Ecology, environment and socialism
- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
My recent viewing and involvement on this forum has led me to believe that I may be confused about the SPGB’s position in 2012 (or perhaps it is other members who are). If I do not express the socialist party’s position accurately then it is because I have been out of it for a while. It has been suggested to me that parts of Marxism is no longer relevant. I would appreciate clarification.
I believe this was the Party’s position when I left in the 80’s:
The Capitalist relations of production (capitalist ownership of the means of production and its wages system and profit motive) have become a ‘fetter’ on the productive forces of society preventing the satisfaction of human needs. As a result, the majority of workers live in dire poverty.
The SPGB recognises that capitalism remains a danger to our planet and that a socialist society would be in a better position to look after it. However, if socialism were to be established in the near future our first priority would be to rapidly increase the production and free distribution of food, clothing, shelter and essential medical supplies to those human beings in need and to end the miserable poverty caused by capitalism. This will take priority over any long term ecological and environmental concerns. The immediate wellbeing, safety and survival of the human species is of paramount concern
Hi OGW,
Like you I have been absent from the party for a while.
I think I am a little rusty on certain areas, but as far as I see on this subject I don’t see why the two could not be done simultaneously?
It is obvious, even to many non socialists, that there is tremendous waste in modern society. So if certain things eg food, shelter, medicine need to be made more available via increased production then I don’t think it is beyond our capabilities as a species to do so while at the same time curbing needless production in other areas.
With regards to environmental destruction, if scientists are correct, (it is so hard to wade through the sea of conflicting opinions) and our planet’s environment is in the danger that is being reported, (albeit rather lamely I might add) then it is the single most important issue we as a species are faced with immediately.
If we get this one wrong it could threaten most of our species with destruction.
What is obvious to us, is that capitalism with it’s sickening inept politicians, will not address this issue with any degree of seriousness.
Same old story, profits first everything else last. Capitalism could happily lead our species into extinction.
Another pressing reason why we need socialism.I agree with most of what you say, Socialist Punk, apart from the environment being the single most important issue that we as a species face. I think the single most important issue is the extreme poverty of our fellow workers.Even in capitalist society, people with full stomachs, warm homes and well fed children, campaign about the environment while at the same moment millions of parents are watching their children starve to death. Ask one of those people what is important.With a Socialist majority every single human being will have the access to what they need. This will require a release of society’s productive abilities from the profit motive. People with empty stomachs will not be able to take part in a democratic discussion about the environment and that is not democratic. If only people with full stomachs make decisions they will make undemocratic decisions.
Hi OGW,I don’t disagree with you on the issue of ending poverty if a socialist revolution ever came to fruition.Again I see the ending of poverty and trying to avert environmental disaster as being achievable at the same time.Imagine if the scientists warning us of global warming are correct. We could see vast areas of this planet becoming uninhabitable very rapidly, with huge numbers of people unable to cope with severe climate change and simply dying. It may even happen in our lifetime.At the end of the day humans die and life goes on, if our environment dies we as a species could cease to be.
Found this article on our website “An Inconvenient Question – Socialism and the Environment” http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/inconvenient-question-socialism-and-environmentIt states: “In the long run this implies stable or only slowly rising consumption and production levels, though it does not rule out carefully planned initial rapid growth over a period to reach a level at which consumption and production could then level off. “
And of course this (from Socialism as a Practical Alternative.) “… the first task of socialism would be to apply its productive capacity for the supply of these materials goods and services to every member of the world community. This would involve a rapid expansion of useful production achieved through a definite strategy of development. The work involved in setting up necessary means of production will mean that they are available for a long time and this work will call for a high peak of initial activity.But as these become available for use it is evident that the need for them will reduce. In this way production could fall, and the community will need only to concern itself with the day-today production of goods for consumption, the running of services, and maintenance…Here we are talking about irrigation schemes, a safe world energy system, housing, drainage, clean water, roads, bridges, transport, communications systems, etc. … But after these have become available for use, not only might production fall but the need for information, planning and decision-making might also be reduced. So it can be envisaged that the centres of organisation, involved initially at the world and regional levels, could give way to more local administration for the work of providing for daily needs, the running of services and maintenance.” http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-practical-alternative#ch8
Cheers, HollyHead. Will check that out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.