Should Socialism be "Green"? Or is it the other way around? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Saved posts from the old blog area.
#13205254
It seems that it's often asked whether or not "Communism" or "Socialism" should be "Green" i.e. should they adopt environmentalism as a key tenant of their party's platforms, promote an ecological-centric view of production/consumption, etc. Examining this question more seems to me that such a question is on the wrong track in general. When asking liberal environmentalists about their platform for ecological sustainability, they often dive into what reforms the current capitalist states ought to take on and focus on one aspect of the system: its environmental impact. Often their solutions involve the promotion of "Green Consumption" and implementing new governmental policies aimed at reducing CO2 emissions and consumer waste. Even some of these very environmentalists are beginning to realize the limits of such reformism as companies can easily move their production "off shore" and viewing the limited impact of "Green products" isn't hard to do (Some Examples). This leads environmentalism in a sticky place: what is the best way forward?

In a recent article in Mother Jones, in an article entitled "Industrial Strength Solution" Joel Makower, who wrote the book The Green Consumer claimed that he was "thinking of waving the white flag" concerning the promotion of Green Consumerism. Throughout the article, he details how most waste that is produced comes actually from industrial waste, not consumer waste (one chart shows that 76% of US waste is from industry, while Municipal solid waste is only at 2.5%). These facts alone present a major problem for those who promote just "living a more green lifestyle" as it becomes strikingly clear that such an avenue for change is quite insignificant.

The real solution here is democratic ownership (i.e. worker ownership) over industry. It's clear that the real problems of the environment are linked to the ownership of wealth and our inability to have a say over how capital is invested, controlled, and used. Since it's quite clear that the problem lies in industrial production itself, the old battles between Marxists and Liberals comes back to life: can we just regulate industry for the benefit of the people? Is capitalist democracy something worth reforming or should we try to adopt a more humane radical system of worker ownership/governance? The questions have been dealt with time and time again, and it seems that history demonstrates that the liberal response to the problems of capitalism fall quite short, and it seems that the problem of the environment is no exception. Only through socialism can we truly adopt a system where we can have a sensible relationship between human production/consumption and nature.
User avatar
By HoniSoit
#13207592
Excellent article, Kurt.

I agree with you that the environmental crisis demands structural solutions.

However, it is not easy to see any prospect of a radical restructuring of economy and society in the form of a socialist revolution in the advanced capitalist states at the moment. I am sure things will change but of course it won't come automatically but rather requires a great deal of organising on the Left. I know many Leftist/Socialist groups are doing great works but it is a huge uphill battle against powerful capitalist state.

<--- and no, I don't like Palin.
User avatar
By Dave
#13209406
You keep saying that the problems are "clear", but then never lay out why this is so. Not only are you preaching to the choir, but those not in the choir don't even know what tune you're singing.

For instance, you note that most waste in the United States is industrial waste, which (quite rightly) makes babbling about green consumerism nonsense. You then claim that his is due to capitalism and that worker ownership and management would eliminate the problem. Why capitalism is behind industrial waste and why worker ownership would eliminate it is not explained at all.

Thus, I must disagree with HoniSoit. It was not an excellent article.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#13209844
Well I'll admit that I had some assumptions in the article. For example: the idea that the "problem of waste" and human's relationship to the environment is an assumption I make that the reader will share. The second assumption is that leftist want to do something about it (notice I was dealing mainly against green consumerism and environmentalism of the "regulate it!" sort).

The idea that we can really reform industry in that way under capitalism is the notion that I was attacking. These aren't the same goals you share so of course you won't agree with the article.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13209936
KurtFF8 wrote:The idea that we can really reform industry in that way under capitalism is the notion that I was attacking. These aren't the same goals you share so of course you won't agree with the article.


Yes, but I have to agree with Dave here; you simply didn't address it, rather led on the assumption of it.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#13210727
How so? In the article I mention how the old battles of reforming a flawed industry under capitalism vs. revolutionary socialism are rehashed in this debate. That itself addresses it.
User avatar
By Dave
#13212934
I realize that this is a leftist blog, but most people, including many of those in your attended audience, are likely not familiar with the particulars of those battles. The theoretical underpinnings of this are not clear either. It is obvious why socialism would end exploitation (in the Marxist sense), but not at all why it would reduce environmental degradation and industrial waste. Socialism in Eastern Europe does not provide an inspiring case study, although some Marxists did not consider that socialism and this was before environmental activism was a big deal.

I would suggest that you ought to lay out the following in more detail:
  • Why capitalism necessarily generates industrial waste
  • Why socialism would not
  • Why regulation is a poor solution
  • Historical examples to burnish the case

Stating that this is an "old battle" will get your fellow Marxists to nod their heads and not much else. You could link people to Daniel Hoan's The Failure of Regulation, published in 1914, to show just how old this battle is.
User avatar
By KurtFF8
#13213301
Thanks for your critique. My argument was not that socialism is automatically green, but that environmentalists ought to adopt a socialist stance on the economy if they want their goals realized.

As you point out, Eastern Europe is a great example of socialism being anything but "green."

If I elaborate on the topic more, I will certainly address those points though.
User avatar
By Dave
#13213323
A common suspicion on the right is that environmentalism is the new direction of socialism and that most greens are in fact watermelons. Van Jones is an obvious example of this. I suspect that this would be fertile ground for you socialists, and Hoan's arguments from 1914 are just as relevant today.
By Agent S
#13584796
Socialism can't genuinely live up to its name without sustainability, just as sustainability implies fairness. If the economy is unsustainable and geared to pollution, we are all affected, but the extent to which we are immediately affected depends on whether we're rich or poor, with the poor feeling the consequences much sooner and more harshly. It's the poor who drink polluted water and breathe the most polluted air. So it's impossible to separate sustainability and fairness.

I'm always a bit wary of concepts such as "green consumerism". Taken literally, this implies it's possible to consume one's way to sustainability. And while I agree it's possible to consume responsibly, real sustainability will only be possible when we have freed ourselves from consumerism and, therefore, the growth fetish. Capitalism and socialism differ over (among other things) where wealth should lie, but both tend to share the same means of getting there - economic growth. Yet using GDP as the main economic indicator means environmentally destructive and ethically deplorable practice - such as factories pumping chemicals into rivers, or the weapons industry - are seen as positive contributions to growth - regardless of the environmental or social consequences. Perversely, attempts to clear up chemical-polluted rivers and the sale of medical supplies to treat the people injured by the weapons would also enter into the "plus" column. So the growth-fuelled economy cannot be sustainable or fair. Socialism also tends to concentrate on paid employment - the obsession with economic growth and GDP again - rather than look at the considerable contribution made to society by people who aren't paid for their work. So I think it's time socialism re-evaluates the meaning of 'work' and seriously considers concepts such as the unconditional / guaranteed income. After all, this moves away from GDP as the be all and end all, promotes greater fairness in society and, of course, is an important step towards a low-carbon economy.

I have an interest in a particular political party in Germany. It's distinctively left, (it grew partially out of the communist party of the GDR) and a recent conference to debate the new party programme raised both the question of what we understand by 'work' and the idea of the unconditional income. Sadly, it looks as though the definition of 'work' will remain strictly within the context of employment, and the basic income was considered unaffordable. (I disagree) However, the debate continues well into next year, so I'll be looking with interest to see how it develops. Because I think these are issues which socialism can no longer afford to ignore. None of us can.
User avatar
By emiellucifuge
#13656251
Why is it that the right so often ignore enviromental issues?

This conjures wild thoughts of right-wing politicians dismissing enviromental science based purely on ideological preferences.

Would a 'Green Right' be possible? Through, for example, factoring the TEEB report into economic decisions and thus producing a free market in which enviromental costs play a role?
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13661210
The "right" doesn't ignore environmentalism; libertarian-"conservatives", simply a varient of liberalism, ignores environmentalism based on it's dogma of ruthless capitalism. When you discuss environmentalism with the few true rightists on this board, such as Dave, Rei, or myself, or strict third positions, you'll notice a very different attitude. I can't say I'm the most environmentally concious, but I promote conservationist policies and green-tech/agro-autarky in contrast to your picture.

Emiel, my response to you would be that "green" is a position inherent to the Authoritarian Right, whereas the rhetoric of the right has been adopted and watered down by laissez-faire liberals, leading to the common misconception of what defines the right.

Since the 1960s the West has become blinded by 3 h[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]