Written by
Tom Wetzel and first published at Ideas
& Action
Capitalist
dynamics are at the very heart of the current crisis that humanity faces over
global warming.
When we talk
of “global warming,” we’re talking about the rapid — and on-going — rise in the
average world-wide surface and ocean temperature. Thus far a rise of 0.8
degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880. According to an ongoing
temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, two-thirds of this temperature increase has occurred since 1975. A
one-degree rise in temperature might seem like no big deal. As the NASA
scientists point out, however, “A one-degree global change is significant
because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and
land by that much.”
We know that
carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is at the heart of
the problem. For many centuries the proportion of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere ranged between 200 and 300 parts per million. By the 1950s the
growth of industrial capitalism since the 1800s had pushed this to the top of
this range — 310 parts per million. Since then the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere has risen very rapidly — to more than 410 parts per
million by 2018. This is the result of the vast rise in the burning of fossil
fuels in the era since World War 2 — coal, petroleum, natural gas.
The problem
is rooted in the very structure of capitalism itself. Cost-shifting is an
essential feature of the capitalist mode of production. An electric power
company burns coal to generate electricity because the price per kilowatt hour
from coal-fired electricity has long been cheaper than alternatives. But the
emissions from burning coal travel downwind and cause damage to the respiratory
systems of thousands of people — including preventable deaths to people with
respiratory ailments. This is in addition to the powerful contribution to
global warming from the carbon dioxide emissions.
But the power firm doesn’t
have to pay money for these human costs. If the firm had to pay fees that would
be equivalent to the human cost in death, respiratory damage and contribution
to global warming and its effects, burning coal would not be profitable for the
power company.
Firms also
externalize costs onto workers, such as the health effects of stress or
chemical exposures. The “free market” pundit or hack economist might deny that
companies externalize costs onto workers. They might say that wages and
benefits paid to workers for each hour of work measure the cost of labor. But
the human cost of work can be increased without an increase in the compensation
paid to workers. If a company speeds up the pace of work, if people are working
harder, if they are more tightly controlled by supervisors, paced by machines
or software, this increases the cost in human terms.
Toxic
chemicals used in manufacturing, in agriculture and other industries pose a
threat to both the workers and to people who live in nearby areas. Usually
working class people live in neighborhoods near polluting industries, and often
these are communities of color. This is another form of capitalist
cost-shifting.
State
regulation of pesticides or air pollution often ends up acting as a “cover” for
the profit-making firms. Despite the existence of pollutants generated by leaky
oil refineries and pollutants emitted by other industries in industrial areas
in California — such as the “cancer alley” of oil refineries in the Contra
Costa County area or the similar
refinery zone in Wilmington — the government agencies set up to deal with air
pollution in the Bay Area and Los Angeles County protected polluters for years
by focusing almost exclusively on pollution generated by vehicle exhaust. In this way the South
Coast Air Quality Management District and the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District have been an example of “regulatory capture” by corporate capital.
Power firms
that generate vast amounts of carbon dioxide emissions — and firms that make
profits from building fossil-fuel burning cars and trucks or from the sale of
gasoline and diesel and jet fuel — have not had to pay any fees or penalties
for the growing build-up of the carbon dioxide layer in the atmosphere. The
global warming crisis thus has its explanation in cost shifting and the search
for short-term profits and ever growing markets — features that are at the
heart of the capitalist system.
If global
capitalism continues with “business as usual”, the warming will have major
impacts — killer heat waves, more ocean heat pumping energy into hurricanes and
cyclones, rising ocean levels from melting of ice in the polar regions and
melting of glaciers, destruction of corals in the oceans, and a greater danger
to the survival of many species of living things.
Previous
attempts to get global agreement to cut back burning of fossil fuels have been
ineffective. The Paris accords merely proposed voluntary targets. NASA
scientist James Hansen described it as a “fraud”: “There is no action, just
promises.” According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
dire situation calls for “rapid and far-reaching transitions…unprecedented in
terms of scale.” The IPCC warns that there needs to be a 45 percent world-wide
reduction in the production of heat-trapping gases (mainly carbon dioxide) by
2030 if humanity is to avoid dangerous levels of global warming.
Clearly a
global change is needed. But how to bring this about?
The concept
of a Green New Deal has been proposed by Green Party activists, climate justice
groups and various radicals for some time. The slogan is based on a comparison
with the statist planning used by President Roosevelt to respond to the
economic crisis of the 1930s as well as the vast and rapid transition of
American industry to war production at the beginning of World War 2. The idea
is that the crisis of global warming should be treated with equal urgency as
the mass unemployment of 1933 or the fascist military threat of the early
1940s.
After the
election to Congress of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a member of Democratic
Socialists of America — the Green New Deal resolution was introduced into the
US Congress by Ocasio-Cortez and Senator
Ed Markey. This lays out a set of ambitious goals, such as 100 percent electric
power generation in the USA from “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy
sources.”
Other goals
include “removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing…as
much as is technologically feasible” and “overhauling” the transport sector “to
eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions” from transport “through
investment in zero-emission vehicles, accessible public transportation and high speed rail.” Along
with this resolution, a letter was sent to the US Congress from 626
environmental organizations backing the Green New Deal proposal. These
environmental groups made it quite clear they oppose any market-based tinkering
— reforms that we know won’t work — such as “cap and trade” (trading in
pollution “rights”).
Many have
proposed “public-private partnerships” and public subsidies to private
corporations. Robert Pollin, writing in New Left Review, talks about
“preferential tax treatment for clean-energy investments” and “market
arrangements through government procurement contracts.” All part of a so-called
“green industrial policy.” A green capitalism, in other words.
But workers
are often skeptical of these promises. Companies will simply lay people off,
under-pay them, or engage in speed-up and dangerous work practices — if they
can profit by doing so. For example, low pay, work intensification and injuries
have been a problem at the Tesla electric car factory which has received 5
billion dollars in government subsidies. Tesla recently laid off 7 percent of
its workforce (over three thousand workers) in pursuit of profitability.
An
alternative approach that looks to statist central planning has been proposed
by Richard Smith — an eco-socialist who is also a member of Democratic
Socialists of America. Smith characterizes the proposal by Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez this way:
Ocasio-Cortez…is
a bold, feminist, anti-racist and
socialist-inspired successor to FDR…She’s taking the global warming discussion
to a new level…She’s not calling for cap and trade or carbon taxes or
divestment or other “market” solutions. She’s issuing a full-throated call for
de-carbonization — in effect throwing the gauntlet down to capitalism and
challenging the system…[1]
Smith
believes the goals of the Green New Deal can’t be realized through things like
“incentives” — and he’s right about that. He points out that the Green New Deal
resolution “lacks specifics” about how the goals will be reached. To realize
the goal of “de-carbonizing” the economy, he proposes a three-part program:
Declare a
state of emergency to suppress fossil fuel use. Ban all new extraction.
Nationalize the fossil fuel industry to phase it out.
Create a
federal program in the style of the 1930s Works Progress Administration to
shift the workforce of the shut-down industries to “useful but low emissions”
areas of the economy “at equivalent pay and benefits.”
Launch a
“state-directed” crash program to phase in renewable electric power production,
electric transport vehicles and other methods of transport not based on burning
fossil fuels.
Develop programs to shift from petro-chemical intensive
industrial agriculture to organic farming.
Even though
“AOC explicitly makes a powerful case for state planning,” Smith says, a
weakness of the Green New Deal resolution, from his perspective, is the failure
to “call for a National Planning Board to reorganize, reprioritize and
restructure the economy.” When he talks about nationalization, he notes “We do
not call for expropriation.” He’s talking about buying out the shareholders at
“fair market value.” This is essentially a proposal for a largely
state-directed form of capitalist economy — a form of state capitalism.
Smith’s
proposal is wildly unrealistic. Are we to believe that the corporate-media
influenced American electoral scheme can be used to elect politicians — through
the business-controlled Democratic Party — to enact a multi-trillion dollar
program of seizures of the fossil fuel industry, auto manufacturers, and
chemical firms and set up a planning board to direct the economy?
The American
working class did make important gains in the Thirties — such as the Fair Labor
Standards Act (minimum wage, unemployment insurance) and Aid to Families with
Dependent Children. These concessions were only won due to an uprising of the
American working class in a context of vast struggles around the world — a
working class revolution in Spain, plant occupations in France, a communist
insurgency in China, the Communists holding on in Russia. In that moment
capitalism faced a threat to its very existence.
The USA saw a
huge working class rebellion between 1933 and 1937 — millions of workers on
strike, hundreds of thousands of workers creating new unions from scratch, rising influence for revolutionary
organizations, a thousand workplace seizures (sit-down strikes), challenges to
Jim Crow in the south. And in 1936 this angry and militant mood also pushed
very close to the formation of a national Farmer-Labor Party that would have
been a major threat to the Democrats. Many formerly intransigent corporations
were forced to negotiate agreements with unions. The Democrats chose to “move
left” in that moment.
It’s also a
mistake to romanticize the New Deal. People talk of the 1930s WPA as the model
for “job guarantees” — that is, government as employer of last resort. But
there was still 17 percent unemployment in USA as late as 1940. Workers in the
WPA often had beefs such as low pay. Communists, socialists and syndicalists
organized unions and strikes among WPA workers. The gains that working class
people were able to win in the Thirties did not simply come about through
electoral politics.
Nor were the conservative, bureaucratic “international
unions” of the American Federal of Labor the vehicle either. They were more of
a road block — exactly why several hundred thousand workers had created new
grassroots unions from scratch by late 1934.
Smith is not
alone in pushing statist central planning as a solution. This concept is being
talked up lately by various state socialists, including people associated with
Jacobin magazine and DSA. These advocates often assume the state is simply a
class-neutral institution that could be taken hold of by the working class and
wielded for its purposes.
In reality
the state is not class-neutral but has class oppression built into its very
structure. For example, public sector workers are subordinate to managerialist
bureaucracies just as workers are in the private corporations. The day-to-day
workings of state institutions are controlled by the cadres of the bureaucratic
control class — state managers, high end professionals employed as experts,
prosecutors and judges, military and police brass. This is in addition to the
“professionals of representation” — the politicians — who are typically drawn
from either the business or bureaucratic control classes, that is, classes to
which working class people are subordinate.
As a top-down
approach to planning, statist central planning has no way to gain accurate information
about either public preferences for public goods and services or individual
consumer preferences. Statist central planning is also inherently
authoritarian. This is because it is based on a denial of self-management to
people who would be primarily affected by its decisions — consumers and
residents of communities, on the one hand, and workers in the various
industries who would continue to be subject to managerialist autocracy.
Self-management
means that people who are affected by decisions have control over those
decisions to the extent they are affected. There are many decisions in the
running of workplaces where the group who are primarily affected are the
workers whose activity makes up the production process. Taking self-management
seriously would require a form of distributed control in planning, where groups
who are primarily affected over certain decisions — such as residents of local
communities or workers in industries— have an independent sphere of
decision-making control. This is the basis of the syndicalist alternative of
distributed planning, discussed below.
State
socialists will sometimes make noises about “worker control” as an element of
central planning, but real collective power of workers over the production
process is inconsistent with the concept of central planning. If planning is to
be the activity of an elite group at a center, they will want to have their own
managers on site in workplaces to make sure their plans are carried out. Any talk of “worker control” always loses out
to this logic.
Statist
central planning can’t overcome either the exploitative or cost-shifting logic
of capitalism, which lies at the heart of the ecological crisis. Various
populations are directly impacted by pollution in various forms — such as the
impact of pesticide pollution on farm workers and rural communities or the
impact on air and water in local communities. The only way to overcome the
cost-shifting logic is for the affected populations — workers and communities —
to gain direct power to prevent being polluted on. For global warming, this
means the population in general needs a direct form of popular power that would
enable the people to directly control the allowable emissions into the
atmosphere.
As difficult
as it may be, we need a transition to a self-managed, worker-controlled
socialist political economy if we’re going to have a solution to the ecological
crisis of the present era. But this transition can only really come out of the
building up of a powerful, participatory movement of the oppressed majority in
the course of struggles against the present regime.
The Syndicalist Alternative for an
Eco-socialist Future
The problem
is not that people struggle for immediate changes that are within our power to
currently push for. Rather, the issue is how we pursue change. Changes can be
fought for in different ways.
The basic
problem with the electoral socialist (“democratic socialist”) strategy is its
reliance on methods that ask working class people to look to “professionals of
representation” to do things for us. This approach tends to build up — and
crucially rely upon — bureaucratic layers that are apart from — and not
effectively controllable by — rank-and-file working class people. These are
approaches that build up layers of professional politicians in office, paid
political party machines, lobbyists, or negotiations on our behalf by the paid
apparatus of the unions — paid officials and staff, or the paid staff in the
big non-profits.
Syndicalists
refer to these as reformist methods (for lack of a better term). Not because
we’re opposed to the fight for reforms. Any fight for a less-than-total change
(such as more money for schools or more nurse staffing) is a “reform.” The
methods favored by the electoral socialists are “reformist” because they
undermine the building of a movement for more far-reaching change. The history
of the past century shows that these bureaucratic layers end up as a barrier to
building the struggle for a transition to a worker-controlled socialist mode of
production.
We can say
that an approach to action and organization for change is non-reformist to the
extent that it builds rank-and-file controlled mass organizations, relies on
and builds participation in militant collective actions such as strikes, and
builds self-confidence, self-reliance, organizing skills, wider active
participation, and wider solidarity between different groups among the
oppressed and exploited majority.
Syndicalism
is a strategy for change based on non-reformist forms of action and
organization. Non-reformist forms of organization of struggle are based on
control by the members through participatory democracy and elected delegates,
such as elected shop delegates and elected negotiating committees in
workplaces. And the use of similar
grassroots democracy in other organizations that working class people can build
such as tenant unions. Non-reformist forms of action are disruptive of
“business as usual” and are built on collective participation, such as strikes,
occupations, and militant marches.
A key way the
electoral socialist and syndicalist approaches differ is their effect on the
process that Marxists sometimes call class formation. This is the more or less
protracted process through which the working class overcomes fatalism and
internal divisions (as on lines of race or gender), acquires knowledge about
the system, and builds the confidence, organizational capacity and the
aspiration for social change. Through this process the working class “forms”
itself into a force that can effectively challenge the dominating classes for
control of society.
If people see
effective collective action spreading in the society around them, this may
change the way people see their situation. Once they perceive that this kind of
collective power is available to them as a real solution for their own issues,
this can change their perception of the kinds of change that is possible. The
actual experience of collective power can suggest a much deeper possibility of
change.
When
rank-and-file working class people participate directly in building worker
unions, participating in carrying out a strike with co-workers, or in building
a tenant union and organizing direct struggle against rent hikes or poor
building conditions, rank-and-file people are directly engaged — and this helps
people to learn how to organize, builds more of a sense that “We can make
change,” and people also learn directly about the system.
More people are
likely to come to the conclusion “We have the power to change the society” if they
see actual power of people like themselves being used effectively in
strikes, building takeovers, and other
kinds of mass actions. In other words, a movement of direct participation and
grassroots democracy builds in more people this sense of the possibility of
change from below.
On the other
hand, concentrating the decision-making power in the fight for social change
into bureaucratic layers of professional politicians and an entrenched union
bureaucracy tends to undermine this process because it doesn’t build confidence
and organizing skills among working class people. It fails to build the sense
that “We have the power in our hands to change things.” Thus a basic problem
with electoral socialism (“democratic socialism”) is that it undermines the
process of class formation.
The electoral
venue is also not favorable terrain for the working class struggle for changes
because the voting population tends to be skewed to the more affluent part of
the population. A large part of the working class do not see why they should
vote. They don’t see the politicians as looking out for their interests. The
non-voting population tends to be poorer — more working class — than the voting
population. This means the working class can’t bring the full force of its
numbers to bear.
A strategy
for change focused on elections and political parties tends to lead to a focus
on electing leaders to gain power in the state, to make changes for us. This
type of focus leads us away from a more independent form of working class
politics that is rooted in forms of collective action that ordinary people can
build directly and directly participate in — such as strikes, building direct
solidarity between different working class groups in the population, mass
protest campaigns around issues that we select, and the like.
To be clear,
I’m not here arguing that people shouldn’t vote, or that it makes no difference
to us who is elected. Often in fact it does, and independent worker and
community organizations can also direct their pressure on what politicians do.
But here I’m talking about our strategy for change. I’m arguing against a
strategy for change that relies upon — focuses on — the role of elected
officials, a political party, or the full-time paid union apparatus.
An
electoralist strategy leads to the development of political machines in which
mass organizations look to professional politicians and party operatives. This
type of practice tends to create a bureaucratic layer of professional
politicians, media, think-tanks and party operatives that develops its own
interests.
When the
strategy is focused on electing people to office in the state, college-educated
professionals and people with “executive experience” will tend to be favored as
candidates to “look good” in the media.
And this means people of the professional and administrative layers will
tend to gain leadership positions in an electorally oriented party. This will
tend to diminish the ability of rank and file working class people to control
the party’s direction.
This is part of the process of the development of the
party as a separate bureaucratic layer with its own interests. Because they are
concerned with winning elections and keeping their hold on positions in the
state, this can lead them to oppose disruptive direct action by workers such as
strikes or workplace takeovers. There is a long history of electoral socialist
leaders taking this kind of stance.
To the extent
electoral socialist politics comes to dominate in the labor movement — as it
did in Europe after World War 2 —
declining militancy and struggle also undermined the commitment to socialism.
The electoral socialist parties in Europe competed in elections through the
advocacy of various immediate reforms. This became the focus of the parties.
Sometimes they won elections.
At the head of a national government they found
that they had to “manage” capitalism — keep the capitalist regime running. If
they moved in too radical a direction they found they would lose middle class
votes — or the investor elite might panic and start moving their capital to
safe havens abroad. In some cases elements of the “deep state” — such as the
military and police forces — moved to overthrow them. Most of these parties
eventually changed their concept of what their purpose was. They gave up on the
goal of replacing capitalism with socialism.
Eco-syndicalism
Eco-syndicalism
is based on the recognition that workers — and direct worker and community
alliances — can be a force against the environmentally destructive actions of
capitalist firms. Toxic substances are transported by workers,
ground-water-destroying solvents are used in electronics assembly and damage
the health of workers, and pesticides poison farm workers. Industrial poisons
affect workers on the job first and pollute nearby working class neighborhoods.
Nurses have to deal with the effects of pollution on people’s bodies. Various
explosive derailments have shown how oil trains can be a danger to both
railroad workers and communities. The struggle of railroad workers for adequate
staffing on trains is part of the struggle against this danger.
Workers are a
potential force for resistance to decisions of employers that pollute or
contribute to global warming. Workers can also be a force for support of
alternatives on global warming, such as expanded public transit. An example of
working class resistance to environmental pollution were the various “green
bans” enacted by the Australian Building Laborer’s Federation back in the ‘70s
— such as a ban on transport or handling of uranium.
A recognition
of this relationship led to the development of an environmentalist tendency
among syndicalists in the ‘80s and ‘90s — eco-syndicalism (also called “green
syndicalism”). An example in the ‘80s was the organizing work of Judi Bari — a
member of the IWW and Earth First!. Working in the forested region of northwest
California, she attempted to develop an alliance of workers in the wood
products industry (and their unions) with environmentalists who were trying to
protect old growth forests against clear-cutting.
Worker and
community organizations can be a direct force against fossil fuel capitalism
in a variety of ways — such as the various actions against coal or oil
terminals on the Pacific Coast, or labor and community support for struggles of
indigenous people and other rural communities against polluting fossil fuel
projects, such as happened with the Standing Rock blockade in the Dakotas.
Unions can also be organized in workplaces of the “green” capitalist firms to
fight against low pay and other conditions I described earlier.
The different
strategies of syndicalists and electoral socialists tends to lead to different
conceptions of what “socialism” and “democracy” mean. Because politicians tend
to compete on the basis of what policies they will pursue through the state,
this encourages a state socialist view that socialism is a set of reforms
enacted top down through the managerialist bureaucracies of the state.
Certainly state socialists are an influential element in Democratic Socialists
of America.
I think a top
down form of power, controlled by the bureaucratic control class in state
management, is not going to work as a solution for the ecological challenges of
the present. The history of the “communist camp” countries of the mid-20th
century showed that they were also quite capable of pollution and ecological
destruction rooted in cost-shifting behavior.
On the other
hand, the syndicalist vision of self-managed socialism provides a plausible
basis for a solution for the environmental crisis because a federative,
distributed form of democratic planning places power in local communities and
workers in industries, and thus they have power to prevent ecologically
destructive decisions.
For syndicalists, socialism is about human liberation —
and a central part is the liberation of the working class from subordination
and exploitation in a regime where there are dominating classes on top. Thus
for syndicalism the transition to socialism means workers taking over and
collectively managing all the industries — including the public services. This
is socialism created from below —
created by the working class itself.
Syndicalist
movements historically advocated a planned economy based on a distributed model
of democratic planning, rooted in assemblies in neighborhoods and workplaces.
With both residents of communities and worker production organizations each
having the power to make decisions in developing plans for its own area, a
distributed, federative system of grassroots planning uses delegate congresses
or councils and systems of negotiation to “adjust” the proposals and aims of
the various groups to each other.
Examples of libertarian socialist distributed
planning models include the negotiated coordination proposals of the World War
1 era guild socialists, the 1930s Spanish anarcho-syndicalist program of
neighborhood assemblies (“free municipalities”) and worker congresses, and the
more recent participatory planning model of Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert.
A 21st
century form of self-managed socialism would be a horizontally federated system
of production that can implement planning and coordination throughout industries
and over a wide region. This would enable workers to:
Gain control
over technological development,
Re-organize
jobs and education to eliminate the bureaucratic concentration of power in the
hands of managers and high-end professionals, develop worker skills, and work
to integrate decision-making and conceptualization with the doing of the
physical work,
Reduce the
working week and share work responsibilities among all who can work, and
Create a new
logic of development for technology that is friendly to workers and the
environment.
A purely
localistic focus and purely fragmented control of separate workplaces (such as
worker cooperatives in a market economy) is not enough. Overall coordination is
needed to move social production away from subordination to market pressures
and the “grow or die” imperative of capitalism and build solidarity between
regions. There also needs to be direct, communal accountability for what is
produced and for effects on the community and environment.
The
protection of the ecological commons requires a directly communal form of
social governance and control over the aims of production. This means direct
empowerment of the masses who would be directly polluted on or directly
affected by environmental degradation. This is necessary to end the
ecologically destructive cost-shifting behavior that is a structural feature of
both capitalism and bureaucratic statism. Direct communal democracy and direct
worker management of industry provide the two essential elements for a libertarian
eco-socialist program.
1. “An
Ecosocialist Path to Limiting Global
Temperature Rise to 1.5°C” https://systemchangenotclimatechange.org/article/ecosocialist-path-limiting-global-temperature-rise-
No comments:
Post a Comment