--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> From: Joanna <123hop at comcast.net>
> Subject: [lbo-talk] global warming: was: ciao, GM & Chrysler
> To: "lbo" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 11:11 PM
> epoliticus writes:
>
> "With respect to the comment by Glazer, I do not think that
> global warming
> poses much of a threat to the capitalist class. It
> will be treated as a new
> domain for capital accumulation."
>
> Yes and no. There's money to be made in rebuilding green.
> But, in a deeper way, to the extent that capitalism depends
> upon planned obsolescence and refuses to account for
> resource costs, there is a contradiction. To the extent that
> green implies natural limits, there is a contradiction.
>
[WS:] In a historical perspective, socialism scored far worse than capitalism on environmental issues. Eastern European industry is highly polluting, and nationalist elements are highly resentful of EU pressures to curb that pollution. Poland is in the global leadership of climate change denial.
To paraphrase one Margaret Thatcher, there is no such thing as capitalism, only the money grubbers and their institutions. The relative power of these institutions makes all the difference in the world. That is why some countries that fall under the general rubric of "capitalism" are much greener than other countries, including ones that fall under the rubric of "socialism."
Market mechanisms (such as consumer boycott) can be quite effectively to fight environmentally destructive practices especially against multinational corporations that have some latitude in avoiding national legislation. Given the fact that much of the US economy is based on consumer spending, this gives consumers tremendous power over business, far greater than conventional political mechanisms. Unfortunately, low level of consciousness and pervasive marketing make the actual exercise of that power unlikely.
However, effective political mobilization can change that - cf. Gandhi's strategy of hurting British textile industry by promoting locally manufactured products. Market mechanisms can be more effective than conventional protest, because they lower the cost of participation (i.e. people do not risk of being beaten by cops or company goons) and hit the powers that be where it hurts the most, in their pocket book.
However, exercising such power requires great level of consciousness and organization, which simply is not there. Witness the rift between environmentalists and union supporters, who colluded with their bosses to exploit legal loopholes and flood the market with SUVs, and are generally hostile toward environmentalists on cultural grounds. It is strange that arguments "save union jobs" are parroted on the left. Prison guards are highly unionized - should their jobs be saved too?
I think that US unions dug itself into a hole by renouncing socialism and political reforms in general, and endorsed capitalism in providing benefits to their members, but not working class as a whole. As a result, their significance all but disappeared. One would think that they would learn from their past mistakes, but what hear is more of the same - collusion with the bosses to 'save union jobs' at the expense of greater public good.
In sum, it is the particular institutional arrangement of US capitalism (not capitalism in general) - the power of business and self-defeating strategy pursued by unions - that is responsible for its worst excesses. Environmental challenges are not going to change that, unless institutional arrangements change. This means, among other, changing union strategy from providing "club goods" to members (often by embracing capitalism, if not outright collusion with bosses) to "public goods" to all members of the working class (i.e. socialization of economy and polity.)
Wojtek