SWP gone Green:, genuine or genuine disaster?

[TremulousTetra]

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.

and the reason the mass of people are not doing it, is because those who have owned and controlled the means of production have always owned and controlled society. This is just not a hundred year old truth from Karl Marx, it is 10,000 year old truth of class society. is there an example of a class society where those who have owned and controlled the means of production haven't controlled society?

fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That may very well be so, but community level food and energy security is to a large extent about owning and controlling the means of production for those rather essential things. It's also, by a happy coincidence, one of the single most effective things we could actually do to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

So if you have a bunch of people saying they want to do something about climate change, I think that's a pretty good direction to encourage them to go in.

 

[Pilgrim]

A good example of low impact, sustainable living can be found in the Steward Community Woodland project on Dartmoor.

www.stewardwood.org

The history of Steward Community Woodland also provides a clear display of the obstacle (legal especially) that can be erected to stop such experiments from happening.

The website is well worth a look.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The one that I find pretty compelling as an example of something that could be adapted on a mass scale, is urban agriculture in Cuba. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they had to deal with suddenly losing almost all imports of fossil fuels, fertilisers based on them and so on. The story of how they did so is a remarkable one, and one that I find inspiring, because it demonstrates in concrete terms how to adapt to sustainability far more rapidly than anyone remotely sane would want to do on purpose.

Here's a quick popular summary - http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/cuba/sustainable/susAgriculture/1465.html

Cut off from favorable trade agreements with the Soviet Union and its allies a decade ago, and unable to afford buying on the international market, Cuba has become a gigantic laboratory for farming without petroleum and petroleum derivatives.

Here's an online book which provides a more comprehensive picture. - http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-31574-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Urban agriculture now, 10 years after its initial development, covers 12 per cent of the land base in the city of Havana, links more than 22,000 urban and pre-urban producers, provides the communities in the capital city with 150 to 300 grams per capita of fresh vegetables and culinary herbs daily <snip>

If one really wants to do something effective about climate change, the lesson of a country that suddenly had to get by with virtually no oil, is one well worth learning. If the SWP really want to start doing something effective about climate change, I will be first to give them a hearty cheer, a packet of seeds and a bucket of chicken poo.

PS old newspapers are really good for sheet-mulching, if you have enough of them to lay it on thick.

 

[TremulousTetra]

That may very well be so,

right, so how do you intend to deal with that?

but community level food and energy security is to a large extent about owning and controlling the means of production for those rather essential things. It's also, by a happy coincidence, one of the single most effective things we could actually do to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

So if you have a bunch of people saying they want to do something about climate change, I think that's a pretty good direction to encourage them to go in.

on the topic I can only really speak of the members of the Socialist workers party who are in my personal acquaintance, and I would say of those people I know a good percentage do what you're saying. I also do what I am physically able to in this direction. two comrades who live in terraced housing grow as much of their own food as they can, and started a community garden on wasteland, which was part of a scheme within their community to stop the council pulling down their terraced houses and replacing them with yuppy houses, a campaign which they won. has this created a virtuous cycle, where others in their community copy what they are doing? Well I think a minority may have, but then you run into another problem that Marx highlighted with such schemes, the ruling class do not only own the means of production of the means of sustenance, they own the means of mental production and so the dominant ideas in any society are those of the ruling class. so I am back to the question of, what we do about taking citizen control of the means of production?

Fraternal greetings, resistancemp3

 

[TremulousTetra]

The one that I find pretty compelling as an example of something that could be adapted on a mass scale, is urban agriculture in Cuba. After the Soviet Union collapsed, they had to deal with suddenly losing almost all imports of fossil fuels, fertilisers based on them and so on. The story of how they did so is a remarkable one, and one that I find inspiring, because it demonstrates in concrete terms how to adapt to sustainability far more rapidly than anyone remotely sane would want to do on purpose.

Here's a quick popular summary - http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/cuba/sustainable/susAgriculture/1465.html Here's an online book which provides a more comprehensive picture. - http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-31574-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html If one really wants to do something effective about climate change, the lesson of a country that suddenly had to get by with virtually no oil, is one well worth learning. If the SWP really want to start doing something effective about climate change, I will be first to give them a hearty cheer, a packet of seeds and a bucket of chicken poo.

PS old newspapers are really good for sheet-mulching, if you have enough of them to lay it on thick.

another lesson of that is, how those that own and control the means production can so much more efficiently produce the kind of changes in society that we all agree we need. I am not convinced there are any shortcuts negating the need to deal with this problem.

 

[treelover]

from indymedia, now the SWP hubris begins, remember everythings 'brilliant' in SWP land


mmnm, Jonathan Neal, now where have i heard that name before
http://www.google.co.uk/search?clie...=en&q=jonathan+neale&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

'The day was a brilliant success: the biggest Climate Change Demo Ever and Liverpool was a big part of the movement. A slightly sciencey but nether-the-less important Climate Change Rally proceeded the demo and was well attended with over fifty people. Speakers included Jonathan Neal, lecturers and scientists. Mr Neal was the only speaker who got really excited at the prospect of the demo and he was right to, because the mood was brilliant: angry, determined and excited.

A vast majority of those at the talk were also very excited about the prospect of some action taking place in Liverpool in the near future. We really have to succeed in this campaign if we don’t want Manchester to laugh at us as we swim to work.'

 

[Bernie Gunther]

another lesson of that is, how those that own and control the means production can so much more efficiently produce the kind of changes in society that we all agree we need. I am not convinced there are any shortcuts negating the need to deal with this problem.

I'm not suggesting short-cuts. I'm suggesting political action in support of practical action that is actually relevant to sustainability. Rather than political action with no apparent connection to solving the problem.

The means of production is certainly relevant, but I am specifically talking about the means of production for food and primary energy.

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'm not suggesting short-cuts. I'm suggesting political action in support of practical action that is actually relevant to sustainability. Rather than political action with no apparent connection to solving the problem.

The means of production is certainly relevant, but I am specifically talking about the means of production for food and primary energy.

What's so hard to understand about that?

means of production for food and primary energy are not an island, for citizens control of them they would also need of control means of production for ideas, defence, etc etc.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

means of production for food and primary energy are not an island, for citizens control of them they would also need of control means of production for ideas, defence, etc etc.

Why?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Pointlessly inflammatory remark deleted

 

[TremulousTetra]

Why?

for all those reasons [many] citizens haven't already taken control of the means of production for food and primary energy. if it were that simple, they'd have done it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I must admit, I'm not finding that a very compelling argument for not trying to do it, both for the direct benefits and as a field of political struggle grounded in those tangible benefits.

If you think no progress can be made except through the state (I may be misunderstanding you here) and you think big demos are a step towards achieving that, then if you fail, you have nothing to show for your efforts. In fact, if the big demos against the war are anything to go by, you've got less than you started with due to disillusionment and disempowerment of many of the participants.

If you start with practical autonomous action aimed at reducing emissions and providing healthy cheap food and energy security at a neighbourhood level, even if you don't get as far as you'd hoped. You'll likely get some benefits, both in terms of cutting emissions and in terms of direct benefits to the community. Participants are likely to be encouraged by achieving tangible progress, however small in relation to the overall problem of climate change, especially if it comes with those direct community benefits.

Where the corporate state acts to oppose such initiatives, it would be much more obviously acting against the interests of ordinary people by doing so as they'd have a direct stake in the matter. Meanwhile, a serious attempt to do these kinds of things on a mass scale would provide a solid basis for a variety of political demands, directly linked to initiatives that clearly do something about climate change while also benefitting the community in other ways.

Some examples of the latter might be: exemption from DSS rules allowing claimants to take part in LETS type schemes in support of such activity, priority use of redevelopment land for urban agriculture and a variety of other community sustainability projects rather than for profitable speculation, a whole bunch of other wrangles with planning systems that are ill-adapted for sustainability, similar wrangles involving the laws governing credit unions and provident societies to facilitate community funding for such projects, priority for renewables grants going to community-level initiatives rather than to big corporate projects and so on.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I must admit, I'm not finding that a very compelling argument for not trying to do it, both for the direct benefits and as a field of political struggle grounded in those tangible benefits.

If you think no progress can be made except through the state (I may be misunderstanding you here) and you think big demos are a step towards achieving that, then if you fail, you have nothing to show for your efforts. In fact, if the big demos against the war are anything to go by, you've got less than you started with due to disillusionment and disempowerment of many of the participants.

If you start with practical autonomous action aimed at reducing emissions and providing healthy cheap food and energy security at a neighbourhood level, even if you don't get as far as you'd hoped. You'll likely get some benefits, both in terms of cutting emissions and in terms of direct benefits to the community. Participants are likely to be encouraged by achieving tangible progress, however small in relation to the overall problem of climate change, especially if it comes with those direct community benefits.

Where the corporate state acts to oppose such initiatives, it would be much more obviously acting against the interests of ordinary people by doing so as they'd have a direct stake in the matter. Meanwhile, a serious attempt to do these kinds of things on a mass scale would provide a solid basis for a variety of political demands, directly linked to initiatives that clearly do something about climate change while also benefitting the community in other ways.

Some examples of the latter might be: exemption from DSS rules allowing claimants to take part in LETS type schemes in support of such activity, priority use of redevelopment land for urban agriculture and a variety of other community sustainability projects rather than for profitable speculation, a whole bunch of other wrangles with planning systems that are ill-adapted for sustainability, similar wrangles involving the laws governing credit unions and provident societies to facilitate community funding for such projects, priority for renewables grants going to community-level initiatives rather than to big corporate projects and so on.

Comrade, if you look back I haven't tried to create a compelling argument to stop you doing ANYTHING [in fact it is you who has tried to create a compelling argument against mass demonstrations]. ALL I have done first to pilgrim and then your self is point out as did Marx [whom pilgrim began to write off, but I noticed you defended) that those who control the means of production control Society. AND so basically as in posts 121 and 125 my question remains the same, what do you intend to do about it?

If these limited "direct actions" are not merely stepping stones, part of a process to a larger mass movement of direct action, which go on to Citizen's control of ALL means of production, they are doomed to forever being in conflict with and open to descruction by their antithesis class control of the means of production, surely? this is why I say local citizens control of the means of food and energy production are not an island. You cant leave in the hands of a class not only some means of material production, but also the means of producing ideas/ideology, and so the means of mobilising people against your attempts, surely?

I don't see mass demonstrations as a means to make progress through the state. I see them as a means to make progress towards "mass direct actions" as part of a mass movement, towards citizens control of all means of production. Because as in Cuba, if those who control the means of production have a will to implement a sustainable society, as would citizens in a society where their citizens control the means of production, it is practically much easier. in fact I would argue you cannot have a ecological and sustainable society in the interest of citizens, without the means of all production being controlled by the citizens.

Frats Rmp3

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> If these limited "direct actions" are not merely stepping stones, part of a process to a larger mass movement of direct action, which go on to Citizen's control of ALL means of production, they are doomed to forever being in conflict with and open to descruction by their antithesis class control of the means of production, surely? this is why I say local citizens control of the means of food and energy production are not an island. You cant leave in the hands of a class not only some means of material production, but also the means of producing ideas/ideology, and so the means of mobilising people against your attempts, surely?

I don't see mass demonstrations as a means to make progress through the state. I see them as a means to make progress towards "mass direct actions" as part of a mass movement, towards citizens control of all means of production. Because as in Cuba, if those who control the means of production have a will to implement a sustainable society, as would citizens in a society where their citizens control the means of production, it is practically much easier. in fact I would argue you cannot have a ecological and sustainable society in the interest of citizens, without the means of all production being controlled by the citizens.

Frats Rmp3

Ah, OK. Well I'm certainly not going to argue that citizens control of the means of production should stop with community food and energy security.

I'm just arguing that would be a good place to start

Particularly because it's acheivable and is an extremely effective way to decrease fossil fuel use. The challenge I'm posing to you guys is to suggest that it's a better way to start than mass demos, a) because it actually does something useful in and of itself and b) because it seems more likely to me to be potentially empowering for the participants.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Ah, OK. Well I'm certainly not going to argue that citizens control of the means of production should stop with community food and energy security.

I'm just arguing that would be a good place to start

Particularly because it's acheivable and is an extremely effective way to decrease fossil fuel use. The challenge I'm posing to you guys is to suggest that it's a better way to start than mass demos, a) because it actually does something useful in and of itself and b) because it seems more likely to me to be potentially empowering for the participants.

hey, it is fair enough for you to believe that, you just haven't convinced me.

I don't have a problem that in a tiny insignificant, compared to the global system, waythat you can have a little effect. and I have no doubt it may empower those involved. I doubt it can make the leap to a mass movement, the mass movement required to get rid of the system that will destroyyour small endeavours once they get in any way significant.

to my way of thinking revolutionaries like me and you cannot create revolutions, capitalism turns people to revolutions. you can never predict how it will do this, but ofte at the start the highest common denominator of mass activity that can be agreed amongst working class people is the mass demonstration. I believe it is right for revolutionariesto stand with the mass of the working-class when they are calling for the demonstration, and not break the agreement of the United front, to maintain credibility so one can really argue for the movement to step to the next steppingstones, "direct action", and eventually revolution. all revolutionaries can do is hope to have eough influence at the time of revolution to influence the revolution into a revolution of hope, rather than a revolution of despair. Every revolution as both potentials, socialism or barbarism.

but even the successfull revolution is only a stepping stone. it is then when citizens have control of the means of production that all you are talking about can really in earnest begin. It is then we are really going to need anarchists/ism IMHO.

fraternal greetings, ResistanceMP3

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, if the system is going to destroy any significant efforts, surely it will also destroy efforts that follow your party's programme, if they ever become significant?

At least by following a programme that has intrinsic benefits, we get more incremental pay-offs for a given amount of effort and a given number of participants. I suggest that the intrinsic benefits of such a programme would make people more inclined to fight for the benefits they've already achieved, than a programme which offers no obvious benefits until "after the revolution", particularly given the bad publicity such revolutions have accrued in the minds of the mass of the general public.

Taking control of the means of production after primitive accumulation has taken place and concentrated it may have seemed sensible in Marx's day. In our day however, the industrial means of production is in China or someplace. We don't have an industrial proletariat in any meaningful sense anymore. We do however have a whole bunch of people who are sincerely concerned about global environmental issues, personal environmental issues like healthy food for their children and their increasing food and fuel bills relative to income.

I suggest therefore, that it actually makes more sense to accept that while some of Marx's insights are tremendously useful, 100 year old strategies predicated on the existence of an industrial proletariat might be less so, and a re-evaluation based on the actual concerns of the citizens we do have might be a good way to go. Particularly if that could be translated into some form of practical action, of concrete benefit, that would naturally lead to a struggle against capitalism based on the realities of the early twenty first century.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Thanks for your response Bernie.

Yes I agree that the system is capable of smashing mass demonstrations, or even just ignoring them, like the stop the War demonstration. And the system is capable of smashing mass movements, like the chartists. The difference between what I am arguing, and what you seem to be arguing are twofold. Firstly, I am not ruling methods out, on the contrary I am talking about applying ANY method, mass demonstration direct action etc, as is fitting with the battle that is being fought, and from a revolutionary perspective the highest common denominator. And secondly, I'm not talking about movements created by my party, but movements provoked by capitalism and initiated by working-class people [ this is what I said above, revolutionaries DO NOT create revolutions, classes do.].

Other factors about those two difference are probably far more important. Because capitalism has provoked the mass movement, a minority of revolutionary such as ourselves are not trying to convince the working class of the need for action, as you are in your example, the working class have already been convinced by the material circumstances. Secondly, because the direct actions are part of a mass movement, then once again you do not have to convince the working class of the need to defend them from a capitalist attacks [ which is what you would have to do in the your examples.]. Psychologically this is probably the most important thing, even if direct actions are carried out by a minority, because they are part of the mass movement they and not an adjunct to the class, they are part of the class.



The means of production are not solely a phenomena of industrial production, and the proletariat is not limited to the industrial proletariat. What defined you as a member of the proletariat for KM was not that you worked in industry, but what your relationship was to the means of production. So in KM's day and industrial engineer was middle-class. The engineer is a good example, for the engineer also highlight how Marxism is not a static philosophy, right at its dialectical core one of its three central pillars is a that Marxist philosophy is an explanation of how everything must change. So Marx also talked about the proletarianisation of the middle classes, and lays the foundation for how one can explain the industrial engineer's transition from middle-class to working-class proletariat.

Likewise for Karl Marx the office worker or the teacher were not middle-class because they dealt in intellectual production, they too were defined by their relationship to their means of production, but in this case it was intellectual production. And so intellectual production is not something separate from "the means of production", it is just another form of "the means of production". Battles over intellectual copyright today show that intellectual property is as much as a commodity as a coffee bean or a motor vehicle, and so the fact that the British proletariat may be more based in intellectual production rather than material commodity production does not make them any less proletariat for KM IMHO.

Lastly as internationalists it is irrelevant that industrial production and the industrial proletariat could be argued to exist in China, because we don't think socialism can exist in one country. We don't believe we can have a successful revolution in Britain alone, only if the workers of the world unite can the workers lose their chains. The environment is global, and if we're really going to do something about it is going to have to be done on a global basis, we are going to have to get rid of countries.

Fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

PS. You keep talking as if working-class petitioning of the ruling classes through the mass demonstration etc has never achieved anything, when in actuality it is a very sad fact that probably self organised working-class reformist petitioning has probably got more gains from the capitalist system than revolutionaries ever have. The NHS, abortion rights, education ect. Ad nauseam. Of course these demands were often backed up with the threat of direct action, but usually this was a threat of mass direct action. So Quentin Hogg said "we must give them social reform, or they will give a social revolution" after the Second World War.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Bernie seems to have a problem (if I have read his posts correctly) with the making demands on the State to solve climate destabilisation.

But surely we make demands on the capitalist state all the time - for example as regards pensions, welfare, tackling unemployment, education and redistribution of wealth.

I think the key thing is that socialists argue that solving environmental problems will involve collective solutions not changes in personal behaviour.

The kind of measures needed to tackle climate destabilisation can't be done by individuals they have to be collective solutions, these would include:

- massive investment in public transport, and governemnt promotion and facillitation of cycling (in Amsterdam, almost a third of journeys are taken by bike or walking compared to 2% in London, and in Copenhagen it is a fifth of journeys taken by bicycle).

- massive investment in renewable energy

- energy conservation measures, such as a massive programme of building insulation, and forcing corporations to be energy efficient.

I would also support Friends of the Earth's campaign for a law to be passed in parliament making it compulsory for the government to enforce the slashing of greenhouse emissions by 3% a year to meet the 2050 target. Would Bernie? Or would this not be an "autonomous, decentralised action".

Naturally the only way to force the hand of the state is through grassroots movements that empower thousands of people to take action and raise mass awareness.

I personally believe that the struggle to save the environment is a struggle against capitalism. The kind of measures needed to tackle global warming involve massive state intervention and go against the grain of neo-liberalism and the opening up of markets - they inevitably are in conflict with the logic of the corporate takeover of Britain

This is the reason why-Liberal Democrats and other mainstream parties can't solve the solution: They are all wedded to the neo-liberal consensus.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

'scuse me for quoting myself here, but I just found myself effectively trying to restate the stuff below in reply, and so despite its flaws it seemed easier just to quote it again.

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.

What I'm getting at here is that by its nature, effective action towards sustainability, beyond a few minor mitigations that you could achieve without substantially changing how our society works, particularly how the means of production work, are not things that I think you can achieve through the state. They are things that need to happen at a much smaller scale due to energy and resource (e.g. nutrient) recycling constraints. I think it's obvious that they have to happen collectively, but you need to be closing your ecological flows somewhere around the hundreds or thousands of humans, otherwise the distances get too big to do it efficiently.

So a strategy which focusses on the state, while it might do some good, ultimately isn't going to be good enough to bridge the gap between the amount of energy solar resource flows provide and the amount that our society uses to function as it presently does. Changing control of the means of production without radically changing the nature of the means of production themselves simply doesn't cut it. It's just sticking band-aids on the problem.

So for me, effective action towards achieving sustainability ultimately cannot only happen at the state level. It has to happen first and foremost at a scale where sustainability, based on the usable energy from solar flows, can actually be achieved. So that's where I think efforts should be focussed and that's where I think that the mass committment to the task required for success would need to be built. One small success at a time and wherever necessary in flat opposition to the state.

 

[greenman]

I don't think it is an either/or situation.

Quite correctly Bernie argues that concrete advances at a local level will encourage and empower people, but quite correctly also our SWP friends remind us that in isolation- as history shows us - such local initiatives will be stopped at a certain limit or be ineffective in the face of the destructive behaviour surrounding them.

We need to find ways of combining radical national and international action and realisable demands on governments (like the FoE 3% per annum Carbon emissions cut) with local and regional constructive developments that are transparent, democratic and participatory - and effective and empowering as suggested by Bernie. Now a movement which was doing/supporting both these approaches would be really exciting!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Maybe a better way to say what I'm trying to say is that a radical restructuring of the means of production to allow everything that can, to happen at a far more local scale, is a necessary precondition for sustainability.

That doesn't mean it's the only condition, but any approach that doesn't even recognise the gap between what we're doing now and sustainability, isn't going to be much use in achieveing sustainability.

As I was saying above, it's not just a matter of changing control of the means of production.

It's a matter of fundamentally changing the means of production themselves.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Maybe a better way to say what I'm trying to say is that a radical restructuring of the means of production to allow everything that can, to happen at a far more local scale, is a necessary precondition for sustainability.

That doesn't mean it's the only condition, but any approach that doesn't even recognise the gap between what we're doing now and sustainability, isn't going to be much use in achieveing sustainability.

As I was saying above, it's not just a matter of changing control of the means of production.

It's a matter of fundamentally changing the means of production themselves.

I don't think I've anywhere disagreed with what you say above. in fact;

[SNIP]
but even the successfull revolution is only a stepping stone. it is then when citizens have control of the means of production that all you are talking about can really in earnest begin. It is then we are really going to need anarchists/ism IMHO.

fraternal greetings, ResistanceMP3

Udo might think I went a bit too far with the statement, but I suppose it depends what brand of anarchism you're talking about. I do agree with you Udo that dealing with the environment does require collective direct action.

fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

 

[TremulousTetra]

[edited to add "Greenman,]My heart totally agrees with you that A movement which was doing/supporting both these approaches would be really exciting, but my head and my experience on here suggests that A movement may not be possible. Just look at this thread, how is it possible for the left to unite in a movement when part of the left view others in the left as THE enemy?

We have to start from the recognition that me and Bernie are philosophically different. Bernie starts from decentralised direct actions hopefully building to a mass movement of decentralised direct actions, I start from a collective mass movement of which decentralised direct actions might be part before a revolution that took control of the means of production for citizens, BUT in my opinion they would not play a central role until citizens had secured control of the means of production. I honestly believe that a movement that combines both international and national collective action, with decentralised local action would only be possible after such a revolution. Stepping stones, as I described the revolution, come in a certain order to cross the river, in my opinion the methods that Bernie advocates require the revolution that is a prerequisite. [I can't say Bernies argumentshave convinced me to change my viewpoint, because I think negated his attacks on a Marxist analysis post 137 in in my response post-138.)

But until both philosophical tendencies recognise that we are both entitled to hold these wildly different philosophical views HONESTLY, without seeing these different views as some Machiavellian tendency and THE enemy, the chance of a united front seems slim.


Fraternal greetings, resistanceMP3

PS. I'm not suggesting Bernie sees the SWP as the enemy, that was really other people on this thread.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> [I can't say Bernies arguments have convinced me to change my viewpoint, because I think negated his attacks on a Marxist analysis post 137 in in my response post-138.)<snip>

I think the stuff you're negating there isn't really my core point, it was more of a side effect.

The key point where I have an issue with a Marx analysis is section 8 of Capital V1. I'm pretty much with him all the way while he's analysing primitive accumulation, until he gets to the point where he says in effect. 'by concentrating the means of production through primitive accumulation, capitalism creates the conditions for revolution' (or something to that effect) Now at the time, this probably looked like a very sensible perspective. Removing the ability to subsist, to get people into the wage system involved horrors which he recognises, but he sees how to make a virtue of it, because this concentrates the means of production and hence makes it easier for the revolutionaries he's imagining to take them over effectively.

From an early 21st century perspective though, this is looking much more dubious, at least to me. That very concentration of the means of production that looks to Marx like something serviceable for the purposes of taking control of them, turns out to be at the core of many of our environmental problems. Centralising and industrialising food production for example, is seriously inefficient in energy terms and directly results in food security problems like soil erosion and in food safety problems like BSE.

So the key point for me is to change the means of production, in a sense by undoing primitive accumulation, rather than simply making a few minor tweaks to the unsustainable way of life that has been built on top of it, by influencing the state or by putting the state under new management.

That this approach happens to suggest settlement patterns that look rather like an updated version of Kropotkin's "Fields, Factories and Workshops" is kind of a happy coincidence from my point of view. It's secondary to the main issue, which is coming up with a way of life able to subsist on solar flows and other renewable resources.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think the stuff you're negating there isn't really my core point, it was more of a side effect.

The key point where I have an issue with a Marx analysis is section 8 of Capital V1. I'm pretty much with him all the way while he's analysing primitive accumulation, until he gets to the point where he says in effect. 'by concentrating the means of production through primitive accumulation, capitalism creates the conditions for revolution' (or something to that effect) Now at the time, this probably looked like a very sensible perspective. Removing the ability to subsist, to get people into the wage system involved horrors which he recognises, but he sees how to make a virtue of it, because this concentrates the means of production and hence makes it easier for the revolutionaries he's imagining to take them over effectively.

From an early 21st century perspective though, this is looking much more dubious, at least to me. That very concentration of the means of production that looks to Marx like something serviceable for the purposes of taking control of them, turns out to be at the core of many of our environmental problems. Centralising and industrialising food production for example, is seriously inefficient in energy terms and directly results in food security problems like soil erosion and in food safety problems like BSE.

So the key point for me is to change the means of production, in a sense by undoing primitive accumulation, rather than simply making a few minor tweaks to the unsustainable way of life that has been built on top of it, by influencing the state or by putting the state under new management.

That this approach happens to suggest settlement patterns that look rather like an updated version of Kropotkin's "Fields, Factories and Workshops" is kind of a happy coincidence from my point of view. It's secondary to the main issue, which is coming up with a way of life able to subsist on solar flows and other renewable resources.

Ah, I see what your getting at now. I'll have to have a think, what I think about that.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Hello Bernie;

I have been thinking about what you said, from several angles, for some time. My first response was that I am not to be honest clear enough on the alternatives you are speaking of. I have vague notions on how you wish to decentralise production, so do you have a little light reading on the topic, something that will just give me a rough outline of the kind path/s that you think we should go down? [ edited to add, having said that I'm reading Jared Diamond "Collapse" which seems to suggest that decentrlisation is part of the emviroment problem. ]

However, I'm not sure I agree with the way you interpret Marx

he key point where I have an issue with a Marx analysis is section 8 of Capital V1. I'm pretty much with him all the way while he's analysing primitive accumulation, until he gets to the point where he says in effect. 'by concentrating the means of production through primitive accumulation, capitalism creates the conditions for revolution' (or something to that effect) Now at the time, this probably looked like a very sensible perspective. Removing the ability to subsist, to get people into the wage system involved horrors which he recognises, but he sees how to make a virtue of it, because this concentrates the means of production and hence makes it easier for the revolutionaries he's imagining to take them over effectively.

[ of course that is if I am not misinterpreting your interpretation of him.]

You see the first thing to say is that Marx saw the emancipation of the working-class as being the act of the working-class. For Marx the concentration of the means of production did not make it easier for revolutionaries to take it over, it made it easier for the working-class to take it over. For me this is a very important point, you cannot just replace one and exploitative elite with a paternalistic elite. The idea is to get rid of an elite. That is a kind of side issue, more importantly you misinterpreted his meaning upon capitalism creating the conditions for revolution imho.

Firstly, capitalism created the conditions for revolution in that it materially provided the means of subsistence, and more importantly it produces the working-class. The bit about concentration of capital is ephemeral, well ephemeral is not quite the right word perhaps I should say dynamic. How can I explain this, the concentration of capital/wealth was a prerequisite to civilisation. Without the concentration of capital/wealth in a few hands to finance education, philosophy, science, mathematics civilisation would not have been possible. Capitalism continued this process, but then at the same time it accelerated it, the share of global capital, wealth, is concentrated in fewer hands than it ever has been before. The capital in the form of the means of production is more geographically diverse than it was in Marx day today, but probably in bigger units of productions. I do not believe it was the concentration of the means of production in Britain in Marx day, "the workshop of the world", that was the condition for revolution. And I don't think it is the concentration of the means of production in massive units is a condition of revolution. I think it was as I said at the beginning of the paragraph, that it is the wary capitalism produced the means of subsistence and the working-class.

However, let's say I'm wrong, and Marx did see massive units of production and concentration of of the means of production in a small geographic area as a condition of revolution. Marx philosophy was dynamic, he accepted there is still be a dialectic in a communist between the human being and nature. And so just because something is a prerequisite for revolution, does not necessarily make it a prerequisite or necessary for communism. I believe it is totally within the parameters of Marxist analysis to accept if the dialectic between the human being and nature in communist society dictated the need for decentralised production, then that would happen. The only difference being that under socialism/communism where there is citizens control of the means of production, this would be much more achievable. However;

From an early 21st century perspective though, this is looking much more dubious, at least to me. That very concentration of the means of production that looks to Marx like something serviceable for the purposes of taking control of them, turns out to be at the core of many of our environmental problems. Centralising and industrialising food production for example, is seriously inefficient in energy terms and directly results in food security problems like soil erosion and in food safety problems like BSE.

So the key point for me is to change the means of production, in a sense by undoing primitive accumulation, rather than simply making a few minor tweaks to the unsustainable way of life that has been built on top of it, by influencing the state or by putting the state under new management.

That this approach happens to suggest settlement patterns that look rather like an updated version of Kropotkin's "Fields, Factories and Workshops" is kind of a happy coincidence from my point of view. It's secondary to the main issue, which is coming up with a way of life able to subsist on solar flows and other renewable resources.

my philosophical background, Marxism, does not present any barriers to me going down this road you describe in communism if necassary. However what I have read from environmentalists ie Collapse Jared Diamond, and a People's history of the world makes me think collectoive action will be more profitable than the classless laissez fair approach to the global environment. And neither of those methods will be available until we control the means of production.

Fraternal greetings, ResistanceMP3

PS. To be fair to you you may not be advocating a " classless laissez fair approach". have decentralised would he have to be, could there be no global coordination?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hmm, OK. Let's try leaving the Marx stuff to one side for now and focussing on the science? I was only talking about primitive accumulation because I thought it might be a useful explanatory tool.

Here's something that might be a useful source with regard to what a sustainable way of life might look like in practice.

http://www.omvarldsbilder.se/Files/Ruralisation.pdf

 

[totaladdict]

Got anything that's a little more readable? I've read various bits of his stuff and I'm sure I've seen it explained more clearly than he does in that link.

Am very short on time right now but if there's something a bit shorter and a bit more readable I'll email it to one of the Planning Policy people at the local council. They're consulting now on the new Local Development Framework (LDF - the document that control development in the district for the next 5 or 10 years) so I'll see what they think about it's workability in the short term (ie - how to avoid developers abusing the system for their own ends - before "we" 'control the means of production' etc).

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hmm, bit tricky. He's swedish so his english isn't always real clear. I think there's a slightly more comprehensible version at FEASTA here