Ecosocialism III

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
Policywonk

I think a major problem with Ecosocialism is that it is too anthropocentric, hence I tend more towards Left Biocentrism.

http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/lbprimer.htm

http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/GW78-The_Left_in_Left_Biocentrism.html

There is probably much to agree with and disagree with in these.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

"Left biocentrism" = "deep ecology"

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4724]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 1[/url]

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4781]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 2[/url]

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4872]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 3[/url]

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4890]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 4[/url]

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4892]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 5[/url]

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4935]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 6[/url]

 

Fidel

ikosmos wrote:
The author makes some interesting observations: that Marx's introduction to politics, before he was a communist, was in relation to an environmental issue. Foster also outlines the importance of understanding the difference between value in use (use-value) and value in exchange (exchange-value) as critical for a critique of capitalist political economy and in understanding how capitalism, inherently, comes into conflict with natural production and how public wealth is undermined by the private wealth of capital. It's all very clear and readable.
"The domination of exchange value over use value in capitalist development and the ecological impact of this can also be seen in Marx's general formula of capital, M-C-M′."

I think its critical for leftists to realize that the formula for capital is no longer M-C-M but is now M straight to M, as in M-M. The relationship between workers and owners of the means is not what it was 35 years ago with neoliberal financial engineering and offshoring of the means. The new business model on Wall Street and Bay Street, London etc is that debt is wealth creation. They don't want to make things anymore. Most old world economy production methods tied to oil and fossil fuels is a money loser unless it's owning and monopolizing energy production other than nuclear power, which is a big money loser. Taxpayers shall have that end of the cow as usual.

This is is a sick planet. Hawking says we have to get the hell off this rock and find another one to screw up. Personally I'm of the opinion that we should build a rocket ship and send capitalists out to explore space and find new sources of energy from dead plant material, fine spices and gem stones to hoard for themselves. And we should volunteer them to this noble quest on behalf of humanity, and the sooner the better. Time is money, as they say.

Policywonk

 

M. Spector wrote:

"Left biocentrism" = "deep ecology"

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4724]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 1[/url]

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4781]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 2[/url]

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4872]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 3[/url]

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4890]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 4[/url]

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4892]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 5[/url]

[url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=4935]Deep Ecology v. Ecosocialism, Part 6[/url]

 

I think there is middle ground between being biocentric to the point of being anti-human, as some deep ecologists seem to be based on their writings, and anthropocentrism which claims that other species exist for our use only and have no intrinsic value.

There is much to agree with and disagree with both in the writings of Ian Angus and David Orton, who unfortunately passed away earlier this year.

 

Seven questions for a populationist : Climate and Capitalism

  1. Is environmental destruction primarily caused by the fundamental nature of our society, or by the number of people in it? Do we need to change the way we live, or just change how many of us live this way?
  2. Is the problem the existence of a large number of people, or the activities of a small number of people who plunder the earth to reap private wealth?
  3. Are the most destructive countries those with growing populations, or those whose populations are stable or falling?
  4. Will reducing population change the grossly ecocidal nature of capitalism?
  5. If capitalism remains intact, will reducing population reduce environmental degradation in any significant way?
  6. Will campaigning for reduced population help build a powerful green movement, or will it alienate us from our most important allies, and divert the movement away from its most important tasks?
  7. And even if you disagree with me on those issues: If we have at most 10 or 20 years to head off catastrophic climate change, does it make any sense to focus our efforts on population programs that even the most optimistic populationists say will take 50 years to have a marginal effect?

1. Environmental destruction is caused by the fundamental nature of our society, which includes the number of people in it.

2. Primarily the latter.

3. Those whose populations are stable or falling.

4. Probably not, but it is questionable whether capitalism can survive a population crash, or the causes of a population crash.

5. Depends on how great the reduction is (see the answer to 4).

6. Some of the approaches to population control are desirable for other reasons (increased equality for women for example). Population reduction should not be a primary focus in any case. We should instead be talking about dealing with a possible population crash which may be unavoidable no matter what we do.

7. Only if the approaches to population control are also effective at limiting climate change and other environmental impacts.

 

Policywonk

3. is actually a ridiculous question that Angus should have thought about more (and I the answer). A number of industrialized countries with great environmental impact have increasing populations. Also several oil producing countries with large per capita GHG emissions (there are reasons for that but Angus should have taken them into account in his arguments).  And left biocentrists are to deep ecology in a similar way as eco-socialists are to socialists, as there are left and right wing deep ecologists (as Angus points out) and less environmentally sensitive socialists. Not exactly equivalent. My point is that everything one reads should be taken with a grain of salt.

6079_Smith_W

Well they are all leading questions, in that they present the problem as an either/or situation. 

As for #1, I think it is caused by the fundamental nature of our society, but I doubt we all have have the same understanding of what that means.

For #2 I'd say neither, because I don't think it is just a problem of overpopulation, and I don't think greed, blindness and mismanagement are just a habit of the rich. Has the problem made far worse by globalization, backed up with militarism? Of course. But it was not the root cause, and it is not the whole story.

#3 Bad and misleading question, because again, I don't think the root is population. I think we are hitting a wall in part  because a number of very large nations are developing very quickly but the most developed are doing much more of the damage. Which nations do I think are the most to blame? Those which are already the most developed and the most wasteful.

#4 No. But that does not mean that overpopulation is not a potential problem.

#5 It depends. Again, I think the question is a set-up.

#6 I agree with policywonk that reproductive technology is probably the first step in the struggle for social and economic reform. Beyond I don't understand the question. Who is meant by "our allies" and the "most important struggle" and why is there an assumption that people working on the problem in different ways will cause division? 

#7 The struggle against nvironmental damage and climate change has to be fought through every avenue possible.

 

 

 

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/48789]Ecosocialism cuts to the roots of the ecological crisis[/url]

 

Policywonk

Wall should get his facts straight. While oil and gas interests are no doubt carving up the Peruvian Amazon, much of the deforestation since 2003 is due to unregulated gold mining.

http://www.care2.com/causes/rising-gold-prices-mean-deforestation-in-per...

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Policywonk wrote:

Wall should get his facts straight. While oil and gas interests are no doubt carving up the Peruvian Amazon, much of the deforestation since 2003 is due to unregulated gold mining.

">http://www.care2.com/causes/rising-gold-prices-mean-deforestation-in-per...

Wow, you really go out of your way to trash-talk ecosocialists, don't you?

Derek Wall said the Peruvian Amazon is under threat  "primarily because corporations aided by corrupt elites in Peru want to slice it up for gas, oil and biofuels". And you accuse him of not having his "facts straight".

Your point? That 15,200 acres ( 61 square kilometres) of previously pristine forest in Peru was cleared between 2003-2009 for gold exploration. That's almost 9 square kilometres a year.

How does that compare with the amount of land that "corporations aided by corrupt elites in Peru want to slice up for oil, gas, and biofuels", as Wall states? Well, the latter accounts for about [url=http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00029... of the Peruvian Amazon[/url] - i.e., some 490,000 square kilometres zoned for hydrocarbon activities, which the Peruvian government is prepared to lease to state and multinational energy companies for exploration and production. 

Now, which of the two is the greater threat to the Peruvian Amazon - unregulated gold mining or oil and gas exploration?

 

 

ruth67

M. Spector wrote:

[url=http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/48789]Ecosocialism cuts to the roots of the ecological crisis[/url]

 

the closing line from your posted article

“I think we should all reinstate in our mind the seven-generation rule. When we make really major decisions, we should ask not only what will it do for me today, but what will it do for my children, my children’s children, and their children’s children into the future.”    

our genetic heritage when we trace our roots brings us to the conclusion that we are one extended family although i fully understand  that may not sound so comfortable

http://www.youtube.com/user/endofempire79#p/a/u/1/cZnOrfvek1Q (the seventh  generation)

Brian White

Actually you cannot do tar sands in your back garden.  There are bylaws, and the government (the Queen) owns the minerals below everyone's house.  She, (through her representatives)  can give those mineral rights to anyone.   (In BC,  creepy guys have bought mineral rights to neighbouring farms just to continue fueds). They get access along with the rights.

ikosmos wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
When I go out to my garden I don't pretend that the slugs are the only creatures I need to deal with. I go after whatever is doing the damage, and if that means I have to pick a few cabbage worms, so be it.

The problem with private property is that you just might choose to build a tar sands project " in your garden" to make a few billions in profit and, under capitalism, that's good and fine. It's not good and fine. It's leading to ecocide.

Thanks for giving yourself away there. Have a nice day.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Ian Angus wrote:

What we now call ecology was fundamental to Marx’s thought, and, as John Bellamy Foster has shown, in the 20th century Marxist scientists made major contributions to ecological thought. But on the whole, the Marxist movements of the 20th century either ignored environmental issues entirely, or blithely deferred all consideration of the subject until after the revolution, when socialism would magically solve them all.

What’s worse, some of the worst ecological nightmares of the 20th century occurred in countries that called themselves socialist. We only have to mention the nuclear horror of Chernobyl, or the poisoning and draining of the Aral Sea, to make clear that just eliminating capitalism won’t save the world.

Now there is an easy answer to that – we could just say that those countries weren’t socialist. They were state capitalist, or something else, so criticism of their environmental crimes is irrelevant. But green critics will rightly call that a cop-out.

People in the Soviet Union and the other soviet bloc countries thought they were building socialism. And for most people worldwide that was what socialism looked like.

So whether we call those societies socialist or give them some other label, we need to answer the underlying question: what makes us think that the next attempts to build socialist societies will do any better than they did?

Our answer has two parts.

The first is that eliminating profit and accumulation as the driving forces of the economy will eliminate capitalism’s innate drive to pollute and destroy.

While mistaken policies and ignorance have caused some very serious ecological problems, the global crisis we face today isn’t the result of mistaken policies and ignorance – it is the inevitable result of the way capitalism works.

With capitalism an ecologically balanced world is impossible.

Socialism doesn’t make it certain, but it will make it possible.

The second part of the answer is that history is not made by impersonal forces. The transition to socialism will be achieved by real people, and people can learn from experience.

This is demonstrated in practice by Cuba, which in the past 25 years has made huge strides towards building an ecologically sound economy, and which has repeatedly been one of the few countries that meet the WWF’s criteria for a globally sustainable society.

The lesson we must learn from that achievement and from the environmental failures of socialism in the 20th century is that ecology must have a central place in socialist theory, in the socialist program and in the activity of the socialist movement.

Ecosocialism works to unite the best of the green and the red while overcoming the weaknesses of each. It tries to combine Marxism’s analysis of human society with ecology’s analysis of our relationship to the rest of nature.

It aims to build a society that will have two fundamental and indivisible characteristics.

• It will be socialist, committed to democracy, to radical egalitarianism, and to social justice. It will be based on collective ownership of the means of production, and it will work actively to eliminate exploitation, profit and accumulation as the driving forces of our economy.

• And it will be based on the best ecological principles, giving top priority to stopping anti-environmental practices, to restoring damaged ecosystems, and to reestablishing agriculture and industry on ecologically sound principles.

- excerpt from the [url=http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=5449]keynote address[/url] to the recent [url=http://climatechangesocialchange2011.wordpress.com]Climate Change, Social Change conference[/url] in Melbourne.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

In an important and long article in [url=The">http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=full]... Nation[/url], Naomi Klein makes a case for ecosocialism. Here are some excerpts, but the whole article is worth a half-hour of your time:

Naomi Klein wrote:

A 2007 Harris poll found that 71 percent of Americans believed that the continued burning of fossil fuels would cause the climate to change. By 2009 the figure had dropped to 51 percent. In June 2011 the number of Americans who agreed was down to 44 percent—well under half the population. According to Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, this is “among the largest shifts over a short period of time seen in recent public opinion history.”

...

Equally significant has been a shift in emotional intensity. Climate change used to be something most everyone said they cared about—just not all that much. When Americans were asked to rank their political concerns in order of priority, climate change would reliably come in last.

But now there is a significant cohort of Republicans who care passionately, even obsessively, about climate change—though what they care about is exposing it as a “hoax” being perpetrated by liberals to force them to change their light bulbs, live in Soviet-style tenements and surrender their SUVs. For these right-wingers, opposition to climate change has become as central to their worldview as low taxes, gun ownership and opposition to abortion. Many climate scientists report receiving death threats, as do authors of articles on subjects as seemingly innocuous as energy conservation. (As one letter writer put it to Stan Cox, author of a book critical of air-conditioning, “You can pry my thermostat out of my cold dead hands.”)

....

And the media and culture industries have followed suit. Five years ago, celebrities were showing up at the Academy Awards in hybrids, Vanity Fair launched an annual green issue and, in 2007, the three major US networks ran 147 stories on climate change. No longer. In 2010 the networks ran just thirty-two climate change stories; limos are back in style at the Academy Awards; and the “annual” Vanity Fair green issue hasn’t been seen since 2008.

.....

But at a time when a growing number of people agree with the protesters at Occupy Wall Street, many of whom argue that capitalism-as-usual is itself the cause of lost jobs and debt slavery, there is a unique opportunity to seize the economic terrain from the right. This would require making a persuasive case that the real solutions to the climate crisis are also our best hope of building a much more enlightened economic system—one that closes deep inequalities, strengthens and transforms the public sphere, generates plentiful, dignified work and radically reins in corporate power. It would also require a shift away from the notion that climate action is just one issue on a laundry list of worthy causes vying for progressive attention. Just as climate denialism has become a core identity issue on the right, utterly entwined with defending current systems of power and wealth, the scientific reality of climate change must, for progressives, occupy a central place in a coherent narrative about the perils of unrestrained greed and the need for real alternatives.

....

The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their “free market” belief system.

.....

Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong.

....

The fact that the earth’s atmosphere cannot safely absorb the amount of carbon we are pumping into it is a symptom of a much larger crisis, one born of the central fiction on which our economic model is based: that nature is limitless, that we will always be able to find more of what we need, and that if something runs out it can be seamlessly replaced by another resource that we can endlessly extract.

....

Here is where the Heartlanders have good reason to be afraid: arriving at these new systems is going to require shredding the free-market ideology that has dominated the global economy for more than three decades. What follows is a quick-and-dirty look at what a serious climate agenda would mean in the following six arenas: public infrastructure, economic planning, corporate regulation, international trade, consumption and taxation.

....

Responding to climate change requires that we break every rule in the free-market playbook and that we do so with great urgency. We will need to rebuild the public sphere, reverse privatizations, relocalize large parts of economies, scale back overconsumption, bring back long-term planning, heavily regulate and tax corporations, maybe even nationalize some of them, cut military spending and recognize our debts to the global South. Of course, none of this has a hope in hell of happening unless it is accompanied by a massive, broad-based effort to radically reduce the influence that corporations have over the political process. That means, at a minimum, publicly funded elections and stripping corporations of their status as “people” under the law. In short, climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.

More than that, climate change implies the biggest political “I told you so” since Keynes predicted German backlash from the Treaty of Versailles. Marx wrote about capitalism’s “irreparable rift” with “the natural laws of life itself,” and many on the left have argued that an economic system built on unleashing the voracious appetites of capital would overwhelm the natural systems on which life depends. And of course indigenous peoples were issuing warnings about the dangers of disrespecting “Mother Earth” long before that. The fact that the airborne waste of industrial capitalism is causing the planet to warm, with potentially cataclysmic results, means that, well, the naysayers were right. And the people who said, “Hey, let’s get rid of all the rules and watch the magic happen” were disastrously, catastrophically wrong.

There is no joy in being right about something so terrifying. But for progressives, there is responsibility in it, because it means that our ideas—informed by indigenous teachings as well as by the failures of industrial state socialism—are more important than ever. It means that a green-left worldview, which rejects mere reformism and challenges the centrality of profit in our economy, offers humanity’s best hope of overcoming these overlapping crises.

Slumberjack

Quote:
 .... That means, at a minimum, publicly funded elections and stripping corporations of their status as “people” under the law. In short, climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.

There is no joy in being right about something so terrifying. But for progressives, there is responsibility in it, because it means that our ideas—informed by indigenous teachings as well as by the failures of industrial state socialism—are more important than ever. It means that a green-left worldview, which rejects mere reformism and challenges the centrality of profit in our economy, offers humanity’s best hope of overcoming these overlapping crises.

The highlighted concepts outlined within the article do represent the best hope, although it has to be said that aspiring to the minimalist approach in addressing these problems, within a system geared heavily toward ensuring that no change can occur, is problematic to our long term prospects for survival, to say the least about it.  Westerners have pretty much decided between capitalism and mass extinction, including our own.

Gaian

quote: "There is no joy in being right about something so terrifying. But for progressives, there is responsibility in it, because it means that our ideas—informed by indigenous teachings as well as by the failures of industrial state socialism—are more important than ever. It means that a green-left worldview, which rejects mere reformism and challenges the centrality of profit in our economy, offers humanity’s best hope of overcoming these overlapping crises."

Some of us have been hoping to see this day since Charles Taylor in 1975 wrote of a "Dunkirk" moment in the degradation of Earth's life systems when need for corrective action became obvious to all. I hope someone can produce evidence of the state of Canadian consciousness.

Do you think the American right is able to put it down to God's judgement on the liberal-minded? Must read it before any more questions. Thank Gai for Naomi.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://www.socialistaction.blogspot.com/2011/11/climate-change-and-need-... change and the need for eco-socialism[/url]

Quote:

The system is incapable of innovating its way out of ecological crisis. William Stanley Jevons, a 19th century British economist, can be called a "peak coal" theorist. He forecast an end to British capitalism from the depletion of coal, but thought that the industrialists needed to push onward to the end. Yet Jevons, who was no ecologist, made a unique observation: more efficient devices for burning coal—better boilers and engines—did not decrease the actual usage of coal in Britain. Instead, the more efficient the technology, the more coal was burned in absolute terms. This is a reflection of the logic of capitalism: efficiency leads to higher resource usage. There is no way that we can avoid climate catastrophe simply by making capitalism more efficient.

In order to contain climate change and prevent disaster, we need a total overhaul of the energy and transportation infrastructure. Shipping and personal transit need to become radically different, and all energy for human activity needs to come from renewable sources. This would require a massive, worldwide mobilization of resources and people on a scale that is truly unprecedented. Keeping energy use at sustainable levels will be a monumental task, but one that is necessary for our survival.

The changes that need to happen are of the kind that requires a planned economy, democratically run by the working class. The task facing us cannot be left to chance and the chaos of the market, but it also cannot be imposed from above by a bureaucracy. Planning is the only realistic way to restructure the whole infrastructure of society, from top to bottom, in the radical way that is necessary.

Slumberjack

Gaian wrote:
Do you think the American right is able to put it down to God's judgement on the liberal-minded?

They've been at it for years.

Quote:
I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen."

Jerry Falwell, referring to 9/11 during an interview on Pat Robertson's show.

Gaian

The Pat and Jerry show. When did Jerry utter those immortal words? Bumper stickers haven't been the same since they could proclaim "The Moral Majority Isn't" (hope I got that right)

Slumberjack

I stumbled across it, literally as my brain will attest to, in a footnote to his wiki article.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

"I don’t think climate change necessitates a social revolution." - Naomi Klein

[url=http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1053]No ecosocialist she[/url]

Unionist

She may not be an ecosocialist, but it's a thought-provoking interview nonetheless. Thanks for the link, Spector.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Robert Biel wrote:

Some environmentalists argue that the environmental issue is so serious that it has to be given priority over class politics. This is wrong simply because it is capitalism that is the problem. But it would be equally wrong to say that the environment is a long-term issue which can be dealt with later, once the political conditions have been created, for grassroots movements are making it an immediate issue, and they are precisely the really existing forces which can challenge the system.

- from his book [url=http://zedbooks.co.uk/paperback/the-new-imperialism]The New Imperialism: Crisis and Contradiction in North/South Relations[/url]

Policywonk

M. Spector wrote:

"I don’t think climate change necessitates a social revolution." - Naomi Klein

[url=http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1053]No ecosocialist she[/url]

I think she's a bit behind; belief in climate change has picked up recently. And climate change will probably cause a social reaction, if not a revolution.

Policywonk

M. Spector wrote:

Robert Biel wrote:

Some environmentalists argue that the environmental issue is so serious that it has to be given priority over class politics. This is wrong simply because it is capitalism that is the problem. But it would be equally wrong to say that the environment is a long-term issue which can be dealt with later, once the political conditions have been created, for grassroots movements are making it an immediate issue, and they are precisely the really existing forces which can challenge the system.

- from his book [url=http://zedbooks.co.uk/paperback/the-new-imperialism]The New Imperialism: Crisis and Contradiction in North/South Relations[/url]

It's wrong to say the environment is a long-term issue which can be dealt with later not because of what grassroots movements are doing, but because it is deteriorating in front of our eyes.

Slumberjack

Maybe they should hire him to script for the Greens.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Quote:
A socialist society has to critique and transform 

The whole way energy is produced and used in the U.S. is rooted in profound waste (and disregard for humanity’s future needs). The U.S. has long used (roughly) twice the BTU per capita compared to imperialist Europe (with a comparable lifestyle).

Coal in the U.S. used to serve the railroads (as fuel) and steel (as coking components) — now it is powdered and fed into power plants (in the main). It is not just the conditions of production that are marked by capitalist decisions and priorities, but the purpose of production, and the modes of consumption for various commodities, etc.

Communists have often written that we can’t just “lay our hands” on the existing state, and then use it to our purposes.

Something similar is true about production — we can’t simply “lay our hands” on this society’s productive apparatus and use it (unchanged) for our purposes. The production process itself needs to be radically critiqued, reconceived, overthrown and transformed — by the working people themselves, while still maintaining and developing a working economy.

In the theory produced during the [Chinese] cultural revolution, it was said (by the revolutionaries among the communists) that the class nature of a production process was determined on three levels:

1) At the level of ownership (not just juridical ownership on paper, but actual ownership: meaning if it is state owned, who really owns the state?)

2) At the level of relations IN production (meaning how is the work itself organized, and how much are the workers developing the consciousness and political power to affect it?)

3) At the level of relations of distribution (meaning how are both wages and goods circulated, and who does that distribution serve?)

This is very different from the older, previous, orthodoxies among communists — who thought (one-sidedly, even naively) that state ownership settles the socialist character of production. In contrast, the communists during the GPCR said both that we had to see if the “ownership by the whole people” (through state ownership) is real or fake — i.e. who owns the state in a sweeping sense? Is the state (at its heights) still a revolutionary stronghold of ongoing communist transformation?

But beyond that, they argued that ownership alone (even by a genuinedly socialist state) did not guarantee socialist relations of production — and that it was important to see how local production itself functioned (what line is in command), and what larger purposes the distribution of commodities served....

We need to look at more than just how the production process is owned, (i.e. not merely where its surplus goes), but also what it produces, how it is produced, what it serves in the largest senses.

It seems inevitable to me that a non-imperialist North America will have radically different consumption patterns. Vastly different spectra of produced goods and services. Radically different environmental impacts. Radically different values and expectations among the people.

Excerpted from [url=http://kasamaproject.org/2012/04/24/revolutionizing-production-itself-fo... production itself: For humanity and for the world[/url]

Fidel

Mike Ely wrote:
Coal mining itself is soaked in the blood of the workers. In the mine where I worked, three men died over the years I was there. And men came out injured daily. Watching the older workers prepare for work you saw them (slowly, painfully) putting on trusses, braces, false legs. You saw missing fingers, or long scars. Capitalist coal mining used up humans as a raw material.

There are few jobs more degrading to workers. My grandfather was a coal miner in England, and he told us that the company always tried to cheat on safety which ended up costing lives. He really hated them for that.

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
My grandfather was a coal miner in England, and he told us that the company always tried to cheat on safety which ended up costing lives. He really hated them for that.

Margaret's Museum

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
My grandfather was a coal miner in England, and he told us that the company always tried to cheat on safety which ended up costing lives. He really hated them for that.

Margaret's Museum

 

Grandma used to have to slap his back and sides all over. He was mustard gassed in the war so his lungs were pretty fucked. He worked at the colliery down the mine at Maltby, Yorkshire. Remember me mum saying it was warm deep in the mine, and grand would take his shirt off in the middle of winter.

Slumberjack

That half of a house shown in the movie is still standing.

Fidel

Yeah I thought that is an odd looking house.

Pages