SWP gone Green:, genuine or genuine disaster?

[Pilgrim]

Sorry to be a nuisance, but ... how is any of that meant to help with climate change? I'm really quite willing to be convinced, but it's not clear yet.

My point is that the Green movement, and as an active environmentalist I consider myself part of it) has nothing to gain from aligning itself with the SWP, but does, on the other hand, have everything to lose. Does anybody, aside from the opposition, want to see a weaker and less effective Green movement, unable to continue the progress it seems to have made in recent years? Personally, I don't want that to happen. What I want is a Green movement that continues the good work it has done up to now, starts breaking through into the mainstream at last and becomes influential enough to really make a difference. And I don't believe the Green movement will get that by allowing itself to be damaged by the antics of the SWP CC

The various environmental groups seem to be doing sterling work in their various ways, from conventional lobbying to direct action, and I'm happy to help in whatever way I can. And I still claim that climate change is a huge issue that effects everybody. There is no getting away from it, and everybody has their part to play.

Your earlier point about the SWP having an essentially early 20th Century approach is a good one. Marx wrote in a world that has, in many ways, all but ceased to exist. The world in which Marx lived IS NOT the world we live in today. Borders have changed, countries and even empires have risen and fallen since Marx's time. The Russian Revolution was Marxist-Leninism's big chance, and it failed spectacularly.

 

[Pilgrim]

lastly, if you want to waste your time of letting the SWP know they are not welcome instead of building an alternative, that's your choice comrade.

My point is that there is ALREADY a perfectly good Green movement in this country, that I and others are ALREADY building.

We don't need the Johnny-come-lately's of the SWP CC deciding, finally, to jump on their latest bandwagon and damage, possibly irreparably, a pre-existing and growing movement.

And I believe that is what the SWP CC would do, if it was in their interest to do so.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, you know. I think there is still a lot of useful insight to be had from Karl Marx. For the last couple of months I've been reading all kinds of stuff on primitive accumulation. It seems very relevant to food and energy security and hence to practical approaches to actually doing something about climate change and other environmental problems of deep concern to our future.

I just think all that stuff about an industrial proletariat seizing the means of production is a bit dated.

Kropotkin ages a whole lot better in that respect.

 

[bristol_citizen]

Is it just me here, or is there a big gap between the kind of actions being contemplated and any obvious relevance to addressing climate change?

We're not going to get an answer to this are we?

 

[Pilgrim]

Well, you know. I think there is still a lot of useful insight to be had from Karl Marx. For the last couple of months I've been reading all kinds of stuff on primitive accumulation. It seems very relevant to food and energy security.

I just think all that stuff about an industrial proletariat seizing the means of production is a bit dated. Kropotkin ages a whole lot better in that respect.

I'm not rubbishing everything Marx did. I'm just pointing out that he isn't some infallible sage who could do no wrong. Time has done to Marx, in some ways, what it does to most prophets.

I've still got a copy of 'Green Alternatives To Globalisation' around somewhere. It's been a while since I last looked through it, but I recall it's having (to me at least) rather more relevence to the world as it is today than Marx has, generally speaking. Although, to be fair, it would have, having been written much more recently.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

We're not going to get an answer to this are we?

I live in hope, but we may not. In fact, it's very hard to see how, with the best will in the world, an organisation like the SWP could of itself (as opposed to its members acting as humans) do anything constructive about these issues. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, It doesn't seem that they have any answers to the question that any green movement has to pose.

"How is any of this supposed to help?"

 

[Pilgrim]

We're not going to get an answer to this are we?

If memory serves, the OP was about the possiblity of the SWP eyeing up the Green movement, which is what has been under discussion so far.

I see the relevence of this thread to climate change thus:

There is a seemingly thriving Green movement in this country. That movement is making electoral gains and generally looking like some sort of breakthrough might just be on the cards, at least at some point in the near future.

The question for me is: Does the Green movement want to see itself damaged, maybe irreparably, by the time-honoured antics of the SWP CC?

My answer: No, it doesn't. There are many environmentalist groups, all of whom are dealing with climate change in a number of ways from lobbying to direct action. If the Green movement is to continue growing, and thus have some real influence on climate change and other issues, then it needs to keep the SWP CC and its antics firmly away from the Green movement generally.

If the Green movement allows itself to be hamstrung by the SWP CC, then its ability to act on environmental issues generally, including climate change, will have been adversely affected, for a long time if not permanently.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sure but, at least in my mind, the metric for deciding any of these issues is the effective impact of any action on mitigating climate change or improving food or energy security or whatever. That's really the SWP's big weakness, because they're running on these 100 year old scripts that as far as I can tell, have zero relevance to any of these issues.

I'd be quite interested to see one of them demonstrate I'm wrong however.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

....

If environmentally concerned people want an electoral vehicle, they have the Green Party.

...

In Lancaster, Oxford and Leeds, people elected Green Party councillors. And what did they get? In Lancaster and Oxford they put the LibDems in power on the Council, and in Leeds the Tories. Is that the way to take forward environmental concerns? If not, little surprise that some people will argue that that isn't an alternative.

 

[Pilgrim]

In Lancaster, Oxford and Leeds, people elected Green Party councillors. And what did they get? In Lancaster and Oxford they put the LibDems in power on the Council, and in Leeds the Tories. Is that the way to take forward environmental concerns? If not, little surprise that some people will argue that that isn't an alternative.

I didn't say that the Greens were without problems. If I thought they were the only decent solution I would have stayed in the Party. As it is, I didn't.

But on the subject of electing dodgy types, are UAF/SWP still advocating that people vote for ANYONE but the BNP? Hardly 'revolutionary', and no better or worse than voting for Greens and having the mainstream parties get in.

Anyway, Matt S will know far more about the electoral side of the Greens than I do. I'll leave it to him to explain things, as he knows more about the issue than I do.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...

But on the subject of electing dodgy types, are UAF/SWP still advocating that people vote for ANYONE but the BNP? Hardly 'revolutionary', and no better or worse than voting for Greens and having the mainstream parties get in.
...

I'm not in the SWP and don't advocate this position. I'd generally actively support voting Labour to keep the BNP out, as in most cases they are the main party being challenged. If it was a strong tory or lib dem seat, I'd still support voting Labour, or in certain circumstances if there was a 'good' Green or other credible left wing candidate, I'd support a vote for them. I would never endorse voting LibDem or Tory, even if they were the only parties standing against the BNP (which has never happened as far as I'm aware). I also think sooner or later Respect will have to bite the bullet and be prepared to stand candidates where the BNP are strong (eg Burnley), as Labour are pretty useless at fighting them, even if there is a risk of losing seats to the BNP.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...

Anyway, Matt S will know far more about the electoral side of the Greens than I do. I'll leave it to him to explain things, as he knows more about the issue than I do.

Matt will just say he doesn't agree with it personally, but supports the right of the Green Party locally to make coalition agreements with anyone (except maybe the BNP).

So this means you can't say a blanket vote for the Green Party is a vote to support environmental concerns,as you might have the misfortune to live in an area where the local Green Party are prepared to put the Tories in power.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I would be really very interested to see though, what programme of action the SWP proposes for dealing with climate change, food and energy security and so on.

Surely, if they're going to get involved in this area they must have one?

 

[Pilgrim]

Matt will just say he doesn't agree with it personally, but supports the right of the Green Party locally to make coalition agreements with anyone (except maybe the BNP).

So this means you can't say a blanket vote for the Green Party is a vote to support environmental concerns,as you might have the misfortune to live in an area where the local Green Party are prepared to put the Tories in power.

In Plymouth there's almost no difference between having a Tory or New Labour City Council.

Your point is a fair one, so if voters want a more left-wing choice that still has an environmental edge, then the Alliance for Green Socialism (if its still going) would probably be their natural home.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I would be really very interested to see though, what programme of action the SWP proposes for dealing with climate change, food and energy security and so on.

Surely, if they're going to get involved in this area they must have one?

So would I ... but as I've already pointed out elsewhere at least one current in Respect does have a detailed policy on this, formulated some years ago ...

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=178

Maybe the SWP could just crib this and adopt it wholesale?

 

[Pilgrim]

I would be really very interested to see though, what programme of action the SWP proposes for dealing with climate change, food and energy security and so on.

Surely, if they're going to get involved in this area they must have one?

I would have thought they'd have some basic ideas at least.

What's needed is concrete proposals, rather than vague, woolly and ultimately meaningless speechifying.

Workable ideas, not mere populist soundbites.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, I approve of most of the sentiments, but let us suppose for a moment you had something comparable to the big stop the war demos. You've got a couple of million people standing there saying "We'd really like to do something real about climate change, food and energy security etc"

How are those resolutions going to help them understand what actions would be most effective? If they can't do something meaningful, then it's going to be like the big stop the war marches. You march round a bit, wave a placard or two and go home, but nothing much has changed except you maybe feel a bit more cynical about marching and waving placards.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Please excuse me for quoting myself, but I want to illustrate what I mean by concrete and useful action.

Well, starting from what would actually be useful for doing something about climate change, I think you can see a number of valid objectives and work backwards to tactics. Demonstrations are useful for energising people, but then they have to do something useful with that energy beyond protesting.

1) New nuclear builds are likely to be rammed down our throats, with at least some support from the scientific community. It's therefore very important to articulate the scientific case for considering alternatives and build credibility around them by implementing them as widely as possible. It looks to me like an investment in putting local PV, solar thermal, CHP and decent insultation into our communities would be more effective than nuclear in cutting emissions. Mobilise some of that energy to achieve this, rather than waving placards. Actually get out there and build sustainable alternatives to whatever high-capital investment non-solutions the government is trying to shove down our throats. Show that it can be done. Get as many people involved as possible and build up their committment around their own community's successes in this area, no matter how small.

2) You can't break the fossil fuels - industrial agriculture - supermarket chain without putting alternatives in place. Organise community food cooperatives, campaign locally to get development land turned over to urban horticulture and local markets rather than the other way around. Get involved in local politics to counteract the power of the property developers and supermarket chains who you are inevitably going to come into conflict when trying to do this. Get all the families in your neighbourhood to understand that if they want healthy, safe, cheap food for their kids, this is a way for them to achieve it and to do something about climate change in the process.

3) Above all, find ways to make people who get involved feel empowered rather than powerless. The overwhelming result of mass marches by STWC was an increase in disempowerment and disillusionment. Let people see concrete results coming from their own work and they'll feel like their involvement counts for something, even if those results are small scale and local.

These are some preliminary suggestions, and maybe they're naive, but from my perspective, concrete action at local/municipal level is the only way to put in place the actual mechanisms necessary to be sustainable. I also think that sort of action leaves no place for SWP tactics to do damage. Let them wave their little placards, sell their papers and dominate their undemocratic steering committees, if concrete action is happening where it actually needs to happen, all that is pretty much going to be an irrelevance. If they really want to help, give them a shovel and a bucket of chicken poo.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Anyone in London might want to discuss these issues at the following meeting:

Socialist Resistance London Forum
Climate Change Crisis
Speaker: Phil Thornhill (Campaign against Climate Change)
Indian YMCA,41 Fitzroy Square, London, W1T 6AQ
Wednesday 7 December 7.30pm

www.socialistresistance.net

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Would it be cool though, instead of demanding that the government do something useful (fat chance), just to start autonomously doing something useful ourselves about climate change, food and energy security etc?

Much more meaningful than demos, and much more empowering for everybody.

 

[Barry Kade]

Mmmm,

1)I think Pilgrim imay be a little complacent here about the existing green movement. So just saying the Green Party is good electorally, Greenpeace are good at direct action,etc, its all fine as it is... this is not satisfactory.

The question is, what would make the movement better? One answer would be to connect it more with the power of organised workers, for environmental trades unionism. But of course the workers movement has been in crisis for decades, and hasn't even been able to defend basic condidtions. But this is still an open question, with potential for developments in the future. Maybe the environmental question can be part of transforming and rebuilding trades unionism?
I agree with Pilgrim that the m.o. of the SWP can be counterproductive, but a sectarian war against them will be just as damaging. I also think they can bring somthing good to the movement. Its all contradictory.

But Respect/SWP are not going away, and have made some progress, likewise with the Greens. Perhaps we have to start from the existing, imperfect movements and build on them.



2) Bernie Gunther seems to be saying mass action / protest, etc.is all well and good, but what about concrete alternatives. Looking at the Respect conference, they seem to be starting to have a detailed debate on policy alternatives. Another option is the lifetyle experiments and alternative technologies that have been going on sincethe 60's. All have some relevance.

But the problem is, whatever alternatives we can develop, they mean nothing while the existing ruling capitalist power structure is in place. This is locked into fossil fuels, competiton and profits. How can this power structure be broken and overcome? New answers please! But this power must be overturned in order for the alternatives to flourish and the sustainable transformation of society to begin.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think what I was trying to say was that it makes more sense to me to struggle with the entrenched system in the context of doing something that is obviously and concretely relevant to actually mitigating climate change, improving food and energy security and so on.

It's not like you won't get all kinds of opportunities to struggle against capitalism if you've got a mass movement (as opposed to a few isolated hippies) doing the sort of stuff I was describing above. Community food and energy security is a challenge to the wage system and to the profitability of high capital-investment projects like nuclear power. Some of the main resources you need to do it effectively, like 'development' land, are ones that are highly profitable for capital and which they won't let go of easily.

And if you are genuinely trying to address your actions to people who have to earn wages to pay their bills, then my guess is that lower fuel bills and safer, healthier cheaper food for their kids are going to be far more convincing arguments for getting them mobilised than telling them that it's necessary to "smash capitalism" (apparently by waving placards) before doing something useful about climate change, food & energy security etc. Also, by focussing action on achieving concrete results from their own efforts, you empower people and give them a sense of accomplishment. While mass demos, however big, that achieve nothing are disempowering.

 

[TremulousTetra]

My point is that there is ALREADY a perfectly good Green movement in this country, that I and others are ALREADY building.

We don't need the Johnny-come-lately's of the SWP CC deciding, finally, to jump on their latest bandwagon and damage, possibly irreparably, a pre-existing and growing movement.

And I believe that is what the SWP CC would do, if it was in their interest to do so.

But IF half of what you say about the swp is half true your wasting time trying to tell them you don't want them, shirley?

Rmp3

 

[Pilgrim]

But IF half of what you say about the swp is half true your wasting time trying to tell them you don't want them, shirley?

Rmp3

I would rather the Green movement gave the SWP CC the bum's rush than just roll over and let them sink their claws into Green politics.

Let them set up their latest dodgy front if it makes them happy. But I don't see how the Green movement can gain anything from simply giving them carte blanche to do whatever damage they please.

They cannot be trusted, they have done immense damage to other groups and movements that gave them house room and, to me anyway, they simply are not welcome, based on past experience.

 

[mutley]

I would rather the Green movement gave the SWP CC the bum's rush than just roll over and let them sink their claws into Green politics.

Let them set up their latest dodgy front if it makes them happy. But I don't see how the Green movement can gain anything from simply giving them carte blanche to do whatever damage they please.

They cannot be trusted, they have done immense damage to other groups and movements that gave them house room and, to me anyway, they simply are not welcome, based on past experience.

I think you've said this a number of times already.

But my question (and it's not a facetious one i mean it) is if you're so happy with the current state of the green movement how come the level of CO2 is higher than ever, and if anything we seem further away from effective action over climate change now than a few years ago?

To Bernie: I'm all for local experiments in different ways of living (which is a shift from a few years ago..), but we need action that affects the way the vast bulk of society lives their lives, generates their electricity travels about etc. How do we get that?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> To Bernie: I'm all for local experiments in different ways of living (which is a shift from a few years ago..), but we need action that affects the way the vast bulk of society lives their lives, generates their electricity travels about etc. How do we get that?

Well, I think that isolated groups of eco-hippies have done plenty of experiments. We already know how to reduce fossil fuel consumption, and in the process reduce our fuel and food bills, based around community-level action. We just aren't doing it. So I think you need a mass movement to actually start doing those things on a large enough scale to have an impact.

 

[Pilgrim]

I think you've said this a number of times already.

But my question (and it's not a facetious one i mean it) is if you're so happy with the current state of the green movement how come the level of CO2 is higher than ever, and if anything we seem further away from effective action over climate change now than a few years ago?

I'm not saying the current state of the Green movement is perfect, merely that it is getting better and may well be (within a few years) about to make some sort of breakthrough.

The existing organisations (be they electoral, direct action or conventional lobbying) already exist. There is no need to re-invent the wheel by setting up yet another front group, that will, in all likelihood, fold as soon as the SWP CC decide to change their line, and probably damage the Green movement severely in the process.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

In case it's not clear, I'm not advocating growing organic vegetables in place of political action. I'm advocating political action in support of our ability to, for example, generate local employment and produce healthy, safe food that doesn't come from supermarkets, by growing organic vegetables for your own neighbourhood on urban redevelopment land that some property developer would rather be making money from. I'm also advocating both actually constructing local energy systems and taking associated political action aimed at directing public funds towards community level sustainability rather than into high capital-investment projects like new nuclear build.

I just think it makes more sense to set out to do practical achievable stuff that helps in readily understandable ways, both with climate change and people's everyday money, food safety and energy security worries, and to build mass political action around removing the specific obstacles to doing that, instead of telling people they have to 'smash capitalism' before doing anything constructive about climate change, and giving them a nice placard that says "No to Climate Change!" to wave about.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

By way of reconnecting the stuff above to the thread topic. I don't think such a movement, if one were to come about, would be particularly susceptible to SWP tactics, any more than e.g the GPEW or the IWCA would be susceptible.

What the SWP is good at and what wins them influence within mass popular movements, is getting students to show up for mass marches and their experience at organising such marches. If you think that getting a lot of people to march is the most important thing, then they'll be able to make inroads with their usual tactics.

Within a movement that was primarily rooted in practical and constructive neighbourhood and municipal level action to build sustainability, I think that the political centre of gravity would naturally lie firmly with the grassroots, rather than with any sort of national committee. The main focus of activity would be on actual progress towards sustainability in concrete terms, rather than getting the maximum number of people to show up for mass demos.

I don't think such a movement would be a viable host organism for the SWP.

 

[Pilgrim]

I don't think such a movement would be a viable host organism for the SWP.

Well, I sincerely hope you are right, for the sake of the Green movement in the UK generally.

That said, I don't think it will stop the SWP CC from trying.