ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s ok. I know. You don’t need to convince me. I’m just saying that the End of the World is Not Nigh.
Sounds as if you are challenging Alan for the role of Private Fraser ! There’s an article in this month’s Socialist Standard that Anton Pannekoek wrote in 1909 which says that elephants were in disappear of disappearing. 110 years later they are still there. Cheer up, things are not that bad !
Yes it does happen. It’s what you’d expect according to the materialist conception of history.
Objectively, at this stage of human history, a world society based on common ownership (no ownership by any group) so that production can be brought under social control and oriented directly toward meeting people’s needs without buying and selling is the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity can be rationally and lastingly tackled.
So you would expect some others to come to this conclusion independently of us, and they do. A recent example would be the Zeitgeist movement and its offshoots. But there have been others before them that emerged from the Situationists.
But what degree of agreement with our conclusions are you expecting? While there will be and has been 100% agreement on the aim/solution, to expect this degree of agreement with the whole of our approach would be going too far. We are the product of specific political conditions in one relatively small part of the world and have our own history and tradition. The likelihood of this being repeated independently of us anywhere else is completely unlikely.
So there will not be agreement with the “path toward socialism” we advocate nor on our other policies such “educate for socialism”. And has not been. Zeitgeist, for instance, does not accept that the way is through the class struggle and for a while favoured technocracy rather than democracy. Other groups that have emerged don’t agree with using the ballot box or with not supporting reforms as well or not getting involved as an organisation in day-to-day struggles.
Personally, I don’t see this as a problem in the long term as, after all, we have never claimed that the emergence of a world socialist consciousness will, could or should be purely the result of our own meagre efforts. Otherwise we’d simply be latter-day Utopian Socialists.
Just been looking at their site again (it’s much more professional since the last time I looked). I see XR are proposing that the government should take its mandate on climate change from the verdict of “Citizen’s Assembly”:
“Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.”
The members of such an Assembly are not going to be elected:
“Similar to jury service, members are randomly selected from the population by a process called sortition. Quotas are used to ensure that the assembly is representative in terms of key characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicity, education level and geography.”
Then:
“Assembly members learn about critical thinking before they hear balanced information from experts and stakeholders. The members spend time deliberating in small, facilitated groups and then they draft and vote on recommendations.”
Sounds as if it might be a useful way of taking some decisions in socialism, but we’re not there. We’re living under capitalism, where it is not the decision-making process that is the problem but the fact that the workings of the capitalist economy frustrate many decisions to improve things however democratically taken.
Since there are so few socialists at the moment there’s not much chance of one of us being selected. This means that the “balanced information” from “experts” will assume that capitalism and its competitive struggle for profits continues.
What is odd, though, is that XR has already pre-empted the decision, as they also demand:
“Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.”
Assuming that the Citizens Assembly endorses this demand. Under the XR plan the government then has to carry this out. The trouble is that, if it did, by increasing energy costs this would undermine the competitivity of British exports, leading to an economic downturn and so a political backlash.
XR anticipate this when they say that a Citizens Assembly
“will help politicians to commit to a transformative programme of action justified by the mandate they receive from the citizens’ assembly, reducing the potential public backlash at the ballot-box. “
This is assuming that people will accept that the government should give priority to a mandate from a Citizens Assembly over one from the ballot box, a rather bold assumption I would have thought.
In any event, there is a possibility that a Citizens Assembly will come to a different decision to XR and, for instance, add a rider saying the government should only adopt measures to reduce emissions to net zero by 2025 if other states agree to do the same (a highly likely decision, I suggest). In which, case we’ll be back where we are now, with capitalist states, because of their particular economic interests, being either unable or unwilling to do this.
XR, evidently, have thought their plan through. Despite this, they believe they have the right to disrupt ordinary people’s life and holidays.
There is another amusing possibility. Suppose that, by chance, a socialist is chosen by lot to serve on the Assembly and suppose they convince it that socialism is the way-out. This couldn’t be a mandate for socialism since socialism can only come into being when a majority want it, the obvious way to demonstrate this being through the ballot-box. Which once again brings us back to where we are now where a majority don’t want it despite it being the only framework within which the problem of climate change can be rationally tackled.
Yes, it will be an interesting to see what those politicians defending the interests of the dominant section of the UK capitalist class will do to bring down Boris Johnson’s government of crazies and “collaborators” with US capitalism and prevent British capitalists being cut off by tariff walls from the markets they have built up in Europe over the last 40 or so years. There’s going to be some fascinating viewing or radio-listening in September and October. A veritable reality show.
Actually, Bijou, if you’ve already booked and are definitely coming down that weekend we can arrange for you to do a (indoor) meeting either on Saturday 1 February or Sunday 2 February (or both). Let us know at HO email address and we can fix the details (title, venue, time, etc).
Actually, that is more or less what we have been doing in the area around Head Office in Clapham, which is situated in the borough of Lambeth, on the border with Wandsworth. We have contested elections there since 1970 and in the 2000’s contested every election going (Parliament, Europe, London, local council, even council by-elections).
As it happens, there are elections to the Greater London Authority next May and no doubt we will be contesting them, possibly by standing a candidate again in the electoral area of Lambeth & Southwark as we did 4 years ago or maybe even standing an all-London list.
The best time to come down to help would be in April as that’s when the campaign will be on as election day will be the first Thursday in May, which is the 7th.
Actually, that’s the only valid reason against Brexit — that it’s going to make it more difficult for people in Europe to move from one country to another, a step backward from the current situation. I already have an Irish passport (all you need to show is that at least one of your parents was born on the island of Ireland) so it’s not going to affect me so badly. It’s clear that, if Britain leaves, people from other European countries (apart from the former British colonies of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta) are going to be treated worse by being harassed by the search for “illegal” migrants that people from outside the EU have to put up with already. British people living in the EU can expect reciprocal treatment. As you say, stupid nationalism.
There won’t be a war of the US with Britain in tow against Iran. Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons. Its ‘nuclear option’ is to close the straits of Hormuz, through which 20% of oil passes. Even a hawk like Bolton is not going to risk that and Trump will probably prefer a top level meeting with the chief Ayatollah if his diplomatic record is anything to go by.
That’s not necessary, Bijou. There is no real problem over doing the administrative work that can only be done at Head Office (e.g. opening letters, sending out Standards and literature orders, answering phone calls, dealing with enquiries, paying bills, archives, library,etc) or with maintaining and cleaning the building. This is done by London and Home Counties comrades.
Other administrative work is done by members in the Provinces. For instance, all the members of the Standing Orders Committee, Membership Application Committee, Internet Committee, and Blog Committee are from the Provinces, as is the management of our Paypal account. Others could be, e.g. Central Branch Secretary, Advertising Committee, Campaigns Committee. Recent changes to the computer technology at Head Office now allow remote access, which means that even more Party work can be done by members from their homes outside London.
The problem is not with back-up administrative work. It’s a seeming reluctance of members to engage in physical political activity or even discuss it, and not just in London and including even the EC. The EC meets once a month for three or four hours, with 3 coming down from the Provinces. But they have twice rejected a proposal that, in the absence of a functioning Advertising or Campaigns Committee (arguably the most important committees in terms of what used to be called “propaganda” activity), they themselves should take over direct responsibility for these. That is something they could usefully do after getting through the routine admin stuff (trouble is that is what they love dragging out with endless discussions on terms of reference and the Data Protection Act). After all, there are more members present at EC meetings than at most branch meetings.
At the moment the main field of outside-directed Party activity is the internet and social media which I would say is going well and where members who don’t attend branch meetings (to discuss EC reports and deal with Conference and ADM agendas) take part. It is physical activity that is the problem. It’s all very well members from afar saying we should cover various events and demonstrations in London. The sad truth is that there are only 4 or 5 London members prepared to do this and not all of them are always available, though with a bit of effort and persuasion this could probably be doubled.
Apart from the occasional public meeting, the only physical political activities the Party engages in are regular street stalls (but by only three branches) and elections. We should be able to do one outside or near Head Office once a month, but no one took the initiative this summer. Come to think of it, Bijou, this is something you and your mates could help out with if they want a trip to London. Trouble is mid-winter at the end of January isn’t the best time of the year for one. But why not organise one up North on a regular basis? There are a dozen or so members in Yorkshire with nothing to do.
Anyway, if you want to come down at the end of January I am sure we can round up half-an-dozen members for a meal and a bit of craic (if we can find a quiet pub, which you can’t in Clapham).
Here’s a couple more articles from the time we last had to do battle with these people (Malthusians and Neo-Malthusians) in the 1970s:
“just intuitively you would agree that in order to get oil which is gushing from a well in 1919, you don’t need nearly as much energy/work as in order to squeeze oil from shale rock using tonnes of water and sand that you have to transport from somewhere else, no?”
Of course. But the real nut to crack to become independent of fossils fuels, as minerals whose extraction becomes more and more difficult quite apart from the effects of burning them rather than using them more rationally, is an efficient system of electrical storage. In his 1962 book Profiles of the Future Arthur C. Clarke saw this as happening towards the end of the 1980s. It didn’t and we are still not there but progress towards it is being made. Once the technology to do this has been mastered, humanity will never have any problem with energy since it will be able to be captured from the Sun’s rays and stored for later use. Of course its rational use depends on a society based on the Earth’s resources having become the common heritage of all humanity and used to produce directly to satisfy people’s needs and not for sale on a market with a view to profit.
Yes, those who argue that the Earth has a fixed human carrying capacity and that it has been or will soon be exceeded are making the same mistake as Malthus and his followers of assuming that humans are like other animals and have to accept what the environment throws at them. All that other species can do if they exceed an area’s carrying capacity is for some of them to die off and/or some of them to move to another area. Humans are different. We can control both our fertility and our environment. And did, proving Malthus wrong even in the 19th century. What both Malthus and they leave out is technology.
The article mentions Paul Ehrlich who became notorious for his 1968 book the Population Bomb in which he claimed, in the words of his Wikipedia entry, that
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate….which categorically stated that the world’s human population would soon increase to the point where mass starvation ensued.”
See also this review of his book Population Resources Environment in the April 1971 Socialist Standard.
I see that, despite being completely discredited at the time, he was still peddling his misanthropic views 30 years later. The wikipedia entry on carrying capacity quotes him as pontificating in 2004 that
“for earth as a whole (including those parts of it we call Australia and the United States), human beings are far above carrying capacity today.”
Despite their concern for the environment these people are not on our side.
Thanks but having looked at the Wikipedia entry on “Energy Return on Energy Invested” I am not that much the wiser as to what exactly it is.
Linguistically, it ought to mean the ratio of the actual direct energy as such used at the last stage of production (e.g. electricity to drive the drill or the nodding donkey) to the amount of material produced useable as energy, But that would be a pretty pointless measure as obviously it will be greater than 1 since such direct energy inputs are only a part of the total inputs to production. At the other extreme, it could be the ratio of all the energy used in producing all the materials used to produce the material, which could possibly be less than 1. But, as the wiki entry, asks:
“How deep should the probing in the supply chain of the tools being used to generate energy go? For example, if steel is being used to drill for oil or construct a nuclear power plant, should the energy input of the steel be taken into account? Should the energy input into building the factory being used to construct the steel be taken into account and amortized? Should the energy input of the roads which are used to ferry the goods be taken into account? What about the energy used to cook the steelworkers’ breakfasts? These are complex questions evading simple answers. ”
Indeed. The entry goes on to say that in practice a simpler method is used:
“However, when comparing two energy sources a standard practice for the supply chain energy input can be adopted. For example, consider the steel, but don’t consider the energy invested in factories deeper than the first level in the supply chain. “
OK, but that would be a quite different measure giving a quite different result.
I suspect that the figure that both you and they cite that “n the beginning of XX century EROI of oil was close to 100, and since then it has been steadily decreasing, being around 10 now, or even less for shale oil” will be a reflection of (a) the rising cost of extracting a mineral like oil as the easiest sources are exhausted and more difficult ones have to be used, and (b) increasing mechanisation, which means more energy used up in the course of making the machines.
This latter is not a problem, but then EROEI would just be another way of measuring what bourgeois academic economists call “increasing capital intensity” and what Marxian economists call “the increasing technical composition of capital”. Normally, this is a good vthing as it means that more can be produced with less human work, though in the case of mineral sources of energy such as coal, oil and gas this is countered by having to work more difficult to extract sources.
At some point, I suppose, it is theoretically possible that the increase of productivity through mechanisation could be wiped out by the fall in productivity through having to use more difficult sources. I wouldn’t have thought, though, that we are anywhere near there as the fact that some goal, oil and gas production is still profitable (on the basis of MROMI).
Going by what the wiki entry says about some theorists using EROEI to explain the fall of the Roman Empire and of ancient civilisations in Mexico and Cambodia, it seems to have been hijacked by doomsters who think we’re currently in or nearing the same position. Even if that were true, fortunately, humans have other sources of energy than mineral ones. Even if there is “peak oil” (which is open to question) there can be no question of “peak energy”.
<sup> </sup>
“!
