Sustainability vs standard of living ... ?

[Bernie Gunther]

While I take on board much of what you say about devolving power structures I would take issue with the proposal that:

"So I think there is no choice if we want to have decent lives to replace that safety net locally."

While it may sound progressive to devolve welfare it is extremely reactionary and it is in step with the developing New Labour thinking when Frank Field and co started talking up communitarianism in the 1990s. While production/consumption can surely be devolved welfare is not production.

The local safety net is also in tune with what Thatcher would have termed Victorian values.

Welfare after all should not be just about safety net but also have a redistributive character. In working class areas local responses to welfare issues would be a case of the redistribution of poverty and not of wealth on the other hand a national progressive income tax or tax on profits to fund would be far more redistributive, more so than NI contribution.<snip>

OK, I see what you're getting at. What I meant by "local safety net" isn't the welfare state though. I'm talking about the concrete necessities of sustainability, which inherently have the capability of providing the material necessities of a decent life, assuming they're shared equitably. What I am arguing is that there is just no way to do many of these things through a centralised, still less a globalised system, not least because of the increased energy costs of doing things that way. If the greater part of your food isn't grown within a few miles of where you live, and the nutrients recycled locally, you probably haven't got sustainability in any meaningful sense. There are also the sense - response lag issues that I referred to earlier in any state solution, which tend to make it very lousy for dealing with complex systems.

What I may be doing is conflating the ecological argument with the social one, but maybe I'm pointing out a powerful synergy. I'm not sure myself yet.

Centralising of economic activity does not necessarily have to mean that products have to go hundreds of miles just to come back again.

The model you have cited in Cuba is as an illustration is one that drives home the point I'm sort of getting at.

Yes but, here the central component was the government turning over land to public use, providing basic tools and seeds, running an information programme to publicise the relevant initiatives and tasking universities with providing scientific support.

Pretty much all the actual work, was done on a local level. I would argue that if the right local and regional political structures were brought into being, the same could be done without any reference to central government, at least in principle. The resource flows have to be predominantly local or it just isn't sustainable. The information flows (in which I include money flows where this remains relevant) can and in some cases must, be national or global however.

The redistributive questions you're asking and the implied transitional stuff about the welfare state are harder ones. I need to think a bit more about them and come back to you later probably. I'm off to do eco-hippy stuff for a few hours, but I'll be back around later on.

PS When it comes to "Victorian Values" though, Kropotkin and William Morris were offering some pretty decent ones in my opinion. That's probably not what Thatcher (or indeed Frank Field) had in mind however ...

 

[catch]

Herman, I think you're confusing local control with parochialism. To use centralised communication networks (I was going to say set up, but they already exist), to co-ordinate local production and distribution, you must first have control over that local production and distribution. To gain that control it's necessary for people to act where they can actually affect things directly - which is in their own communities and workplaces. This local action can then be co-ordinated at wider levels.

 

[herman]

Herman, I think you're confusing local control with parochialism. To use centralised communication networks (I was going to say set up, but they already exist), to co-ordinate local production and distribution, you must first have control over that local production and distribution. To gain that control it's necessary for people to act where they can actually affect things directly - which is in their own communities and workplaces. This local action can then be co-ordinated at wider levels.

Maybe I was conflating the two to an extent- but local control could conceivably lead to parochialism. Not inevitable, but not inconceivable either.

"To gain that control it's necessary for people to act where they can actually affect things directly - which is in their own communities and workplaces."

I am not disputing this, nor am I attempting to prescribe the method by which this is achieved (not at least in this thread) but am trying to explore alternatives to either the globalised market or out and out localism more seeking a synthesis between central planning and local reponses to local conditions as an alternative to the methods of transnational capitalism.

 

[herman]

What I may be doing is conflating the ecological argument with the social one, but maybe I'm pointing out a powerful synergy. I'm not sure myself yet.
Yes but, here the central component was the government turning over land to public use, providing basic tools and seeds, running an information programme to publicise the relevant initiatives and tasking universities with providing scientific support.

Pretty much all the actual work, was done on a local level. I would argue that if the right local and regional political structures were brought into being, the same could be done without any reference to central government, at least in principle. The resource flows have to be predominantly local or it just isn't sustainable. The information flows (in which I include money flows where this remains relevant) can and in some cases must, be national or global however.

For me this is a question of the complex and essential relationship between the local and the central, should the CP of Cuba decide to abdicate then the Miami mafia and their CIA paymasters would be quick enough to reverse this, to clear the land for brothels, casinos and other such whatnot.

The central is a question of political power where the local is the where practicalities of sustained living surely reside. The two need not act in opposition to one another but can conceivably be complimnentary. In current practical terms we maybe thinking of land reform etc in Venezuela or the turning over of land to local useage in Cuba without political power these initiatives would have been stillborn.

 

[catch]

For me this is a question of the complex and essential relationship between the local and the central, should the CP of Cuba decide to abdicate then the Miami mafia and their CIA paymasters would be quick enough to reverse this, to clear the land for brothels, casinos and other such whatnot.

To avoid that happening, what's really needed is a fundamental change in the balance of power in the US. You won't see intelligence and military intervention overseas if power is located in communities at home.

 

[herman]

To avoid that happening, what's really needed is a fundamental change in the balance of power in the US. You won't see intelligence and military intervention overseas if power is located in communities at home.

You're sort of defeating your own argument with this statement. If I am reading you right firsty of all you are saying a power shift comes from below - starting at community level but if this is under threat then the threat will have to change, not the strategy of those building the grassroots movement. If I am getting your vibe correct you are suggesting that the ideas you have are unworkable in much of the world until the people of the US are ready to grasp the nettle and there is a change there.

While I a respect your views surely you can see that there is a contradiction here that is hard to reconcile. The Addressing of poverty, homelessness, inequality and starvation cannot wait for another American revolution.

There is no doubt that the US is one of the greatest threats to world peace and it may well be that the US again turns its attention to Central and South America as this has been largely overlooked in recent years in foreign policy instead concentrating on the Middle East and Central Asia. However like oil, the US millitary is a finite resource. But judging by recent US approach to "its own "back yard" its policy seems to consist of waging war by proxy via "rebels" and a few graduates of the School of Americas torture college. This is what opposition to US neo liberalism faces.

In the 80s as today even shifts towards social democracy was viewed as a Marxist threat with even liberation theoly priests being seen as some major threat to the American way of life. While I am aware that there is a difference between office and power as the likes of Allende and more recently Aristide learned to their cost Cuba has endured. I would argued that this is because of the duel nature of local and national influence of the socialist revolution.

The US would not just be required to defeat Cuba millitarily but also fight a door to door war right across the island as millions would be prepared to defend the revolution. The US knows this and has been forced to engage in a policy that despite the colapse of the the USSR, a blockade and attempts to alienate Cuba their policy has met with almost no success.

Even as we speak the US is ratcheting up the language regarding Nicaragua where Sandanistas with the support of their liberal party opponents are accused of mounting a coup by using the legal and political channels available to it to affect a power shift. This is the fucked up world we live in.

Change if required from within has to be despite the US and not at the behest of some future localised US that promises not to attack.

If Cuba is able as one of the worlds poorer nations is able to guarantee world class services and at the same time resist attack from its more powerful neighbour then surely this is a model worthy of further study.

But I believe we are digressing.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm not really arguing for out and out localism. I think I'm arguing something more along the lines that: in a situation where the state, with its monopoly of coercive force, is run for the benefit of corporations rather than citizens; you need to find a basis for legitimacy from which to do things like redistributing resources. Especially, for diverting resources and labour out of the global market and into some sort of public sphere where they can at least in principle be used sustainably and equitably.

As the local and regional sphere is where most of the action required to bring about sustainability has to take place, the local and regional seems to me to be the most likely sphere for building the necessary legitimacy to oppose the corporate state with its monopoly of violence, in the cause of social justice and sustainability.

Even with that legitimacy, there's a significant risk that the state will simply declare that anyone trying to do this stuff is a criminal. Without it, you've got no chance at all, and the future looks like a few elites protected from the desperate masses by tanks, gunships and death squads.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Maybe another way to say it is this.

There is an imminent ecological and resource crisis mandating sustainability.

One important consequence of this is likely to be extensive class recomposition (if I'm misusing the terminology here, please put me right) In particular, a drastic contraction of the middle-class and a situation in which the only people insulated from the damage are the very elite of the elites. A situation in which hundreds of millions die nastily or are refugees, and most probably demonised, like those poor fuckers from New Orleans, worldwide.

Grow-or-die capitalism fundamentally opposes sustainability (M-C-M' etc)

The most quantitatively plausible models for sustainability involve putting the means of production for at least the basic necessities of life (new forms of fairly labour intensive organic agriculture, resource recycling, various kinds of light industry etc) under the control of local communities. That again implies a conflict with capital, because it removes any absolute necessity to work for a wage in order to have a decent quality of life and it almost certainly implies some form of resouce expropriation, particularly extensive land reform.

(In some ways these models, see e.g. this one, look to me like updated versions of Kropotkin's Fields, Factories and Workshops)

How is working-class (in the widest sense) power to be generated, in order to drive the absolutely necessary transition towards sustainability, against flat opposition, repression, lies and bullshit generated by capital, and the repressive functions of the state and the global economic order, which are only responsive to capital?

Sustainability or fucking barbarism, starvation, disease, displacement and demonisation, while the elite of the elites hide in gated compounds and use propaganda, repressive legislation and ultimately gunships and death squads to protect themselves. We've got some very shitty choices coming up and right now all I can see from the left is a bunch of playground party vs party shit. And while the Greens do represent a new political force, they're too fixated for my liking on modes of power that are entirely controlled by capital.

 

[totaladdict]

...new forms of fairly labour intensive organic agriculture ... under the control of local communities.

do you know of any specific examples of attempts to pilot (wanky word, but you know what i mean) this in the UK?

(pm if you don't want to put specific details in public.)

Edit: have you seen these people: http://www.tlio.org.uk/ - and what do you think of this as an plan: http://www.tlio.org.uk/ripple.html ?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, Findhorn would be an obvious pilot scheme. Lots of hippy mysticism involved, but their veg-growing prowess is remarkable given their location.

 

[totaladdict]

....i'm thinking more for an existing community that starts producing it's own food, rather than one specifically created to be sustainable....

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Oh, OK. Hmm. I can think of partial experiements. E.g. a school near here that grows all its own fruit and veg. Offhand the only community example I can bring to mind is Cuba, but maybe there are some I don't know about yet.

 

[totaladdict]

i know that round here the pressure is really on allotments - most are within existing settlement boundaries, so are potentially building land. parish councils have a legal duty to provide them (or to try to provide them - what this means in reality i don't know), but they're under threat.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I thought the TILO thing looks quite interesting. More when I've read it all.

 

[totaladdict]

i tried to get a job with these people last year but they only had funding for 1 post: http://www.eafl.org.uk/

looking at the site, it seems like they're getting more organised all the time. there are lots of projects, see this in particular: http://www.eafl.org.uk/default.asp?topic=ByTheme&topic=Schools

 

[herman]

Maybe another way to say it is this.

There is an imminent ecological and resource crisis mandating sustainability.

One important consequence of this is likely to be extensive class recomposition (if I'm misusing the terminology here, please put me right) In particular, a drastic contraction of the middle-class and a situation in which the only people insulated from the damage are the very elite of the elites. A situation in which hundreds of millions die nastily or are refugees, and most probably demonised, like those poor fuckers from New Orleans, worldwide.

Grow-or-die capitalism fundamentally opposes sustainability (M-C-M' etc)

Agreed.

The most quantitatively plausible models for sustainability involve putting the means of production for at least the basic necessities of life (new forms of fairly labour intensive organic agriculture, resource recycling, various kinds of light industry etc) under the control of local communities. That again implies a conflict with capital, because it removes any absolute necessity to work for a wage in order to have a decent quality of life and it almost certainly implies some form of resouce expropriation, particularly extensive land reform.

Agreed up to a poiny - certainly land reform and recycling- and a reverse of the trend towards monoculture as practiced by large agribusiness,

(In some ways these models, see e.g. this one, look to me like updated versions of Kropotkin's Fields, Factories and Workshops)

How is working-class (in the widest sense) power to be generated, in order to drive the absolutely necessary transition towards sustainability, against flat opposition, repression, lies and bullshit generated by capital, and the repressive functions of the state and the global economic order, which are only responsive to capital?

Ultimately this is the flaw of bottom up approach to the question that discounts the notion of state power. Land reform has successfuly superceded a shift in political power- not necessarily following revolution but even under left reformist government.

Sustainability or fucking barbarism, starvation, disease, displacement and demonisation, while the elite of the elites hide in gated compounds and use propaganda, repressive legislation and ultimately gunships and death squads to protect themselves.

This for me perfectly summarised the sharp end of neoliberalism.

We've got some very shitty choices coming up and right now all I can see from the left is a bunch of playground party vs party shit. And while the Greens do represent a new political force, they're too fixated for my liking on modes of power that are entirely controlled by capital.

Party v party is pretty counterproductive and on the whole pretty sectarian.

While I may not share the class analysis of some greens, particularly those who frankly border on fascism I have noticed how the Green movement in general has sharpened its political analysis- so much so that it is probably fair to describe the environmental movement as another strand of left thought. The greens have been successful in influencing an agenda and have brought ideas to the table that historically the left on the whole may have paid far too little regard to.

I understand why the greens approach the question of democracy in the way they do- it dovetails with the whole approach to sustainability that you outline. But while greens have correctly identified transnational corporations as the major threat (thus I asume leading to the emphasis on the local as an antidote) this sort of overlooks the role of the state as an agent of these multinationals. The danger of course for groups such as the Green Party is if they take too left a line on these questions then the whole coalition is likely to split into radical and liberal factions. The bottom up approach will meet the resistence of the state at some stage and it is a challenge that will sooner or later have to be met head on- ie the taking of political power (as opposed to office which is merely of course undertaking the role of administrator of the capitalist state).

But here I am not attempting to suggest that nothing should be done except sit on our hands and wait for revolution. Local initiatives are to be welcomed and supportive, co-operatives, lets schemes and other local initiative deserve the attenion and support of the left.

But it must be noted that these local initiatives are not to any major degree challenging capital or the capitalist state and accomodation within the capitalist state is unlikely to sustain should any initiative look like challenging the existing order.

Thus for me it is ultimately about taking political control from the capitalist class- state control. Only then can the state be transformed into agent that encourages and enables local and regional initiatives of the kind you suggest, for without taking state power from the multinationals and their lackeys the state will act as the biggest obstacle.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The most quantitatively plausible models for sustainability involve putting the means of production for at least the basic necessities of life (new forms of fairly labour intensive organic agriculture, resource recycling, various kinds of light industry etc) under the control of local communities. That again implies a conflict with capital, because it removes any absolute necessity to work for a wage in order to have a decent quality of life and it almost certainly implies some form of resouce expropriation, particularly extensive land reform.

Agreed up to a point - certainly land reform and recycling- and a reverse of the trend towards monoculture as practiced by large agribusiness

When you say "up to a point" I wonder if you're catching my drift here. What I'm trying to say is that the patterns that I'm claiming are optimal and suggesting are mandatory for sustainability are a direct challenge to the imposition of the commodity-form. (Again, if I'm mangling the terminology, please put me right. I'm still trying to get to grips with it properly.)

I don't think this is a peripheral point. If I understand Marx at all, then this is a rather fundamental point. The sustainability patterns that I'm advocating above directly challenge the power of capital to impose itself at the most fundamental level, the commodity-form of class-relations. It's not challenging the extent to which this form can be imposed, or at what price, as seems to have historically been the case with workers' struggles (e.g. by struggling for a shorter working day or for better pay and conditions)

It's arguing in effect that, "you just can't remain within the commodity-form and achieve sustainability at all" because unless you can break out of the commodity-form, you accept all the rest of capital, with its inherently suicidal growth characteristics. Now you could argue that the positive feedback loop described as (M-C-M') might be moderated by negative loops of some kind, but in this case I think that means removing labour and resources from the commodity-form and inventing new forms, and in effect "starving the beast."

Achieving sustainability is in the longer term non-optional for pretty much everybody, including almost all of what for the moment remains the middle-cass, and excepting only the very elite of elites. So this has moral force, which as the right has shown us in recent decades, is very very powerful.

Where an analysis based on sustainability seems to widely diverge from what I understand to be a classical marxist analysis however is in relation to the way continuously rising productivity is expected to lead to a crisis. In a sustainabilty-based analysis, it's clear that the trend towards ever-rising productivity arises primarily from the use of fossil fuel energy and that due to climate change and/or peak oil, this tendency is not viable. Which is why I started out earlier in the thread by asking whether there was anything in the marxist tradition which takes account of this kind of thing.

 

[catch]

..whilst trying not to derail too much:

For me this is a question of the complex and essential relationship between the local and the central, should the CP of Cuba decide to abdicate then the Miami mafia and their CIA paymasters would be quick enough to reverse this, to clear the land for brothels, casinos and other such whatnot.

As you pointed out yourself later on, it's not the CP in Cuba that keeps out the US, it's the potential for door-to-door fighting with its inhabitants. Communities which have a modicum of self-sufficiency - at least minimal staple foods and energy, will be much harder for centralised states to attack - from inside or out, than our current setup - unless you go down the immiserationist route of famine leading to revolution which I'd hope none of us do.

Change if required from within has to be despite the US and not at the behest of some future localised US that promises not to attack.

I think we're likely to see a bit of that change in the US, though not very much of it, in the wake of Katrina - as many people realise that sustainability and class issues are both going to affect them and are inter-related. I think any long-term successful movement towards sustainability, and any successsful social revolution, will have to be international and internationalist. That doesn't mean I think it's possible to "act globally".

If climate change becomes much more of an issue before non-renewables run out, then both China and the US are going to be fighting for larger and larger proportions of available fossil fuels - even if the actual quantities are lower.

Bernie's right that low-energy use, localised models of food production are incompatible with the commodity form - unless sold as an experience on a limited scale - whether eco-villages or farmers' markets. Capital's expansion is leading to less and less rational methods of food distribution (European salads making the round trip to West Africa to be cut is an easy example), so a direct challenge to this is incompatible with it - the same with trying to build durable goods that don't require replacement every five minutes etc. etc.

Did you take a look at the Bookchin article Bernie linked to - if I was going to link to a proposal to deal with these issues politically then that'd be what I'd link to.

Here's another one: http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031118091103777

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Carrying on with the bit above about where a sustainability analysis diverges, I've just read Ch 15 of Capital vol 1 with this discussion firmly in mind, and while the analysis of the way in which the domination of powered machinery develops as a response by capital to workers struggles is clear (one of the mill owners Marx quotes even describes it as "outflanking" in a kind of military analogy) it's not at all clear that he envisaged a situation where the means of generation of that power would reach the kinds of limits implied by climate change and/or peak oil.

What is clear there though is that it's not just a matter of increased efficiency of the production of useful goods. It's a matter of capital manouvering around worker resistance to the imposition of work. Which I think is probably why it leads to the sort of deranged uses of fossil fuel energy that catch alludes to above with his example about globalised salad chopping.

Sustainable energy is much more limited than fossil energy, and while I've crunched numbers that suggest to me that sustainability is still do-able, I don't think that we can afford to tolerate such deranged uses of energy.

 

[herman]

When you say "up to a point"

Oh yes that, I took on all your fundamental points but felt the reference to
various kinds of "light industry etc" seemed a little too restricting.

 

[herman]

Did you take a look at the Bookchin article Bernie linked to - if I was going to link to a proposal to deal with these issues politically then that'd be what I'd link to.

Here's another one: http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031118091103777

I will read through linked articles as and when I have time. I am a night worker and unfortunately get a little time on the computer between bed and work, but will look at articles as and when I get the chance. Since I suspect that this thread may run a while I will post my thoughts on articles when I get time to read, digest and compose my thoughts on said articles.

On second thoughts, looking at size of article, I best pop over the library and see if I can order copy of book.

 

[herman]

Bernie's right that low-energy use, localised models of food production are incompatible with the commodity form - unless sold as an experience on a limited scale - whether eco-villages or farmers' markets. Capital's expansion is leading to less and less rational methods of food distribution (European salads making the round trip to West Africa to be cut is an easy example), so a direct challenge to this is incompatible with it - the same with trying to build durable goods that don't require replacement every five minutes etc. etc.

If that is your position then you, I and Bernie are in agreement on this.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> But it must be noted that these local initiatives are not to any major degree challenging capital or the capitalist state <snip>

Thus for me it is ultimately about taking political control from the capitalist class- state control. Only then can the state be transformed into agent that encourages and enables local and regional initiatives of the kind you suggest, for without taking state power from the multinationals and their lackeys the state will act as the biggest obstacle.

Well, I hope I've now shown why I disagree strongly with the first paragraph I've quoted.

With regard to the stuff about the state in the second para I've quoted, I think you need an effective power base from which to oppose the corporate state. I don't think parliamentary parties can do this, (again I refer back to gurrier's post for the reasons), I don't advocate violent revolution, so that leaves me looking for another approach. That approach needs to attract support in large numbers, needs a moral basis for winning that support and needs political strategies that can build up that power base and confer legitimacy on it. That's where the green movement (you'll note I didn't say "party") has significant advantages. It does have at least the sympathic ear of very large numbers of ordinary people who would run a mile from traditional socialism as well as many who would also advocate socialism. It does have moral authority. What greater moral authority could one claim than a struggle for the future of our planet and of our descendants against obvious forces of destruction? As to how you build that power base, the sort of stuff Bookchin is advocating is the most plausible thing I've seen yet. But I'm always open to new ideas ...

One thing I've learned though, is that monolithic approaches don't work very well for dealing with complex problems. There are many ways to argue this but one of the most compelling is probably a famous old hacker text called The Cathedral and the Bazaar which advocates some principles that I think can probably be adapted from software engineering to sustainability. I'll paraphrase them as follows:

1) Try out solutions to the problem as early and often as possible. Don't wait for the perfect plan or the perfect opportunity. Keep refining until it works.

2) The more people who are trying to solve any problem, the more likely it is that one of them will figure it out. Then everybody else can learn from them.

3) The more people who look for weaknesses in each approach, the more the approach is improved, its weaknesses identified and its strengths reinforced.

4) If something someone else has tried seems to be a good approach to one class of problems, try it out and see if it's good for any analogous problems that you're trying to solve.

There are a lot of advantages in a decentralised approach like that if you've got enough people involved in doing it. It certainly makes more sense to me than "waiting for the revolution".

 

[herman]

With regard to the stuff about the state in the second para I've quoted, I think you need an effective power base from which to oppose the corporate state.

Agreed. However I do believe that parliament should be discouted altogether- Venezuela is attempting the democratic approach while building a llocal movement (Bolivarian Circles).

That approach needs to attract support in large numbers, needs a moral basis for winning that support and needs political strategies that can build up that power base and confer legitimacy on it. That's where the green movement (you'll note I didn't say "party") has significant advantages. It does have at least the sympathic ear of very large numbers of ordinary people who would run a mile from traditional socialism as well as many who would also advocate socialism.

It does indeed.

It does have moral authority. What greater moral authority could one claim than a struggle for the future of our planet and of our descendants against obvious forces of destruction? As to how you build that power base, the sort of stuff Bookchin is advocating is the most plausible thing I've seen yet. But I'm always open to new ideas ...

Building political movements surely depend on the circumstances under which they are being built taking into account local conditions etc, while for example iit is easy to dismiss violent revolution or parliament, or whatever, in differing conditions different approaches are necessary.

There are a lot of advantages in a decentralised approach like that if you've got enough people involved in doing it. It certainly makes more sense to me than "waiting for the revolution".

While I have sympathy with this it sort of comes back to the same problem- if you get enough people involved in doing it then this approach WILL challenge the state head on as it will represent a challenge to the very interests the state represent. From the diggers to enclosures, from tolpuddle to tonypandy suggest that the state is not to hot on embracing ideas that get in the way of capitalist interests. Then again where ideas do not necessarily threaten corporate interest dissent maybe co opted, managed and dissapated.

Its not that I do not have sympathy with your position it is just that I have less faith in the benign nature of the state.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> Its not that I do not have sympathy with your position it is just that I have less faith in the benign nature of the state.

Trust me on this. I have very little faith in the benign nature of the state either. That's at least part of why I don't trust state solutions of any persuasion. What I'm suggesting though, is that rather than trying to create a counter-state, or a state in waiting, as the various hierachical traditional left parties try to do, it may make more sense to adopt a highly adaptive decentralised approach, built around a few core principles of the sort we've been thrashing out on this very thread. That way, and given enough participants, I think it's likely that such initiatives on a wide enough scale, will be able to evolve effective solutions and responses to repression, faster than any monolithic state can figure out how to deal with them.

This relies of course on large numbers of people being sufficiently motivated to try to solve these kinds problems autonomously, it requires communication so you can quickly figure out what some other group did that worked and to embarrass the state into limiting its use of terror tactics, I would also argue that it requires a firm foundation in legitimacy, grounded in the community otherwise the state can treat such groups as criminals and isolate them.

I think this requires what you're doing to be based on strong moral principles seen as self-evident by the greater number of people. Moral force is vital to confer the necessary legitimacy to build a sustainable, just way of life and to resist state repression aimed at stopping anyone from building such a life. It's absolutely vital that the greater mass of people see any such movement as moral and the state as immoral in trying to prevent it from making progress.

This is why I keep coming back to decentralised solutions enacted by human-scale groups, rather than trying to create a better kind of monolithic state. It's also why I tend to reject any solution that proposes to initiate violence.

 

[herman]

Trust me on this. I have very little faith in the benign nature of the state either. That's at least part of why I don't trust state solutions of any persuasion. What I'm suggesting though, is that rather than trying to create a counter-state, or a state in waiting, as the various hierachical traditional left parties try to do, it may make more sense to adopt a highly adaptive decentralised approach, built around a few core principles of the sort we've been thrashing out on this very thread. That way, and given enough participants, I think it's likely that such initiatives on a wide enough scale, will be able to evolve effective solutions and responses to repression, faster than any monolithic state can figure out how to deal with them.

This relies of course on large numbers of people being sufficiently motivated to try to solve these kinds problems autonomously, it requires communication so you can quickly figure out what some other group did that worked and to embarrass the state into limiting its use of terror tactics, I would also argue that it requires a firm foundation in legitimacy, grounded in the community otherwise the state can treat such groups as criminals and isolate them.

I think this requires what you're doing to be based on strong moral principles seen as self-evident by the greater number of people. Moral force is vital to confer the necessary legitimacy to build a sustainable, just way of life and to resist state repression aimed at stopping anyone from building such a life. It's absolutely vital that the greater mass of people see any such movement as moral and the state as immoral in trying to prevent it from making progress.

This is why I keep coming back to decentralised solutions enacted by human-scale groups, rather than trying to create a better kind of monolithic state. It's also why I tend to reject any solution that proposes to initiate violence.

You make some profound philosophical points there Bernie (and Philosophy has never been one of my stronger points). I think it is important that when talking about the state we be clear that it is the capitalist state in particular that we are referring to in the case in Britain. I am not saying that a socialist state would necessarily approach the issues raised in this thread in a better way than the capitalist state but would certainly approach the issues differently- given that the priorities would for a start not be the profit motive.

I also will have to ponder a while longer on your use of the moral argument. But my inclination is to see the state as amoral (I always found it amusing when I read fans of Ayn Rand when they discuss the state in terms of morality) and the need for change to be based on necessity rather than an especially moral quest.

In terms of human scale groups I can see how this can work within socialism- again referring to your citing of Cuban solutions during the special period. Power should be devolved to the most suitable level to deal with any pactical or political question. Different questions of course being answered by different degrees of devolution- it would not make sense for example for social services to be run on a national basis when their work is local.

To answer questions such as sustainable agriculture maybe the best level of devolution is the community or co operative, but I always come back to the notion of the plan so that people can get some idea of what is to be achieved, after all geography dictates that some areas are suited to producing some things in abundance while others are best suited to produce different things abundantly.

For the left it is important to come to grips with questions of devolution and it cannot be said at present that the left as a whole is necessarily singing from the same hymn sheet on this. Devolution of course is a political tool to achieve decentralisation.


One statement you made really leaps off the page at me:

"embarrass the state into limiting its use of terror tactics"

Too many examples to list to illustrate how this maybe a little bit of wishful thinking. Responses to the state need to go way beyond embarrassment, when it comes to profits and their quest for profit (they may argue is the moral right, thus my concern over morality to answer these questions) the state does not, has not and will not feel any shame.

Notice I have not in any post questioned nor criticised your vision, you have clearly enough stated the case of the necessity of a change of approach but where it comes to realisation of these goals some of what you propose is problematic, particularly as a political question.

There is little stopping communities now adopting such an approach but if piloted attempts appear on the radar and the ideas take root then the response from the state will not be pleasant, embarrassed or not. Its not so much on the questions of sustainability per se that will raise their ire but the removing of the profit motive from the loop.

As progressive for example as the vision of the pioneers were regarding co-ops the capitalist state can comfortably acomodate these- after all the co op shops are delivering goods made by multinationals in vans and lorries built by multinationals and using diesel sold to them by multinationals, they are not a problem for capitalism.

Movements that challenge the existing order, where they find themselves in a position to genuinely rattle the status quo find themselves illegal and operating in a clandestine way. This may well be necessary. If you are building a movement based on organisation and ideas then this is possible, if you are building a bottom up approach that is visible from space then it is unlikely to succeed.

That said, the green movement is making gains in winning a battle for ideas with the left coming to terms with these ideas, the centre paying lip service to these ideas and the right denying there is a problem at all.

For me the Marxist left deals with these ideas and the green movement not out of opportunism but as materialists. It is the scientific argument that will win the left over to ideas of sustainability and not the question of morality. If the scientific argument wins out, anyone who claims to be Marxist fails to take them on board, is not really getting to grips with dialectical materialism at all.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm off away for a few days. Just wanted to say thanks for getting engaged here Herman. Couple of quick points in response. I came to all this stuff via the science. I'd been completely apolitical for decades until I started thinking some of this stuff through. The reason I mention moral force though, is that I know far more people think in those terms than think scientifically and I've seen how powerful the moral dimension can be in the hands of the right. It's a natural for this sort of movement anyway. If your movement and not the corporate state kept the local old folks from freezing and starving last winter, then it's hard to argue that the corporate state is moral and that you aren't.

That brings me to the "embarass" point I made above, which you're quite right to challenge. I think that stuff does work to some extent, but only in particular circumstances (e.g. Walter Wolfgang being a survivor of Nazi Germany and a decent, frail, old geezer.) I don't suggest relying on it beyond the circumstances where it's relevant. I probably should have left that point out because it obscures what I was saying about communication just there.

 

[herman]

I'm off away for a few days. Just wanted to say thanks for getting engaged here Herman. Couple of quick points in response. I came to all this stuff via the science. I'd been completely apolitical for decades until I started thinking some of this stuff through. The reason I mention moral force though, is that I know far more people think in those terms than think scientifically and I've seen how powerful the moral dimension can be in the hands of the right. It's a natural for this sort of movement anyway. If your movement and not the corporate state kept the local old folks from freezing and starving last winter, then it's hard to argue that the corporate state is moral and that you aren't.

That brings me to the "embarass" point I made above, which you're quite right to challenge. I think that stuff does work to some extent, but only in particular circumstances (e.g. Walter Wolfgang being a survivor of Nazi Germany and a decent, frail, old geezer.) I don't suggest relying on it beyond the circumstances where it's relevant. I probably should have left that point out because it obscures what I was saying about communication just there.

Didn't mean to sound as though I was nitpicking over your terminology, particularly regarding morality- we all live by our ethics- some maybe peculiar to ourselves but more often than not shared. But if you have you feel it is necessary to address a case, the moral arguments come accross often as "wouldn't it be nice if we.." rather than "we must... or we're going to cop it".

There is a moral dimension to many questions- stop the war coalition for example may say that the occupation of Iraq is immoral and illegal (which I believe they are correct in stating). However the government can answer the morality question easy enough with a counter morality such as "..ah but, even if we disagreed with the war, is it moral to leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves now?". On the other hand the legality of the war is an issue that they could find themselves on shakey ground and a bit harder to defend. While what is legal or not also leaves room for interpretation the case of legality is one that will fuck them up. They can't answer the case so they retreat to morality.

I only picked up on this aspect because you have made a strong argument for the need for at least policy change and even suggested where this possible how this could be enacted. As a socialist I have looked at this from a slightly different angle to consider where what you propose could possibly fit within the framework of a socialist social/political/economic model but given the finite resources available and increased consumption your arguments on this front have been heard here in herman towers.

While I would dismiss "peak oil is immenent" with the Biblical "end of the world is nigh" I do not believe you are arguing that it is immediate, but given that the resource is finite and useage increases then this point will be reached at some stage, possibly before or after Lembit Opiks asteroid strike as he sees this as immenent. Incidentally whether oil useage increases, decreases or remains the same a point of peak oil will be reached at some stage- responses determine timescale.

I will not make light of this (and did not intend to with my comments above) but suggesting timeframes etc no matter how well researched and hypothesised if they turn out to be incorrect then there is the possibility that the whole argument gets treated with public skepticism, where it doesn't warrant such treatment. If the world ends at the millenium brigade pop up again and say that they calculated their dates wrong even those who got sucked into that nonsense a few years back would say "pull the other one".

Global warming models and projections are probably more reliable, with satellite technology mapping the change, but with peak oil I'd err on the side of caution- the theory is sound, but it is a point that could be reached far sooner or later than anyone could theorise, we don't after all know how much oil there is, nor what the pace of economic growth will be, we know there is a lot of the stuff, but its finite.

So to conclude - you ve managed to convince me of the case that there will be a point (peak oil) and though you stray a little too close to Malthus for my liking on the subject of agriculture I accept that should there be crisis in oil then agriculture with its oil inputs, would be severely hit with catastrophic consequences. On that cheerful note- I'll go to bed, working nights.

Maybe we should consider some of the standard of living side of the question...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Very quick note here. I'm just about to zoom off to catch the train. Re malthusian arguments. I've been puzzled about this for a while. This is the issue that led me to the conclusion that you can't approach these problems without a class analysis if you're going to avoid falling into the stinking pile of authoritarian misanthropic crap that many "Deep Ecologists" are prone to.

This arithmetic mentality which disregards the social context of demographics is incredibly short-sighted. Once we accept without any reflection or criticism that we live in a "grow-or-die" capitalistic society in which accumulation is literally a law of economic survival and competition is the motor of "progress," anything we have to say about population is basically meaningless. <snip>

But the most sinister feature about neo-Malthusianism is the extent to which it actively deflects us from dealing with the social origins of our ecological problems -- indeed, the extent to which it places the blame for them on the victims of hunger rather than those who victimize them. Presumably, if there is a "population problem" and famine in Africa, it is the ordinary people who are to blame for having too many children or insisting on living too long-- an argument advanced by Malthus nearly two centuries ago with respect to England's poor. The viewpoint not only justifies privilege; it fosters brutalization and de grades the neo-Malthusians even more than it degrades the victims of privilege.

source

 

[catch]

...Power should be devolved to the most suitable level to deal with any pactical or political question. Different questions of course being answered by different degrees of devolution- it would not make sense for example for social services to be run on a national basis when their work is local.
....

For the left it is important to come to grips with questions of devolution and it cannot be said at present that the left as a whole is necessarily singing from the same hymn sheet on this. Devolution of course is a political tool to achieve decentralisation.

For me it's not about devolution, it's about acting at the local level directly to take power directly - because that's the only level it can really be done. Even if millions of people take over their neighbourhoods it's still acting at the local level. Devolution, to me at least, suggests the national state voluntarily giving up power to regional or local representative units (national assemblies, regional assemblies, borough councils etc.) Although mass action at the local level might result in devolution as an attempt to co-opt the majority of those involved back into the mainstream political system - like all reforms - that doesn't make the action reformist necessarily, although of course the danger is there. If centralisation is needed to co-ordinate between different "human size" groups, then why not federation or congresses?

One statement you made really leaps off the page at me:

"embarrass the state into limiting its use of terror tactics"
...

There is little stopping communities now adopting such an approach but if piloted attempts appear on the radar and the ideas take root then the response from the state will not be pleasant, embarrassed or not. Its not so much on the questions of sustainability per se that will raise their ire but the removing of the profit motive from the loop.
....
Movements that challenge the existing order, where they find themselves in a position to genuinely rattle the status quo find themselves illegal and operating in a clandestine way. This may well be necessary. If you are building a movement based on organisation and ideas then this is possible, if you are building a bottom up approach that is visible from space then it is unlikely to succeed.

This was directed at Bernie, but since he's away for a week.

I disagree entirely with this. For communism and sustainability to have any chance, it needs to be seen as a tendency in the working class to be developed, rather than a future society to be moved towards, or worse the preserve of a few intellectuals who need to deliver it to the rest of humanity. communists should be acting in their own communities and workplaces as members of those communities and workplaces - so that any movement towards real change is seen as a natural part of human activity - something necessary and practical. Clandestine groups are easy to marginalise, villify and repress. Revolutionaries working in the open , hopefully enabling their neighbours and co-workers to achieve real gains, will be both more effective and harder to take out than a few people working behind closed doors. This doesn't mean you have to run around saying "I'm the only communist in the village", it just means trying to apply revolutionary theory to everyday situations - emphasising self-organised and communist tendencies wherever possible. I think this is what Bernie means by legitimacy. If you can demonstrate these ideas have the potential for real material and/or ecological gains, then state repression isn't just going to be against a few "extremists" it's going to be against the majority of people you live and work with - hopefully by that point the majority of the population. That's a much more difficult and fundamental challenge to the state than a secret organisation.