Reds and Greens
Socialist Outlook1990sPhil HearseScanned print read by OCR, and not yet proofread: expect run-together words, dropped letters and, where a piece began partway down a page, a few lines of its neighbour. The printed page is the authority.
Few people now doubt that there is an ecological crisis; we referred above to its general dimensions. Pollution of all sorts poisons the earth in many ways, but the greatest potential danger is global warming Unless radical measures are taken to stop the emission of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels, the climate of the planet could change dramatically leading to catastrophe for human civilization. It is difficult to say whether things are already too late, but we have to assume that remedial measures can be taken, rather than just resign ourselves to despair. What are the conclusions for socialist ideas about the world economy and socialism? Do we have to modify our programme fundamentally, especially in relation to proposing economic growth?
First, genuine remedial measures can only be achieved by widespread international co-operation and international planning. As Thatcher's response to the report of the conference of international experts shows, this is highly unlikely outside of a socialist system of international co-operation. There is simply no capitalist government which has the defence of the planet as a major political objective.
Second, alternative technologies are already available, for example for power stations (catalytic converters) immediately and drastically to reduce the pollution of the atmosphere. These only require the investment; it has been calculated that this investment would add in the short term about 10 per cent to the cost of electricity. It is only the defence of profits that stops this technology being introduced Third, the filling of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases and the partial destruction of the ozone layer is the result of the use of technologies and techniques which are socially irrational in any case (like Mrs Thatcher's great car economy'). Measures to replace these technologies - through a massive programme of investment in public transport for example - require social control and planning of the economy.
Fourth, the destruction of the environment often revolves around irrational forms of consumption that are not, in themselves, essential for the maintenance of the living standards of the workers in the Western countries. For example, the destruction of the rain forest in parts of Central America is in aid of the production of vast quantities of beef for McDonalds and Burger King. This is not central to the living standards of the Western workers or the sum total of human happiness!
Fifth, it is wrong to identify industrialisation and industrial processes in themselves with pollution or destruction of the environment. A return to a 'pre-industrial' era is a reactionary utopia, the most extreme proponents of which, like Edward Goldsmith, editor of The Ecologist magazine, propose a return to primitive agriculture, village life and the medieval family (ie to feudalism). However, socialism would surely redefine consumption habits.
While socialists are not opposed to choice in personal goods, the production of a huge swathe of consumer goods is irrational and worthless. Negative growth is not a possibility in the immediate standards.
Nonetheless, through redefining consumption habits, a socialist society would automatically strike at many sources of the destruction of the environment.
In the long term, though, there is a failure in socialist theory, from Marx onwards. Marx assumed, and numerous references can be given to support this, that the resources of the earth were for all practical purposes limitless. Based on the technique of the mid-19th century this was perhaps not such an unreasonable assumption. But as we know, the resources of the earth, especially the mineral and forestry resources, are limited.
This limitation cannot be evaded merely by evoking the wonders of planning. Major changes to productive technique will have to be made, aswell as changes in consumption patterns.
All this also implies a massive programme of scientific research, much more productive for humanity than all the wasted money on space research and nuclear weapons.
greens? Ecology is not just about defending 'nature' or some abstract idea of the environment; it is about defending our species and in particular the popular masses thereof. It is of course always the workers and peasants who get the rough edge of the degradation of the environment - whether it be the workers of Poland, or the rubber tappers of Brazil, the workers and peasants of Bhopal or the working people of the Ukraine and Bulgaria, who were hit by the fallout from Chernobyl.
The destruction of the eco-system is not the product of an inexplicable vandalism towards nature, but of definite social and political forms of organisation, generally those associated with profit and bureaucratic privilege. That's why we should reject the idea that concern over environmental issues transcends left-right divides: ecology is a central issue of socialist politics because the destruction of the environment is a central attack on working people. It is symbolic that Chico Mendes, assassinated leader of the rubber tappers, defender of the rain forest and of the Brazilian indians took his place among the ranks of the biggest movement in Brazil to defend the environment - the Workers Party. Ecology is a class issue: making it an active component of socialist politics requires more than a platonic 'alliance' of reds and greens: it means making ecology part of the socialist programme.