i'm a little bit surprised by all this. sure, there's always been a strong conservation austerityesque element to environmentalism, but i'm not sure i completely understand why the choice is put in so binary a fashion: development or sustainability; or jobs vs. "the environment" (whatever that is).
that environmentalism might "appeal to an upper class contempt for the workers" doesn't make environmentalism per se or even in practice anti-worker. on the contrary, it seems to me that anti-environmentalism appeals to a certain contempt for the worker, both in on-the-job safety and in her everyday life. when the upper class live in gated communities drinking bottled water, breathing purified recycled air (as in mexico city, for instance), and eating expensive organic greens and free range meats, "the environment" seems very far away -- much further than those investments in oil, gas, electricity, genetic agriculture, agrochemicals, etc. etc. etc. it's hard not to think of Tyrell in his ziggurat in Blade Runner.
indeed, one could say that "worker safety rules" appeal to a certain upper class contempt for the worker and deride them in similar fashion. what, do we think workers aren't smart enough to take care of themselves? to watch out for their own well-being on the job? to keep their precious fingers out of great big presses? are you saying that since people are lazy and stupid, we need to slow down processing lines and have shields with great big red letters? not only is your so-called "worker safety" contemptuous of the working classes, it will cost jobs to implement, as the company will make less money and therefore be forced to lay people off. (somehow, i get the uncanny feeling that jeremy bentham made such an argument with a straight face, but that's just a bad feeling.)
in any event, would we shut down osha on the basis of such an argument? no, because it's completely fatuous. just because there are people who think all workers are stupid and/or lazy is no good reason to do away with worker safety rules, even if some of those upper class snobs had something to do with the passing of worker safety legislation out of a sense of noblesse oblige.
it seems to me such arguments are red herrings.
j
> From: "Dennis" <dperrin13 at mediaone.net>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 10:05:32 -0400
> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Subject: Re: eco-optimism -- give me a damn break!
>
>> From: Doug Henwood
>>> Though I wouldn't go all the way with him, I think James Heartfield
>>> (and his former comrades in LM) have a point when they argue that
>>> environmentalism appeals to an upper class contempt for the workers,
>>> and fits nicely with financiers' taste for austerity.
>
> This reminds me of the Marxist putdown of environmentalism in the 70s (can't
> remember which grouping or paper -- SWP? WV?), where the "hippie
> capitalists" were more concerned with "oily birds" than with the lives of
> workers in the nuclear power and oil industries. I believe the CP was
> pro-nuke, as were other commie sectarians. Again, specific party IDs escape
> me (it was all so very long ago . . . ).
>
>> the first People of Color Environmental Justice Summit --
>
> Hate to nitpick, but is the left still going with the above labeling? This
> slight variation of Colored People seems ridiculous to me (what's the
> joke -- Jeans of Blue?), especially since all people have color. A minor
> point, but one that nags.
>
> DP
>