Extinction Rebellion
- This topic has 446 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I only made the reference to hunter-gatherer to give support to the claim that homo sapiens exists because we can change our conditions and environments and it did benefit our species to be able to do that…we prospered and re-produced, the sign of that we were a successful species.
I am often amazed as a Scot to hear the tourists marvel at our wonderful Highland heather moors, mistaking them to be natural when in fact they are man-made and currently retained maintained for the pleasures of the wealthy grouse shooting estate owners with the original Caledonian Forest wiped out.
Am I a prisoner of my own ideology? Do I possess the fallacy of confirmation bias as you imply?
The claim being made is that there are too many people in the world for the existing resources to satisfy all adequately? And the claim is that in future the situation can only worsen.
That isn’t an ideological question. But one can be shown empirically to be false. We can supply and support many more billions than there are presently on the planet.
Can it be done through the existing relationships and institutions that we in todays society. We can agree that it isn’t possible because already the capitalist system in unable to fulfil that goal despite food and resource surpluses. We don’t have a population problem – we have a distribution problem.
I’m not fooling myself, schekn. Nor am I bestowing society with infallibility, but the potential is there and the experience and expertise exists for that potential to be realized. We are no way close to exhausting or even approaching our limits. I am no way deluding myself but yes we need to change the system or we do face societal collapse.
Your advice on how to associate and relate to the environment movement is appreciated. We shouldn’t alienate and distance ourselves to a receptive audience.
But I should add the cautionary caveat that I rarely raise the issue of over-population and carrying capacity. I present a vision that the suffering and misery can disappear by social revolution to socialism. We are the ones who are challenged as utopians and alongside those ideas are other opinions inherent in those who accept capitalism will continue to prevail by the repetition of the lazy, selfish, aggressive human nature caricature of what humanity is in their eyes.
I don’t think it is possible to always agree with other people, the way to resolve that conflict is to engage in comradely disagreements – and that takes two sides to do.
Socialists will always be treated with suspicion and skepticism, and although there is historic reasons for it, we have to be aware that it is in the interest of the ruling class to ensure that confusion continues by misrepresenting ourselves.
Self-education and self-liberation is the only way this dichotomy can be overcome – and I am an optimist that people can and do change their belief systems. We can only help out by speeding up the process a little, schekn, and hopefully not retard it.
I am always mindful (if not always true to it) of the defunct group Solidarity in As We See It
“…Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others – even by those allegedly acting on their behalf…”
I completely agree with Wez, “The paradigm shift from emotional individualism to a rational social being” is a very important goal, and a difficult task for many. I wouldn’t even isolate XR specifically, I think it’s a common problem, and if we are to succeed, we really need to make some strides in education, to spread the importance of rationality as the basis of technical side of social structures. We are, of course, human beings, and emotions are at the very foundation of our thinking process; moreover, emotions are central in interpersonal communication. However, it is imperative that we put our emotions aside when building an airplane, for example, or when building a well-functioning society, as this is largely a technical problem.
What makes 21st century vastly different from the 20th is the new communication technologies. I would even argue that socialism is impossible without the Internet and modern computer technologies that automatically detect lack of products and send requests to production centers. Even this alone would already suggest that no, we have not tried everything, as those 20th century attempts could not make use of our modern technologies, and it is possible this is the reason they failed. I wouldn’t just dismiss all of our history as failed junk. I am sure there is a lot they did wrong, but we should be thankful to them for making an example of what not to do, and for providing some examples of what went well. I am sure there is a lot we can learn from and use again, this time with rationality and the modern technology of our time.
“I only made the reference to hunter-gatherer to give support to … the sign of that we were a successful species.” – biologically speaking, we have always been a successful species, with or without affecting the environment. What changed in Americas and Australia was that we became an invasive species, up to the point that we wiped out all that big mammal food bonanza, and then we went back to the same normally successful species we had been before moving into the new habitat. So referencing hunter-gatherers does not support the point that we are a successful species, it rather supports the view that we are an irrational species that will undermine the progress of the society for the temporary benefit of short-term profit.
Why do I insist on this particular point? Because it is important to let go of some harmful beliefs in order to become a more successful revolutionary. I do not think you have a confirmation bias, Alan, I believe, as I already wrote, that you would retain some beliefs just because you firmly hold others, which means there are packaged beliefs that are tied together. You say, “We can supply and support many more billions than there are presently on the planet.” This is quite possible, I do not know. I don’t think this is important to discuss. How is it really imperative to talk about this? Then you say, “We are no way close to exhausting or even approaching our limits.” This is a crucial point which does need to be discussed, right now. Why? Because if you are wrong, it could jeopardize everything. According to the latest scientific environmental predictions, there is a good chance of runaway global heating. This would change our environment in the way that would take away a lot of currently usable resources (land, water, good climate, etc.) for the foreseeable future, it would be very difficult to reverse. Now, this position happens to be in perfect agreement with the eco-guys. The only reason you do not want to assimilate it is because it somehow contradicts your beliefs that there is and always will be plenty. Please try to separate these two. I agree that we already possess all necessary technology to eradicate poverty. I agree that capitalism is the very thing that brings scarcity, there is no need to convince me of that. But I do insist that we really are on the verge of ecological collapse, and that there is a real danger of the sixth mass extinction. Animal and plant species are also our resources. 1 million species already face extinction (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/06/world/un-biodiversity-report-end-of-nature-sutter-scn/index.html).”We are no way close to exhausting or even approaching our limits.” Well, I must say that in this it is your opinion against the current scientific consensus of some of the smartest and most well-informed people on the planet. We are approaching our limits, and fast (http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/climate%20emergency%20Ripple%20et%20al%20%208-8-19.pdf).
Why not, instead of promising bonanza of plenty, just agree with environmental activists on what we can already agree on, based on scientific evidence, and explain to them that the real reason this is happening is profit-based economic system? This way we can actually agree, without any “comradely disagreements”, and work together rather than against each other.
“Socialists will always be treated with suspicion and skepticism” – what a defeatist attitude, not suitable for a comrade! Sure, now the attitude is rather negative, but we must work on changing the image of socialism and the party, there is no time for skepticism or gloom.
“Self-education and self-liberation is the only way this dichotomy can be overcome” – this is a dangerous belief. This is the same as when people say that personal choices of consumers are responsible for the environment. No, we are not responsible. When they build cheap fast underground mag-lev trains I will stop flying, but demanding that I alone stop airplane industry by refusing to fly is nothing more than capitalist propaganda, it is impossible. The same way we can expect people to self-educate forever, it will never happen, as long as they are imprisoned in wage slavery and exposed to capitalist media all the time. We need to reach out, and do it based on the beliefs that we share, not the differences that separate us.
‘ The same way we can expect people to self-educate forever, it will never happen, as long as they are imprisoned in wage slavery and exposed to capitalist media all the time.’
And yet you, like all of us in the Socialist movement, were also exposed to the same unrelenting 24/7 media indoctrination – and yet we rejected it. It has always interested me how we achieved this as we are not special, geniuses or aliens. We are just ordinary people like every one else. I would be interested in how you explain our existence. I think it is as important to understand why we became socialists as it is to discover why the majority did not.
Let’s not kid ourselves, Wez, we are not just ordinary people like everyone else. In order to properly understand the case for socialism one needs to at least read quite a lot of literature, and this alone would make us different. Just by reading this forum I can already see that most participants rarely misspell, have few typos, and use good grammar. This places us in the top 5-10% of the population. Most of us would have some background that connects us to the movement: parents who struggled in labor unions’ attempts to improve working conditions, maybe older friends who introduced exciting new concepts. Many of us would like the socialist agenda because of its ethical standing: we are essentially fighting for the good of all, not just a few or even only ourselves. This gratifying feeling is somewhat similar to what religious people experience when they “love their neighbor”, but this is also not for everybody, many prefer to just be independent and never care about others. Capitalism made it entirely possible, even though for most of our history we had to live in communities and rely on each other’s help. Finally, there must have been some kind of lucky coincidence that allowed us to not be fooled by the capitalist propaganda which says, “Stalin and Mao is what socialism leads to, forget about it, even if it worked (it doesn’t) it would just be a tyranny”. This would likely also require a lot of reading. But of course, I cannot answer for all people here. Please write what you think, would be very interesting to hear your opinion, and everyone else’s.
Let’s not kid ourselves, Wez, we are not just ordinary people like everyone else.
Oh yes we are. We are in the the 90-95%.
We are of course all “ordinary people” but there is another aspect. At the moment, when socialists are so very few, a higher degree of understanding of the workings of capitalism and the course of history, are required of socialists (at least of organised socialists) than will be the case when the socialist movement takes off and begins to become a mass movement.
To be a socialist, all that is required basically is:
- To realise that capitalism does not work and cannot be made to work in the interest of the majority, those excluded from ownership and control of the means of life.
- To want socialism (as the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life, with production and distribution to directly satisfy people’s needs) and understand its implications.
- To realise that socialism can only be established democratically by a majority who want and understand it.
These are relatively simple propositions and do not necessarily require much reading or even being literate for that matter.
However, today, most people do not accept (1) and don’t want (2). So the few of us today who are socialists have to be able to convincingly argue that capitalism can’t be reformed to work in the interest of the majority. Yes, this does require some reading (though it is also evident on the basis of lived experience). With regard to (2), most people don’t think it possible; so, here again, some knowledge of “human nature” and past societies is required. As to (3), the disagreement here is generally with people who already largely accept (1) and (2) but refuting the view that socialism could be achieved through some other means (minority insurrection, gradualism, following leaders, dictatorship) does, again, require some knowledge of past attempts to escape from capitalism and why they failed. More reading.
So, yes, socialists today do need to be more well-read than most people are or need to be. But when the movement takes off, people who want socialism won’t need to have read up on economics, history, anthropology, etc. They will just need to want socialism. Then the time of arguing against capitalism and for socialism will be over; which, incidentally, won’t have come about purely from the arguments of socialists but also, even mainly, from external events making people really discontented with capitalism (even, who knows, some eco9logical catastrophe or war). It will be the time for the growing socialist minority to be discussing how to bring it into being.
So, no, we are not saying that to get socialism a majority will have had to have read Marx.
‘ but also, even mainly, from external events making people really discontented with capitalism (even, who knows, some eco9logical catastrophe or war).’
Blimey, sounds a bit like the Trots expectation that capitalism will crash itself out of existence. War and catastrophe can also destroy many people’s optimism about the possibility of making a better world. Marx’s model for working class action was based on the bourgeoisie’s class consciousness in terms of their perceived economic interests being the catalyst for their revolution. I still think this is the most likely motivation for working class revolution and the establishment of socialism (although not always the sole motivation).
In answer to Shekn’s: ‘there must have been some kind of lucky coincidence that allowed us to not be fooled by the capitalist propaganda’ I can only speak of my own experience; from a very young age I always had to have a reason for doing or not doing something. Just because an authority figure (parents or whomever) told me to do it was never enough. I’ve always believed this ‘innate’ anti-authoritarianism is something all socialists share and makes us so distinct psychologically from the authoritarian Left. I would be interested if other comrades agree.
Just to add one of my favourite all-time quotes from Joseph Dietzgen.
” If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself.”
As for expecting hurdles to be met from many who have their pre-conceived ideas on what socialism is, I think we can thank all those groups and parties and organisations that claimed to be “socialist” yet not only weren’t but were the actual antipathy to the idea of socialism. Much of our time is clearing up such misconceptions and as I say, the ruling class are happily still muddying the waters.
Are we different from other workers? Yes and No. As said on another thread we are class-conscious workers who possess a materialist conception of history and that makes us see the world from a very different viewpoint from our fellow-workers. Since we hold that our circumstances, situation and surroundings broadly determines our ideas and thoughts, we are not as defeatist even if we do express a degree of fatalism.
Schekn,
In response to this discussion thread I have posted on our blog, endeavouring to answer such things as carrying capacity and over-population.
It is a bit too lengthy and perhaps should have been split into separate parts but I hope it clarifies where the SPGB positions itself.
No doubt you won’t agree with everything and some things you would yourself have worded differently, as would even by our own members, but it can be linked to by yourself in your other discussions elsewhere on the web as representative of our ecological approach.
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2019/08/sustainable-socialism_11.html
Good stuff, Alan. Liked the bit about the important distinction between resources consumption per head (which includes all the waste of capitalism represented by everything to do with buying and selling and with the military) and personal consumption; which means that, with the abolition of capitalism, personal consumption levels can be maintained (albeit more rational in the absence of advertising and adulteration with sugar, etc) and even increased in the parts of the world without using up more resources.
“… a dangerous belief. This is the same as when people say that personal choices of consumers are responsible for the environment. No, we are not responsible. When they build cheap fast underground mag-lev trains I will stop flying, but demanding that I alone stop airplane industry by refusing to fly is nothing more than capitalist propaganda, it is impossible. “
Good point, Schekn, but I’m not sure that all those around XR have understood it. While their campaign is aimed at pressuring governments to do more to tackle the problems caused by global overwarming, it would also seem to be aimed at pressuring ordinary people into not flying, not driving a car, not eating meat, etc. As an attack on people’s lifestyles, this will not win them support. Just the opposite. Coupled with disruptions to everyday life, it will create resentment and antagonism not just to them but to their aim and so provide a potential mass base for vested interests to manipulate. Completely counter-productive. I’ve got no problem, by the way, with kids taking a day off school. That doesn’t harm anybody. Good luck to them.
It is not as if people don’t already know about the dangers of global overwarming. Most do and are sympathetic to something being done about it. We shouldn’t be antagonising them but explaining the cause (capitalism) and the way-out (socialism as the common ownership of the Earth’s resources). Not so exciting but more effective in the long run.
Alan, thank you for the article, it is good material. It is not very new, unfortunately. I will try again to emphasize the points I have already made several times, yet they are being ignored completely. Not rejected, not approved, just ignored, as if they were never even uttered.
- It is possible to change your opinion on a part of the issue without necessarily giving up the rest of your position or switching camps entirely. I know, it is difficult, but please try to not be so dogmatic: if you agree on the fact (and it is a fact, backed by the majority of scientists worldwide, which again you never addressed in your replies, not once) that we are indeed approaching the limits of our planet in the levels of greenhouse gases, the number of species extinct, the amount of aquifers depleted, etc. – if you agree on this issue, it does NOT mean that you will automatically have to change your views on the fact that capitalism is what is responsible for all this, and that socialism can solve most of these problems. We can still insist on changing the system, even though we agree that right now we are approaching a crisis. Just because the greens are also saying this does not mean we have to agree with them on the rest of their beliefs.
- It is not smart to focus on differences between positions when the main issue is shared and agreed upon. I believe this is what is also responsible for our meager numbers, this “being hostile” to every other party. It really doesn’t make us very much different from the Militants. Yes, I know, there are some deal breakers that we really don’t want to compromise on, such as the money-less society and equality, but this is not what I am talking about. How exactly does it hurt the party to agree with eco-people on the fact that the environment is being destroyed at unprecedented levels? Thankfully, ALB understands this (“We shouldn’t be antagonizing them”), yet in the article there is nothing but hostility (“being apologists for over-population advocates makes us allies with the racists and the various greens who accept capitalism”). As long as we keep pushing other people away, we will stay in low numbers.
- OK, this one is new, but I will still write it. You know what made me go back to university after my humanities studies and start a new education in hard sciences? This scientific principle of agreeing on facts, or the best approximation based on the latest scientific understanding. It is actually often celebrated among scientists when you are shown to be wrong because it allows you to develop a better vision of reality, the one that represents actual state of things more realistically. I developed a system for myself that whenever I encountered some information that challenged my world view in any way, I would not stop until I got to the bottom of the issue and then I had to change the whole “wallpaper of my mind” to accommodate this new knowledge. I suspect this could also work for groups of people or even movements. The only thing required is an agreement that whenever one group shows to another something that is convincingly true, people in that other group would have to accept it and continue together, spreading the knowledge. All it takes is integrity and willingness to accept scientific consensus. Failure to do so may well result in the ruin of our civilization.
I sincerely do not understand why these points are being ignored. Is what I am writing too difficult to understand?
Points 1 and 2 takes us all the way back to the 19thC when it was very much agreed that the system had to be changed and all those who described themselves socialists accepted this fact – (not so for many socialists today who now dropped any pretence of advocating a socialist society and have satisfied for a form of regulated capitalism.)
But what emerged from the 19th Century was that all those socialists who understood the cause of society’s problems and were in agreement that a socialist revolution was necessary could not agree on the manner of establishing socialism and diverged from any opportunity for unity.
When I previously mentioned that the idea of socialism was viewed with a certain amount of skepticism and suspicion, it was because two of the socialist branches, labourism and bolshevism, ended in failure and created much disillusionment.
We are now confronted with a very similar dilemma today.
Of course we can agree with the eco-movement that we are suffering from environmental harm and we can even agree with many that the cause is capitalism. I hold that it is a existential threat to civilisation.
However, once again we a separated by our respective strategies of solving the problem. In many cases with certain proponents of the eco-movement our differing approaches are incompatible. We cannot remain mute on these issues.
Just as earlier the ecologists were engaged in a battle of ideas with climate change deniers, we too are challenging the accepted conventional wisdom and we have made little inroads, sadly.
You may say that our case is not very original – well, true since it has been one presented by socialists for well over a hundred years – but in my experience, the majority of people are still trapped within the capitalist ideology and we shouldn’t be really be surprised.
As Marxists we have conceded that the dominant ideas of a society is that of the ruling class. It is only when those come into conflict with new contradictory conditions and circumstances and become break down that ideas change.
In my most pessimistic moments I think even the most progressive liberal green is still tethered to the beliefs of capitalism. The blog article undermines much of the accepted interpretation and understanding of how they see the world via the media and the “experts” who hold their own ideological bias in maintaining the myth that social evolution is not possible.
Am I hostile? No. Do I disagree? Yes.
Shekn – Whilst I accept wholeheartedly the viewpoint that the resources of the earth of finite and that at the present rate of consumption and the misuse of these resources cannot be sustained, I differ with regard to the view that this is caused, or can be solved in terms of human overpopulation.
As socialists we can see that huge amounts of food are inevitably wasted through the capitalistic mode of production and distribution. There are a myriad of examples of this, food being destroyed to boost market prices, arable land being taken out of production for the same reason, the blight of cash crops, the insane levels of waste of food for a variety of reasons (for example it has been estimated that in California 50% of food production is thrown away, etc. etc. In fact the whole market system where food production is limited by the by the fact that it produced to meet the needs of the market and not the needs of human beings, completely distorts the picture in terms of production of food.
Another small but relevant example, I was recently on holiday in Lanzarote, a very barren landscape, but dotted at regular intervals with Golf Courses, all beautifully kept and verdant. I did a bit of research and found that across the Canary Islands alone there are at least 25 golf course each with an average size of 150 hectares per course. although in capitalist terms it is not cost effective to turn this grass production over to the production of another type of grass (wheat), it is an example of what can be technically done. Working on the basis of Australian farms which farm in a similar climate and produce an average of 9.33 metric tonnes of wheat per hectare, this gives us a potential of 13,995 tonnes of wheat production. So if human ingenuity can turn the deserted landscape of Lanzarote into golf courses, purely because it meets market demands, what potentially could human ingenuity create, released from the demands of production for sale on the market and freed from the dictate that human labour can only be used to produce what is profitable to the few.
Again when we come to discuss greenhouse gases, the point the socialist makes is not that we need to move to some kind of puritanical society where we capture our own farts to save the planet, but that at least 50%, if not more of greenhouse gas production is unnecessary. The natural resources used to sustain banking, insurance, advertising, stock market, invoicing, etc. etc. are a massive. All of the travel involved, the lighting, the heating, the air conditioning, etc. etc. will be unnecessary in a Socialist Society. I look at my own work, mainly training and teaching, about 70% of what I do and the resources I use doing the job are unnecessary. Just taking the one point you make about aquifers, how much water is used globally in production processes that are heavily reliant on the use of water, not because it is necessary but because it is cheaper than sustainable methods
The point I am attempting to make is that examining what is possible and likely in a capitalist society and applying it to a socialist society is not only erroneous, it actually depletes our case of one of its strongest arguments, that we do not stand for equalisation of misery, but the best for everyone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.