> [WS:] An interesting sub-plot of this story is
> the class division in the gas price debate:
> working class opposes price increases, the
> "yuppie class" does not. It is, in a sense,
> history repeating itself - this time as a farce.
> First time, there were the Luddities who fought
> to turn back the clock, this time it is blue
> collar and rural populations.
>
> The reactionary attitudes of the lower classes
> is nothing new, of course. However, they create
> a paradox for the Left, who see the lower
> socio-economic classes as the harbinger of social
> progress. The "old" Left solved that paradox by
> the concept of the "vanguard party" acting as a
> saviour of the working class against its own
> backwardness.
>
> I am not quite sure how the "new" Left will go on
> this. Will they embrace the latter-day populist
> Luddism (the direction that Jordan & James seemt
> o be going) and end up in bed with oil companies
> and developers? Or will they choose a progressive
> solution, and side with environmentalists and
> "yuppies"?
Wojtek is right that this is interesting. I'm not sure either how the left will handle it, but if I were the left I'd ponder the following:
If we are to re-claim the humanistic moral high ground, if we are to assume -- in the words of the young Marx -- the categorical imperative to overthrow all conditions in which humans are "debased, enslaved, forsaken, and despicable," then -- given that the ultimate root of debasement, enslavement, neglect, and contempt of humans over humans is the unequal distribution of opportunities -- there'll be no progress without those below, the immediate producers, raising, taking things in their own hands, appropriating the conditions in which they live and produce. Only through their deliberate rise and emancipation can they eliminate inequality. Anything else perpetuates inequality.
I don't know, maybe Marx's categorical imperative will turn out to be beyond the reach of even the richest, most powerful societies ever. Maybe it'll prove to be sheer utopianism. But if we take the view that humans have it in themselves to not just adapt, but shape up their social conditions, that humans are social animals, that ultimately, as our powers of production and destruction expand, we can will rise or fall together, I cannot think of a better way to orient progress than Marx's.
Under the Marxian premise, it's indeed paradoxical that those below are charged with the task of emancipating themselves and, along the way, helping the emancipation of society overall. Because the conditions in which they live and work, the very conditions that debase them, enslave them, etc., can barely propel them to take any sustained political initiative, let alone to articulate any broad emancipatory vision or strategy. Obviously, if they had the time, resources, energies to undertake this, the problem would not exist in the first place.
Those who do have time, resources, impetus, etc. are privileged folks, endowed with a measure of physical or human wealth, freedom, whatever you wish to call it. However, if they get stuck in the logic that flows from their position, if they limit themselves to replicating and expanding inequality, the hierarchical division of labor, etc., then they are part of the problem, useless as instruments of human emancipation. The only chance of the enlightened few, it seems, is to act against their own immediate interest and serve instead the interest of those below. Like all real paradoxes, we are going to have to run in circles a few times before we make a dent at resolving the issue. I'm not saying that the so-called Leninist vanguard parties will reappear as they were. But there will be no silver bullet. Or, if you prefer, only over the very long run, after many iterations, by gradually absorbing the best in the existing culture, in the existing conditions, remaking them along the way to fit their needs and aspirations, will the immediate producers ever be able to resolve the paradox once and for all.
Re. the question you raise (the environment), in principle it is not intractable. The ultimate issue here is the distribution of the costs and benefits that flow from unraveling our crisis of metabolism with nature. The "solutions" that pit environmentalists against workers flow from, if you allow my formulation, *false* dilemmas (as in *false* consciousness). The "solutions" flow from the way in which the "problem" is framed. Of course, the illusions, false dilemmas, false framing, false consciousness over what we can or need to do, don't just hang in the air. They are embedded in hardened social conditions that we reproduce in spite of ourselves. But, as Marx also wrote, "Once the interconnection has been revealed, all theoretical belief in the perpetual necessity of the existing conditions collapses, even before the collapse takes place in practice." The practical collapse of the status quo presupposes the collapse of the theoretical beliefs in its perpetual necessity. The theoretical beliefs in the perpetual necessity of the status quo, i.e. false consciousness, is part of the problem. The collapse of those beliefs is part of the solution. So that (the *change of minds*) is where the deliberate political motion starts.
The direction of change for us is to re-frame the problem. More to the point, it is to have the rich shoulder the costs and the poor reap most of the benefits, as much as we possibly can. This, by whichever mean may be politically feasible and expedient: fiscal policies, industrial policies, trade policies, change in collective habits, forceful expropriation, whatever. We need to change many minds, including our own minds, to make possible these necessary changes in the time left.