Extinction Rebellion
- This topic has 446 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“This is the sort of stuff I mean:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/extinction-rebellion/page/7/#post-186274” – I do not see anything mystical about what you posted there. Maybe you mean “spiritual”? Then yes, I would agree. But what is wrong with that? Just because you lump together spiritual attitudes and “Gaia worshiping” does not make it factually correct. I personally see nothing to criticize there, and I am yet to hear a single mention of anything mystical at an XR meeting. Spiritual – yes, and people need it for emotional health; mystical – no.
“There’s plenty more of that in the book. And the Afterword is written by a former Archbishop of Canterbury.” – argumentum ad hominem, well done, comrade! Of course an archbishop cannot possibly say anything NOT mystical or anything that makes sense. Bravo!
“You are missing the point. I wasn’t suggesting that Hallam or XR were advocating capitalism, but merely that the collapse/overthrow of a government opposed to XR’s policies would not amount to ending to capitalism..” – no, you are missing the point. While you are suggesting that what these people are fighting for is impossible, you could be working with these people to explain that a bigger share of their efforts could be directed towards bringing in and educating larger groups of people on the real causes of climate change. Instead of impotent criticism from the safe position of “well, we are just WAITING until the vast majority somehow magically on their own bring themselves to finally understand our socialist truths” you could be proposing what we already now can actually do to make that happen. This is the point. Instead of alienating them and criticizing their methods we should be pointing out their mistakes and indicating how our position actually leads to real solutions.
For example, these people here ( https://greenanticapitalist.org/ ) are already doing their part. Are we just going to keep sitting in our ivory tower and keep producing this critical “bla-bla-blah”, or can we start a productive dialog with people who actually hope to see socialism take place?
“…or can we start a productive dialog with people who actually hope to see socialism take place?”
Actually, some of us are already engaging in a “productive dialogue” with Greens and those part of XR. Unfortunately, though, those I’ve spoken to have the same misconceptions about socialism as the rest of the population. They, like the aspergic Greta Thunberg, think it’s all about those in positions of power having the “political will” to enact the necessary legislation. In other words, capitalist politicians will be compelled to address anthropogenic climate change provided they’re put under sufficient pressure. It’s adherence to that naïve viewpoint which “is laughable at best and possibly dangerous”.
Spiritual/mystical/love – these are all concepts of transcendence; they speak of the existence of something vitally important that is not physical. In other words they are ‘unmaterialistic’ like Jung’s ‘collective unconsciousness’ their metaphysics is not empirically based. Such ‘faith’ has been and continues to be one of the most dangerous and historically impotent ideologies that opposes socialism.
This kind of reformism/idealism has built its own enormous and ethereal ivory tower that will not allow them to listen to materialism and socialism. We will never stop trying to communicate to such groups but their inability to comprehend us is somehow our fault? We are the only party that is not waiting for socialism – we work for it 24/7. The thousands of groups like XR just make our job more difficult because they refuse to engage in ‘ productive dialogue’. Save your criticism for them – not us.
But I am not criticising the people XR’s leaders have “mobilised” to express their concern and frustration about global warming. They are right to be concerned. What I am criticising is the ideology of XR’s founders and leaders.
Nor am saying that it is impossible to do anything about it. What I said was impossible or, rather, unrealisable is to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2025, as some of XR’s leaders are well aware (though perhaps not a raving lunatic like Hallam). What are we supposed to say when some of them go around saying “The end of the world is nigh in 10 years” and that only 1 billion humans are going to survive, i.e. that 6 billion of the world’s current population are going to perish? Just let it pass without challenging it. I don’t think so. How, if we don’t, are we going to win over those “mobilised” by XR’s leaders to see what the rational way out is (not that I think most of them will need convincing that Armageddon is not going to start in 2029)? Which is what some of our comrades in Manchester, England, will be trying to do as we speak.
Personally I don’t see any difference between mystical and religious or spiritual. You can’t be any of them and rational and scientific, which you need to be to work out what is the effective and lasting way to deal with the threat of global overwarming.
Dave, do you really have to say that Greta is aspergic? What does her medical condition have to do with her message? What is wrong with you? Just like ALB, you would rather use ad hominem arguments. If you see that those people are wrong, it is important to tell THEM that, not us. We already know that. Hence my criticism of the original ALB’s post.
Wez – “This kind of reformism/idealism” – how did you suddenly arrive at reformism there? Where did you take that? We were not talking about reformism. This is the kind of “hostile” aatitude I have been talking about here on this forum a lot – people just lump together everything negative they know into the “anti-socialist image”, and then attack this straw man. This kind of intellectual imprecision and laziness must be avoided by socialist comrades. Let us focus on what is discussed, not what you would like to just criticize because you feel like criticizing.
ALB – great, you are not criticizing people who are mobilized by the XR movement. Then what ARE you doing? I started posting on this thread with a clear message that it would be beneficial to start a dialog and communicate with these people, explain to them our message. All you write is just useless criticism. Why? What are you trying to achieve? Please stop this negativism and rather join our attempts at bringing more members to the party.
Schekn, so you are not prepared to criticise someone or some group which says that, unless some unrealisable demand is met by 2025, Armageddon will begin in 2029 and 6 billion people will perish? Such views are making a laughing stock of those wanting to do something about climate change. Criticising this is not negativism. It’s trying to bring some rationality into the debate.
The idea that a minority of activists or conscious elite can change capitalism and make it environmentally friendly is the very definition of contemporary idealism and reformism. Why is to disagree with someone an act of hostility? Again why do you continually accuse us of this and not our opponents – we always incur their hostility by challenging liberal leftist shibboleths. Instead of focusing on our short-comings you should be challenging them about their idealist ivory tower hostility towards socialism – after all they have the thousands of supporters and high profile.
All you write is just useless criticism. Why? What are you trying to achieve? Please stop this negativism and rather join our attempts at bringing more members to the party
I am sort of sympathetic to what you are saying here but I strongly agree with ALB and WEZ on the need for constructive criticism. It does worry me that the kind of over-the-top alarmist apocalyptic language employed by some Green activists could prove hugely counterproductive and disempowering and invite a sense of fatalism and apathy. What’s the point in struggling if the world as we know it is doomed to end in 10 , 20 or 30 years time and there is nothing on the horizon that is going to stop that happen? Might as well binge on a diet of hedonistic abandonment while we have the chance
On the other hand, the site you linked to – https://greenanticapitalist.org/ – seems quite encouraging or, at least, makes a number of points with which we could broadly go along with. It is always useful to acknowledge the positive in other people and not simply focus on the negative. The Party could certainly do more in this respect – to brush up on its PR so to speak. You don’t always attract people by being relentlessly negative.
However, while some of the points this organisation makes on its website sound promising I am not entirely surely what to make of them in the wider context of challenging capitalism. Most anti-capitalists despite the way in which they self define themselves, are not really anti-capitalists – they are anti-neo liberalism. They identify capitalism with the free market and neoliberal policies and this demonstrates a major difference between them and revolutionary socialists.
You would know these Green anti-capitalists better than I as you are presumably based in the UK (I am not). What is their take on capitalism and how do they define the socialist alternative to capitalism?
The correct article has been published below this one
This is the conception of a group of leftist about the so called Green movement, which they consider as a tool of the capitalist class and a way to attract toward them the youth and young workers instead of seen that the real problem is capitalism
https://en.internationalism.org/content/16675/you-cant-have-green-capitalism
This is the correct article that I intended to publish
Wez: 1) you can attack an idea for as long as you wish, it is a pointless business anyway. When you just convince yourself that someone represents a “wrong” idea you automatically block yourself from working with them. This is why I “continually accuse you” and this is why what you do is not simple disagreement but an act of hostility. You could disagree and then try to work WITH people to come to an understanding, or (what you are doing) you can disagree and say “there, you are wrong. Until you understand this, I will just wait and criticize an IDEA (which you all, whoever you are, represent, because it is so convenient for me to just criticize an idea and not enter a dialog). Besides, who told you that I am not challenging them as well? I am, they are discussing their activities on Basecamp (where one needs to be invited, apparently, if you don’t want to pay for it), and I tell them that they need to focus on the real reason of the problem. But we need to put our differences away and try to work TOGETHER. Only when we are willing to do so can we start a productive dialog, and a change can happen.
ALB: First of all, basics of psychology – you should not criticize a person, you should only criticize their actions. Second – are you sure you actually listened to the interview? Roger Hallam looks like the only sane person there. His message, which he repeats several time, is that the current scientific consensus is that if we continue on the same path of “business as usual” for the next 10 years, there is a significant chance of runaway climate change and societal collapse. If this happens, then yes, several billion people will likely die. We are not talking about random rationality here, these are our best scientific predictions. I already listed several books for you and others on this forum which describe in detail how this scenario is very much likely. Before you continue labeling people “raving lunatics” I suggest you actually read them. Then we can talk.
Robbo203, I am quite sure GAF (Green anti-capitalist Front) are not just against neo-liberalism, but I will report here after I know more, so for now let’s just say – most likely.
I cannot agree on the alarmist language though: I think if you asked a random person on the streets of London before this April, they wouldn’t even be able to tell the real scale of the environmental challenge we are facing. Thanks to the XR, now there are a lot more people who are aware. The fact is that unless you spell it out in quite blunt terms people are really not emotionally connecting to this information. This is because we are biologically not hardwired to notice gradual change or to imagine change outside our immediate sensory perception. As a result, if you say it in terms scientists usually use, like “there is a XX percent chance of climate change with XX degrees of temperature increase”, people just don’t react at all. To me, being a little bit more concerned than warranted about even a slight chance of a really deadly outcome is more than justified. If we just keep being “rational” and “calm” nothing will happen. That is, until it is too late. Again, I already wrote to ALB, if you want to read about the problem, please do tell me, I have a number of books I can recommend.
schekn, is performing a great service to the SPGB.
He is actually engaging in debate and discussion with us on this topic. Despite the extensive support of eco-activists no-one else is, especially from XR. We are invisible to them, well below their radar. schekn, is the best we’ve got and we should appreciate him taking time to offer his perspective, rather than simply ignore us.
As for pessimism, I may well be projecting my feeling of ennui into everything I read
In reply to your assertion that Hallam’s views are the “current scientific consensus” , I refer you to what Paul Arbair says in the article that sparked off the exchange here:
“Over the next decades, up to six billion people could die from starvation or be slaughtered, meaning that there could be only a billion people left on the planet at the end of the century. All this is really what the science says, he insisted.
Whatever one may otherwise think of Extinction Rebellion, the claims made by Roger Hallam are not, as he contends, based on climate science. They are based on extrapolations and interpretations that do not form part, as such, of the ‘climate science consensus’. The models used by climate scientists and the reports and scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not make it possible to assert with any degree of certainty that mass starvation will start in the next decade or that six billion people will die from starvation or slaughter during this century.
Hence, Roger Hallam’s claims have triggered some pushback in the climate science community. These exaggerated claims, in fact, make Hallam an easy target for climate change deniers, who can portray him as either a nutcase who is just peddling fiction to foster “global warming hysteria”, and/or as an unscrupulous political activist who (mis)uses climate science to serve his political aim of overthrowing the current economic, social and political order. Either way, his claims about what “science” allegedly says do not necessarily serve the cause of climate action.”
I stand by what I said about Hallam. He is a Truther who believes that an elite is hiding from the people the Truth about climate change (you can almost hear the capital T when he utters the word). As Arbair puts it rather politely, whatever his intention (and I’m not doubting his sincerity, only his views) Hallam is not helping the cause of doing something effective about climate change..
Hi Schekn
I understand the point you make about the need to address the threat of climate change bluntly and I certainly don’t wish to come across as complacent about this threat. Maybe we are biologically not hardwired to notice gradual change or to imagine change outside our immediate sensory perception as you say. But if I might throw this point back at you, what kind of response are we hardwired to make on being informed that if we dont do something significant within the next ten years we will slide into “runaway climate change and societal collapse” as a result of which “several billion people will likely die”.
I suspect the vast majority of people on hearing that will either dismiss it as a dystopian fantasy or regard it with utter despair. It is the latter group I am more concerned with who I think are more likely to be sympathetic to what we have to say than those who call for business (or even more business) as usual. You are appealing to their reason with the (purportedly) hard facts established by scientists working in the field of climate change, But that same reasoning ability that allows them to digest this information and appreciate the magnitude of the problem also enables them to see that capitalists and their political representatives are not going to appreciably change direction in the near future. In the near future we are stuck with people like Trump and his fellow moron Bolsonaro in Brazil with his utterly cavalier attitude towards the fate of the Amazon. Also there is a recession on the way and we all know what happens when a recession happens: environmental standards tend to be relaxed in a bid boost economic growth and “create jobs”
So connecting the “fact” of a fast approaching Armageddon, if nothing is significant done within 10 years, with the “fact” that nothing significant is likely to be done, it is difficult to see how this cannot but result in a sense of utter despair and disempowerment, The more insistently you push the facts of impending doom, I suggest, the greater the sense of despair it is likely to elicit.
How would you address this point setting the aside the question of whether the scientists you refer to are actually correct in predicting the likely die off of the bulk of humanity?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.