There are no natural limits, at least not as defined by neo-Malthusians and preservationism, conservationism and anti-pollutionism. What there are are unevenly and inequitably distributed, socially-produced limits on the reproduction of particular ecological, personal and communal conditions of life and production - and their relations with one another. (Yes, I know extinction is forever, but significantly upwards of 90% of "environmentalism" is not about extinction - most of it is about ecological and social patrimonies, socially-situated personal realization and public health, and the (re)production of space/infrastructures and communities/cultures.
The more we buy into natural limits discourses, the more we reproduce the undemocratic naturalism and scientism of Progressive politics on the one hand and/or parallel the meldings of romantic culturalism and technophilic developmentalism of the green elements of Fascism. Note, I am NOT saying that people who talk about natural limits are quasi-fascistic, I am saying that environmental discourses often formally resonate with the discourses of those who are. My understanding of this stuff combines insights from the American libertarian anarchist Murray Bookchin, Terry Eagleton's very British cultural studies and John Ely's readings of North American and German Green-ness.
What Northern Environmental Justice and Southern Political Ecology movements combine, and the reason, I believe, for their greater efficacy (compared to the Big 10 environmentalists and apocalyptic ecologistic Marxists) under neoliberalism is that they refuse naturalism, draw on identity and place, instist on public health considerations and critique the utter lack of voice local people have in "development."
>
>
> [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."
Don't these two paragraphs contradict on another? Doesn't the form of socialism matter? Is Cuba the same as the Soviet Union. Would the Sandanistas have made the same mistakes China has made? Can we reasonably compare Kerala and North Korea? Knowing I'm opening another can of worms... isn't the issue the extent to which citizens meaningfully contribute to open democratic electoral, legistaltive and bureaucratic processes?
>
>
> 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.
Aw, jeez, now we're arguing for consumer environmentalism? This only works when the industry in question has really small margins - in the age of SUVs why, oh why, would the Big Three have listened to green consumers who wanted hybrids? - and tends to discourage collective action while reinforcing the smugness, superiority, zenophobic and intolerant (and insufferability of) upper income "environmentalists." Did you see the Simpson's episode of drivers of hybrids? Have you ever spent any significant amount of time in Santa Cruz? For that matter, related to and reinforcing the decline in grass-roots environmetalism, market-based approaches and foisted upon grant-dependent environmental organizations by granting agencies and funds and, like what has happened to most components of Fair Trade, its done more to dissapate movement energies, to allow over-worked folks to engage in feel-good consumering, and not provided anything like the extent of the ecological and social benefits promised.
>
> 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.
Only if you get almost universal participation - on the basis of shared and coordinated political action - is this the case. Consumer environmentalism, however, because it is prepolitical and not collective has largely fostered the development of new, value-added, and usually high-end market niches rather than any kind of economic or social transformation.
>
> 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?
One of O'Connor's favorite stories is his account, leading up to Earth Day 1970, of responding to repeated pleas to participate with the following: "I'll join the environmental movement when the environmental movement joins the labor movement." Because environmentalists have always sold themselves as fighting for nature, even when what they are fighting for is public health or (sub)urban/rural development, they refuse to see the production of nature and the parallels between environmental health and safety and occupational health and safety, between sustainable communties and sustainable livelihoods, and between healthy ecologies and rich cultural practices.
The ecological and social contradictions of reproducing unionized autowork and prison guarding are robust but if anyone is interested in actually building a movement it might be worth addressing not only the consequences for nature and society outside of factories and prisons but also learning what autoworkers and prison guards would change about their own practices - within and outside of work... but its easier for most folks to buy (some) organic snacks, drive a flexfuel or hybrid vehicle, filter their water and use "green" cleansers (whatever green means in that context.)
>
> 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.
You do know, don't you, that the UAW represents far more than autoworkers? My wife, for example, a librarian working for the state of Michigan, is represented by the UAW. And, for those of us in the rust belt, it is not at all clear that any kind of environmental or social good is going to quickly follow from eliminating union jobs in auto factories and prisons... in fact, the fiscal crisis in rust best states will surely mean that the kinds of reactive, pre-analytic approach you are advocating could easily worsen pollution, preclude regulatory enforcement, intensify public health problems, degrade social and material infrastructures and feed the most disgusting, retrograde and right-libertarian nationalisms always percolating under the surface in the US.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>