> Despite your faint praise for Naomi Klein, all of what > you harshly attribute to me below could be attributed > to her as well.
Even if this were true, it would be irrelevant: it would simply indicate that I had misjudged her book. The real point was whether there are practical differences between bourgeois environmentalism and a radical environmental program. > I´ve nowhere said > - and, to my knowledge, neither has she - that > oeour practical task is to campaign in favor of corn > ethanol, or unplanned growth of biofuel ingeneral, > or fracking, or the carbon tax, or cap and trade, > or Michael Bloomberg, etc. You wrote of the "fundamentally sound program" of the bourgeois environmentalists, and of the supposed lack of any but an abstract alternative. Then you are offended when I refer to their program concretely. And you seemed to have forgotten what you wrote about Bloomberg just a few messages back. However, we seem to have come to an impasse with this discussion. So I will try to continue on the issue of bourgeois vs. working class environmentalism in another way. In particular, I think that it is important for the militant environmental movement to have a clear and public assessment of the key figures and institutions of bourgeois environmentalism, such as Al Gore and the IPCC. As a contribution to a discussion on this, I will post in a separate thread an assessment of the recent IPCC Synthesis Report. > > On Nov 27, 2014, at 1:32 AM, Joseph Green <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Marv Gandall wrote: > > > >> On a practical level - about the need for mass pressure and the > > environmentally > >> safe regulation of the economy - we agree. On a theoretical level - that > >> it is only the working masses which have a class interest in avoiding > >> natural catastrophes, we don´t - but it is more important to agree on > >> practical than on theoretical questions. > >> > > > > You reformulate things in a way that obliterates the difference between the > > working class and bourgeois viewpoints. Bourgeois environmentalism > > recognizes > > various dangers, and the best of its representatives have campaigned about > > these dangers. But its proposals lead to ruin. And there are already fights > > inside the environmental movement over a number of the bourgeois proposals, > > such as cap and trade, natural gas as a transition fuel (which basically > > means fracking), etc. In order to obscure the difference between the > > different views among environmentalists, you ignore the concrete examples I > > have given of what bourgeois environmentalism has advocated in practice. > > You > > ignore that the policies that the bourgeois environmentalists advocate have > > led to one fiasco after another, such as the corn ethanol fiasco, the > > acceleration of destruction of rain forests, the promotion of natural gas > > as > > a transition fuel, the failure of Kyoto, the renewed promotion of nuclear > > power, etc. > > > > You then say that we both are agreed on the practical issues. No, we are > > not > > in agreement. I don't agree that our practical task is to campaign in favor > > of corn ethanol, or unplanned growth of biofuel in general, or fracking, or > > the carbon tax, or cap and trade, or Michael Bloomberg, etc. The > > environmental demonstrations are a good thing, despite their present > > ambiguity, but we need to take steps to improve the mass pressure for > > serious > > environmentalism, and this includes criticism of the past fiascos in the > > name > > of environmentalism and building up an environmental trend distinct from > > bourgeois environmentalism. > > > > You defend "the growing wing of the bourgeoisie" that will supposedly take > > proper environmental steps based on its financial self-interest; you defend > > its representative Bloomberg; and you prettify market pressures. Basically, > > you have the same position on practical steps as Al Gore and Michael > > Bloomberg. One of the ways you defend them is by avoiding any concrete > > consideration of the fiascos of bourgeois environmental, of the failure of > > Kyoto, and of the exposures of "(bourgeois) green gone wrong", and then > > complaining that I'm not concrete. > > > >>> One of the key issues is whether it is possible to achieve the needed > > reforms > >>> in cooperation with Bloomberg and the corporations, or whether one needs > > to > >>> oppose the corporations and market fundamentalism. It concerns whether > > one > >>> demands, not just regulations and planning, but the end to the > > privatization > >>> of the government. Without a change in the way government agencies are > > now > >>> run, regulation and planning would be jokes. It concerns whether there is > > a > >>> demand that planning take into account mass livelihood as a goal > > alongside > >>> environmental goals, or imagines that green jobs in itself will solve the > > > >>> social issues. It concerns whether planning is done financially, or > > material > >>> planning is involved. And so on. > >> > >> This sounds like the kind of abstract left boilerplate ... > > > > You complain about abstract boilerplate, while avoiding any concrete > > discussion of the different policies put forward by bourgeois > > environmentalism, of their result, and of the criticism of this policy. But > > let's see. > > > > Is opposition to the privatization of the public schools just "abstract > > left > > boilerplate"? Is opposition to the privatization of water just "abstract > > left > > boilerplate'? And if not, then why is opposition to the privatization of > > the > > government (including environmental regulation and enforcement), such as > > the > > contracting out of regulation of industry to the very industries being > > regulated, a mere abstraction? Why is opposition to fracking a mere > > abstraction? Why is having plans formulated in physical terms rather than > > financial a mere abstration? Why is demanding planning for mass livelihood > > a > > mere abstraction? Why is agitation against the crimes of corporations a > > mere > > abstraction? Etc. > > > >> I´ve been accustomed to hearing when leftists who want to "separate > >> decisively" from the liberal/social democratic leadership of a trade > >> union, environmental, civil rights, or other mass-based organization are > >> unable to identify a clear and coherent demand or set of demands to > >> counterpose to fundamentally sound programs. > > > > And so you seem to have concluded that it is wrong to separate decisively > > from the "liberal/social democratic" forces; instead you accept their > > program. Well, I can understand that some people have become tired of > > trying > > to develop a better left alternative, especially given the present > > theoretical and ideological crisis of the left, but the justification you > > give for this is rather weak. > > > > Is "corn ethanol" a "fundamentally sound program"? Are "carbon offsets" a > > fundamentally sound program? Was the creation of artificial pollution > > markets > > via cap and trade a fundamentally sound program? Are natural gas (which is > > almost entirely fracking in the US) and "clean coal" sound programs? Etc. > > > > The militant section of the environmental movement does have a problem > > making > > a clear break with bourgeois environmentalism. This is a concrete point if > > one examines what happened in the last round of mass environmental > > demonstration. This problem is partly the lack of a clearer and more > > pointed > > program, which is part of the theoretical crisis in the left. There is also > > the growth of environmental concerns to new sections of people, which is > > important but at first brings into the movement their previous standpoints. > > There is the pressure from the revisionist trends that dominate the radical > > left at this time. And, among other things, there is also the issue of > > funding from > > foundations, corporations, and the supposedly green "growing wing of the > > bourgeoisie"; this has its effect as well. Naomi Klein's book wasn't > > clearer > > theoretically than the militant section of the movement as a whole, but its > > criticism of Big Green was one of its services to the movement. > > > > -- Joseph Green > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > ----------------------------------- Joseph Green [email protected] ------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
