Marxism and Ecology

Marxism and Ecology: Capitalism, socialism and the future of the planet.
By Martin Empson. A Socialist Worker pamphlet.

Reviewed by Derek Wall, U.K.
Another Green World

"'In this pamphlet I will look at how the ideas of Marx and Engels explain how human society has related to the environment at different stages in our history. At why capitalism is so environmentally damaging and why placing Marxist ideas back at the heart of the debate about what sort of society we need to save us from ecological destruction is so urgent."

Its been a pleasure to work with Martin Empson, I have shared platforms with him, the last time was in Nottingham at a discussion about the failed Copenhagen conference along with Labour MP Alan Simpson in December.

Martin is a keen advocate of green trade unionism. He is a leading light of the Campaign against Climate Change Trade Union group in the UK, he has strongly supported the Vestas workers on the Isle of Wight who occupied their wind turbine factory when it was closed down, he has also been involved with the One Million Green Jobs project.

His booklet is a gem. With clear prose and concise delivery he looks at the relationship between Marxism and green politics, or perhaps to be more precise the relationship between Marx and the science of ecology.

Three Meanings of Ecosocialism

Canadian activist Ian Angus has been a key actor in the organisation of the international ecosocialist movement, through his initiation - together with well-known figures like Joel Kovel and Michael Löwy - of the Ecosocialist International Network. Here he is interviewed by the Greek socialist paper Kokkino.  Re-posted from International Viewpoint.

Let’s begin with a big question — what is ecosocialism?

ANGUS: Ecosocialism has grown out of two parallel political trends — the spread of Marxist ideas in the green movement and the spread of ecological ideas in the Marxist left. The result is a set of social and political goals, a growing body of ideas, and a global movement.

Ecosocialism’s goal is to replace capitalism with a society in which common ownership of the means of production has replaced capitalist ownership, and in which the preservation and restoration of ecosystems will be central to all activity.

As a body of ideas, ecosocialism argues that ecological destruction is not an accidental feature of capitalism, it is built into the system’s DNA. The system’s insatiable need to increase profits — what’s been called “the ecological tyranny of the bottom line” — cannot be reformed away.

With that said, it is important to realize ecosocialist thought is not monolithic — it embodies many different views about theory and practice. For example, there is an ongoing debate about the view, advanced by some ecosocialist writers, that social movements have replaced the working class as the engine of social change.

Finally, ecosocialism is an anti-capitalist movement that varies a lot from place to place. In the imperialist countries, it is a current within existing socialist and green-left movements, seeking to win ecology activists to socialism, and to convince socialists of the vital importance of ecological issues and struggles. In the Third World there is a growing mass pro-ecology movement that incorporates socialist ideas — that’s especially true in Latin America, where anti-imperialist governments headed by Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Fidel Castro in Cuba, are pressing for strong anticapitalist, pro-environment measures.

What is the Ecosocialist International Network?

Latin Stars in Ecology Calendar

In a new calendar for 2010, Latin actors and models are featured in shocking poses sending home eco-messages. A collaboration between the Azara Foundation and fashion photographer Gaby Herbstein, the calendar showcases 12 famous Latin stars representing some of the most important environmental issues of our time.

Part of the campaign Ecological Footprint, the calendar was conceived to raise awareness and motivate people to change their approach to deforestation, global warming, air pollution, and more.

View the slideshow of these images at TreeHugger.com .

Marx on the Animal/Human Distinction

Reposted from Kasama.

"We are all trying to understand more deeply the relationship between human beings and the rest of the planet’s living species. And we have touched a few times (too fleetingly) on the ethical questions for revolutionaries in viewing how animals are treated, industralized and consumed in this society. The following article raises some related questions by examining some little known passages in the writings of Karl Marx (one of the founders of modern communism).

Please share with us titles of other articles (including more recent/modern treatment) that could be shared on this topic — so that we can engage the ecology, ethics, and production transformations that communists and radicals should consider around the treatment of animals in both food production and the wild."

Mike E - Kasama

This article was originally published in Capital & Class, Issue no.72, Autumn ‘00. It appears on the Marx Myths and Legends site.

Marx on the Animal/Human Distinction: “The Creatures Too Must Become Free”
by Lawrence Wilde

The clarion call for the liberation of animals quoted in the title of this paper is cited approvingly by Marx in On the Jewish Question (Marx, 1975: 172). The words themselves belong to Thomas Münzer, the leader of the German Peasants’ Revolt in the early sixteenth century, and what attracted Marx was Münzer’s view that under the dominion of private property and money, nature is treated in such a contemptuous way that it is debased. Münzer had conduded:

“…all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free.”
Read the full article at Kasama.

Tommy Douglas on Jobs and the Environment

A short audio clip from the 1983 NDP Convention. Also available at TommyDouglasTube.

Copenhagen and Canada

Scoring Zero for Zero Emissions
Canadian Dimension Editorial Collective
January 7th, 2010

A climate emergency threatens mass extinctions this century. Species are already disappearing at one thousand times the normal rate. Ample evidence points to the need for zero emissions plus more and further negative reductions of atmospheric carbon as soon as possible. Yet most “leaders” parade their gossamer fabrics of pseudo proposals, concealing the naked greed and criminality of the non-renewable energy (carbon and nuclear)- military-agricultural extraction privatized water-pharmaceutical banking-media business elites.

Massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are needed now. The longer current greenhouse gas concentrations stay in the atmosphere, the greater the danger of irreversible, non-linear triggering effects. What must be avoided at all costs are the melting of polar ice sheets and the melting of the permafrost, which will precipitate far worse and rapid changes, including huge reductions in food and water.

The worst country in the world is now Canada — a bigger danger than any past despotic or colonial power because the threat is now much larger. In his recent Toronto talk and subsequent article about Canada, George Monbiot speaks of Canada’s psychopathic leaders and of three areas in which they sabotage all efforts to prevent runaway climate change. First, there is the tar sands subsidized by huge government funding, the most destructive industrial project on earth. Second, Canada’s proposed emission cuts are smaller than any other rich nation. Third, Canada has single-handedly tried to prevent other nations from reaching an agreement.

Climate change is not some futuristic scenario. Societies are already facing threats of unprecedented severity as climate change is happening faster than predicted. More intense and longer droughts occur over larger areas. Extreme weather events are more frequent and have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Melting mountain glaciers threaten water systems vital to agriculture, sea level rise begins to inundate island nations and the low lying regions of Bangladesh and already causes increased salinity in the Nile Delta which is the breadbasket of Egypt. The Inuit people are losing their means of subsistence, and there is altered distribution of diseases.

There is growing insight that the underlying cause of the problem and the stonewalling of solutions comes from the intrinsic expansionist nature of capitalism. Capitalism can’t survive without economic growth, the ultimate enemy of nature and the planet.

What needs to be done? Right now it is fairly impossible to do anything — the biggest step in many cities has been to ban plastic bags. But if people were really convinced that this is an emergency — that this is a race against time to save billions of people — many measures would come to mind.

Here’s a short list: Eliminate non-essential goods and services and implement fair distribution of the basic necessary supplies of non-renewable energy, food, water, shelter, health care, in terms of peoples’ needs and not their wealth; expand public goods such as libraries, parks, community rec centres, museums, education; reduce work-time; implement massive income redistribution; ration personal use of air travel and restrict carbon intensive aviation and shipping to essential services (no mangos in winter); introduce free public transit; halt the tar sands operations; massively expand renewable energy supplies; restore agricultural land and utilize urban space for farming; protect watersheds; retrofit existing buildings; and globally, convert the carbon intensive military complex to a civilian conservation corps.

Not long ago James Hansen, the pre-eminent climate scientist, called on young people to do whatever is necessary, including civil disobedience, to block construction of dirty U.S. coal-fired power plants. To its credit, Greenpeace has undertaken some direct action in Alberta’s tar sands fields. We need others to join Greenpeace in much larger actions of this kind. Nonviolent direct action has been a significant catalyst in nearly every major social change movement in world history.

Canadian Dimension

Slavoj Zizek on Radical Ecology

Slavoj Žižek, dialectical-materialist philosopher and Lacanian psychoanalyst, is codirector of the International Centre for Humanities, Birkbeck College, London. His latest book is First as Tragedy, Then as Farce.

Canada's Green Party: Where did it all go wrong?

Ecosocialism Canada presents this commentary from Stuart Hertzog's blog greenpolitics.ca. While EC would argue that an anti-capitalist orientation is required to resolve both our human and environmental crisis, we need to reflect critically on the experience of the green movement. It remains a very uneven development across the globe and green politics have grown to reflect a spectrum of positions. EC welcomes comments on the politics of Canada's green movement.

Also visit Jack Warnock's blog section on Green politics.

Conventional political thinking undermined Canada’s Green parties

I have repeatedly pointed out on these pages that its conventional, hierarchical, party structure is the main reason for the failure of Green electoralism in Canada. But where else did Canadian Green parties come off the rails? I’ve pondered this question many times over the past two-and-a-half decades, and it seems to me that the top ten reasons for its historical and current failure are:

•Green parties are still seen as being only about the environment
•But pro-environmental policies are not exclusive to Green parties
•The environmental movement did not support Green electoralism
•Internal party processes became convoluted and dysfunctional
•A succession of autocratic leaders disempowered its grass roots
•Green parties have been taken over by the disenfranchised Right
•Middle-class, middle-age, small-c conservative environmentalism
•Little or no internal debate or education about political principles
•Exclusive focus on electoral process stifled grassroots activism
•A general distrust of politics has left Green parties out on a limb

Let’s look at each of these in more detail:

IceSlave Update: Iceland President vetos "Icesave"

Iceland Review On-line

After the President of Iceland used his power to put the so-called Icesave-law to a national vote the Icelandic people are sharply divided. Many thought that the negotiation was handled poorly and that the British and Dutch governments treated Icelanders unfairly. Others are afraid that Iceland will be punished by not getting financial support from the International Monetary Fund and others who had promised to lend the country money. Many have interpreted the news as indicating that Icelanders do not want to pay their obligations. This is not a fair understanding of the national mood.

Some facts should be pointed out:

• The President, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, was one of the leaders of the left wing during his time in party politics. He was chairman of the People’s Alliance a socialist party that had between 10 and 15% of the vote. Traditionally, Icelandic presidents have tried to stay above party politics. One of Ólafur Ragnar’s fiercest enemies in Icelandic politics was Davíd Oddsson, chairman of the right wing Independence Party and Prime Minister for more than 13 years. The two are now united in their opposition to the Icesave-deal.
  

Land of the IceSlaves?

New left government
One year ago, after the fiscal collapse of their country, the 320,000 citizens of Iceland revolted and turfed a coalition government and a new left-wing coalition took over. The previous government had collapsed due to the public dissent over the handling of the financial crisis. The new coalition immediately set about removing Central Bank governor Davíð Oddsson and his aides from the bank through changes in law.

Elections were held in April, 2009 and the biggest winner in that election was the Left Green Movement who won over 21% of the votes, up from 15%. The Social Democratic Alliance  leads the coalition with the Left Green Movement. Since then the new coalition has been faced with trying to rescue Iceland's economy within the existing rules of capitalism. And this is creating strains in the coalition.

IceSave = IceSlave
On 28 August 2009, Iceland's parliament voted 34–15 (with 14 abstentions) to approve on a bill (commonly referred to as the Icesave bill) to repay Great Britain and the Netherlands more than $5 billion lost in Icelandic deposit accounts. Initially opposed in June, the bill was passed after amendments were added which set a ceiling on the repayment based on the country's Gross Domestic Product.

Opponents of the bill argued that Icelanders, already reeling from the crisis, should not have to pay for mistakes made by private banks under the watch of other governments. However, the government argued that if the bill failed to pass, Britain and the Netherlands might retaliate by blocking a planned aid package for Iceland from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Under the deal, up to 4% of Iceland's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will be paid to Britain, in sterling terms, from 2017-2023 while the Netherlands will receive up to 2% of Iceland's GDP, in euro terms, for the same period.

Resignation of Health Minister
In September, the Icelandic Minister of Health, Ogmundur Jonasson , resigned over government attempts to reach a deal with Britain and the Netherlands on repaying billions of dollars lost in Icelandic savings accounts. Jonasson represents the government's junior coalition partner, the Left-Greens. The health minister handed in his resignation because he can't support the government on the IceSave bill.

Protests rise again

On January 2, 2010  the Campaign group InDefence delivered a petition with more than 56 thousand Icelanders (25% of voters) which called on the President to refuse to sign the new controversial bill. The event began at Bessastöðum  after which a choir sang and turn on red flares.

The petition is aimed at convincing President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson to veto the IceSave bill. President Grimsson has already indicated he will take time to reflect before putting pen to paper. Opinion polls indicate that about 70% of the people oppose the bill.

InDefence had previously launched a petition in October 2008 because of the anti-terrorist legislation used by British authorities on Icelandic companies following the banking collapse.

Iceland protest video - Euronews

Why Ecological Revolution?

By John Bellamy Foster
Monthly Review, January 2010

 It is now universally recognized within science that humanity is confronting the prospect — if we do not soon change course — of a planetary ecological collapse. Not only is the global ecological crisis becoming more and more severe, with the time in which to address it fast running out, but the dominant environmental strategies are also forms of denial, demonstrably doomed to fail, judging by their own limited objectives. This tragic failure, I will argue, can be attributed to the refusal of the powers that be to address the roots of the ecological problem in capitalist production and the resulting necessity of ecological and social revolution.

 

The term “crisis,” attached to the global ecological problem, although unavoidable, is somewhat misleading, given its dominant economic associations. Since 2008, we have been living through a world economic crisis — the worst economic downturn since the 1930s. This has been a source of untold suffering for hundreds of millions, indeed billions, of people. But insofar as it is related to the business cycle and not to long-term factors, expectations are that it is temporary and will end, to be followed by a period of economic recovery and growth — until the advent of the next crisis. Capitalism is, in this sense, a crisis-ridden, cyclical economic system. Even if we were to go further, to conclude that the present crisis of accumulation is part of a long-term economic stagnation of the system — that is, a slowdown of the trend-rate of growth beyond the mere business cycle — we would still see this as a partial, historically limited calamity, raising, at most, the question of the future of the present system of production.

Read the full MR article here.

The Separation of Inorganic Conditions

“It is not the unity of living & active humanity with the natural, inorganic conditions of their metabolic exchange with nature and hence their appropriation of nature, which requires explanation or is the result of a historic process, but rather the separation between these inorganic conditions of human existence and this active existence, a separation which is  completely posited only in relation of wage labor & capital.”

Karl Marx, Grundrisse