized.

The techno-utopianism you refer to is much more common in the more capitalistic factions of the environmental movement, in contrast to the primitivist leanings of many EarthFirst types. The IWW has attempted to carve a middle ground by promoting Green Syndicalism as an alternative. I do agree that there is way too much Malthusianism in the environmental movement, and I think this is what warrants the strongest critique by socialists.

It is unfortunate that we do live in rather eschatological times. If anything, there's far too much sugar-coating of the seriousness of our situation. People like Al Gore think we can innovate our way out of this through carbon taxes and sequestration, but we're far beyond that. If you really study the science of what's actually going on, it's honestly pretty hard not to get depressed.
#14697237
In today's world, leftists and environmentalists form a green-left continuum. They are the same people. Most greens are left and most leftists are green.

That is part of the contradiction that robs today's left of all credibility and will eventually lead to its demise. Because the left has embraced an anti-austerity ideology in economics while environmentalism is the most austere philosophy on earth.
#14697239
Interesting point but to be fair I think it is more about individual austerity , rather than state austerity. An egalitarian framework with low consumption can still have a large state and high state investment. This is still 'leftish' in spirit.

Its not like the various right movements dont have clashes too. Pro-business certainly sits even less well with nationalism than these two bed fellows.
#14697242
Interesting point but to be fair I think it is more about individual austerity that the Greens are interested in. An egalitarian framework with low consumption but a large state and high state investment is still 'leftish'.


Individual austerity has no economic impact unless it is adopted by society as a whole. To have high public spending you need high growth rates and robust tax earnings, unless you want to go the way of Venezuela. High growth rates, even if you turn into a green economy, is not sustainable in developed countries.

Its not like the various right movements dont have clashes too. Pro-business certainly sits even less well with nationalism than these two.


Yes, but they live in mutual symbiosis. The political/business elites can use the nationalist/racist mob to their own political ends. Why else would Arron Banks finance another fascist outfit?

Paradigm wrote:I find that most of these tendencies describe a very small minority of the environmental movement.


I agree, just like it takes all kinds to make a society, there will be crackpots in every movement. Harmattan is using the crackpots to discredit the movement as a whole.

True environmentalism takes a holistic approach to the ecosystem which does include humans. Thus, in my view, it is not even a question of "reducing the human footprint," but of making human development compatible with nature, in other words, promoting sustainable development.
#14697277
Atlantis wrote:That is part of the contradiction that robs today's left of all credibility and will eventually lead to its demise. Because the left has embraced an anti-austerity ideology in economics while environmentalism is the most austere philosophy on earth.

I think this is in part due to the right-wing associations with the word "austerity." When the right talks austerity, what they mean is cutting back social programs and squeezing the poor. What environmentalists are talking about is a kind of egalitarian austerity. Capitalism can sustain inequality and still have enough left over for the poor so long as it can continue to grow, but when growth is no longer a viable option, then we have to turn to redistribution. So in order to be effective, environmentalism has to be paired with economic justice.
#14697305
Paradigm wrote:The whole woo-woo attitude toward nature is really just a bunch of hippies that go to festivals and eat organic produce while singing about Gaia, and really has very little to do with most environmental activism.

When I said that many environmentalists look at Nature as something holy, I did mean it in a sociological sense, just like the American constitution is a holy artifact in the USA.

What I meant is that many environmentalists' concerns do not simply derive from the consequences of our actions on the ecosystem or an empathy towards the animal and vegetal life. Instead they highly value Nature as of itself, as what is void of human footprint. They value an ecosystem free of human influence over, for example, a healthy ecosystem that would be produced by heavily manipulations from human beings. The essential opposition to GMO is a good example, despite the huge environmental benefits they could bring.

Some go even further and see the Earth as an organism with its own intelligent volition (which is actually plausible but this plausibility is only a coincidence here). However few are hippies: many environmentalists rationalize, consciously or not, catastrophes and extreme weather as a revenge from Earth. They are no different from the druids who sacrificed human beings to prevent the sky to fall.

It is unfortunate that we do live in rather eschatological times. If anything, there's far too much sugar-coating of the seriousness of our situation. People like Al Gore think we can innovate our way out of this through carbon taxes and sequestration, but we're far beyond that. If you really study the science of what's actually going on, it's honestly pretty hard not to get depressed.

Actually this is after I studied those facts a lot that I rejected the superficial arguments from our apocalypse prophets and instead grew confident that everything will be fine for most of us. Even assuming the mildly pessimistic climate projections. Resources scarcity, especially, is essentially idiocy.

Paradigm wrote:I think this is in part due to the right-wing associations with the word "austerity." When the right talks austerity, what they mean is cutting back social programs and squeezing the poor. What environmentalists are talking about is a kind of egalitarian austerity. Capitalism can sustain inequality and still have enough left over for the poor so long as it can continue to grow, but when growth is no longer a viable option, then we have to turn to redistribution. So in order to be effective, environmentalism has to be paired with economic justice.

I call this delusion. The world GDP is 12k$ per capita and per year after correcting purchasing power differences. Which means that even under a perfect equality everyone would be poor. And from what I know very few environmentalists want a perfect equality, they rather think, like everyone else, that they personally deserve more than the average. Most of them belong to the upper middle classes after all, and are fine with this state of thing. Which is an usual human behavior.
#14697311
Paradigm wrote:I think this is in part due to the right-wing associations with the word "austerity." When the right talks austerity, what they mean is cutting back social programs and squeezing the poor. What environmentalists are talking about is a kind of egalitarian austerity. Capitalism can sustain inequality and still have enough left over for the poor so long as it can continue to grow, but when growth is no longer a viable option, then we have to turn to redistribution. So in order to be effective, environmentalism has to be paired with economic justice.


The point is we aren't all equal. And there is no way of making everybody equal without the kind of force used in socialist countries that suffocates society and kills enterprise and prosperity. We'll all be worse of for it.

I think the market economy or the social market economy has more flexibility to cope with future challenges than any kind of forced egalitarian model.

When I hear people like Iglesias I just can't listen to the end of it because it is purely theoretical and has no relation to the real functioning of the economy.

Well, I have a natural aversion to theory because I like to think in terms of practical measures. Basically, we need to develop a low growth or zero-growth economic model run entirely with green technology. That'll be the winning ticket for the future.

And I don't think inequality on the national scale is the problem. Many countries have a good welfare system. So it can be done, even if others fail.

The challenge will be inequality on a global scale, because I don't think Europe has the nerve to watch the Mediterranean fill up with dead bodies of the people trying to reach us.

I don't believe in national socialism. Socialism has to be international.
#14697321
@Harmattan

Can you give an example of a healthy ecosystem that would be produced by heavy manipulations from human beings?

You mentioned GMOs, but I cannot think of any time when GMOs produced a healthy ecosystem.

--------------

As for the actual topic, Cuba has already shown that socialism and environmentalism are not only compatible, but also complementary. Having said that, Cuba is in a unique position due to the embargo.

In the developed world, things are more complicated due to the marginal roles of socialism and environmentalism.
#14697329
You mentioned GMOs, but I cannot think of any time when GMOs produced a healthy ecosystem.


They do. By requiring less pesticide and fertilizer use for the same production they reduce the environmental impact of farming. The effect is somewhat marginal as of yet because we don't have universal adoptation and most GM strains are not very sophisticated. As the technology develops the lowered environmental impact will become more apparent.

While I consider myself environmentally minded on a policy level there is a lot of naturalism woo in the environmental movement, and opposition to GMO's is an example.
#14697336
Farming impacts the ecosystem heavily through runoff and land use.

Unless you have a proposal for feeding people without any farms your going to have to settle for healthier.
#14697343
Okay,

Harmattan was arguing that the idea of minimising human impact is not always applicable, as human impact can be beneficial.

We seem to be agreeing that GMOs are reducing negative impacts rather than creating positive impacts.
#14697344
Hamartans point was that enviromentalists (in reality it's only hard greens but hamartan seems to think all enviromentalists are hard greens) are not interested in reductions of impact. They want humans to not impact at all. In essence to not farm in an area rather than reduce the impact of farming.
#14697346
Is that what he is saying? I tend to skim when the content seems to be pop psychology of political opponents.

Human behaviours will have an impact on nature. In most cases, this impact is negative for ecosystems. Thus, it is logical to reduce the impact if the goal is to maximise the health of the ecosystem.

Having said that, I am more interested in the relationship between socialism and environmentalism.
#14697348
Atlantis wrote:The point is we aren't all equal. And there is no way of making everybody equal without the kind of force used in socialist countries that suffocates society and kills enterprise and prosperity. We'll all be worse of for it.

Bollocks. The only kind of "force" needed is to roll back the state-sponsored privileges that give the wealthy their advantage in the first place. That means changing capitalist property relations based on profit into property based on use and occupation.

mikema63 wrote:Farming impacts the ecosystem heavily through runoff and land use.

Unless you have a proposal for feeding people without any farms your going to have to settle for healthier.

Monoculture is really our greatest enemy here. We need to learn how to farm ecologically, with diverse crops working together to support a more resilient biosphere. GMOs have had the opposite effect, effectively eliminating several heritage crops and reducing biodiversity.
#14697350
Monoculture is really our greatest enemy here. We need to learn how to farm ecologically, with diverse crops working together to support a more resilient biosphere. GMOs have had the opposite effect, effectively eliminating several heritage crops and reducing biodiversity.


There is no reason why you can't use crop diversity with GMO plants. The only reason why monoculture is so common with GMO crops is because the factory farms using GMO crops use monoculture. Monoculture is a problem, sure, but it's not a problem caused by or created because of GMO crops and it is not a problem that cannot be solved while including GMO crops.

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]