Socialist Standard No. 1382 October 2019

There was an article about the XR (Extinction Rebellion) in the last issue of Socialist Standard, written by Adam Buick. It is great that he informs comrades of this important movement and some issues it raises. However, as usual, like a broken record, the rhetoric of the article was, “everything everyone offers is reformism, hence against the SPGB principles, hence bad”.

This representation of material is really not helpful. It does not stimulate thought, it strangles hope, it is counterproductive in terms of uniting with the aim of changing the status quo.

Moreover, the author makes several factual mistakes, a lot of assumptions, and shows general ignorance of the subject of the article, even when there are members of the party a lot more knowledgeable and available for consultation. Let’s see what Adam misrepresented.

“At this level, this (Citizens Assemblies) is pure reformism, calling on a capitalist government to implement some desirable measure within capitalism.” – this is wrong. In fact, most of the movement’s participants recognize that implementing the “net Zero by 2025” is not realistic within the capitalist framework, and therefore expect Citizens Assemblies to advise government to “Change System”- their common slogan. If abolishing capitalism is a reform – I am all for such reformism! In which case, we should be standing with the XR, not criticize their approach.

“So the question arises: how could a minority of 3.5 percent bring about a participatory democracy (let alone the common ownership of the Earth’s resources that socialists want in addition)?” – well, that’s very simple, really. 3.5% force the government to establish CAs. Citizens Assemblies (CAs) are meant to do just that, to allow participatory democracy, and to establish the common ownership of the Earth’s resources that socialists want in addition. Somehow the author completely missed this point, or maybe is simply not sufficiently informed.

Next, let’s see how much the authors knows about the climate science. “Such an increase (4.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels) would certainly cause problems, especially under capitalism, with the flooding of low-lying land, mass population movements, and more extreme weather. But it would not mean that six out of every seven humans will perish.” Exactly what qualifications or expertise allow the author to make such claims? From the text of the notorious “Hothouse Earth” article published by Harvard scientists a year ago in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252#sec-4), “Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold (of around 2 (!) degrees above the pre-industrial levels) and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state.” Habitable is a strong word scientists rarely use. I don’t think this is so far-fetched to assume that an IN-habitable Earth would result in every 6 out 7 people perished. But of course the author knows better than the climate scientists! Please follow the link and read the article, don’t just take my word for it.

“Although this (net zero carbon emissions by 2025) does seem to offer hope amongst their doom and gloom, it doesn’t really as it’s not realisable (not even if socialism were to be established tomorrow).” – well, I suppose the author knows a better proposed date? What would it be? Suppose, we are driving a car that is headed for a cliff. When would you say is the best time to slam on the brake? When you are at the edge? According to Adam, yes, because then it would be “realisable”. Very clever indeed. It is just common sense that with all of the government inertia we know of, we should demand the start of the action as soon as imaginably possible, with the hope to hasten the process as much as we can.

I welcome the information on activities of XR and thus a possibility of discussion. However, I am strongly against, first of all, false information misrepresenting the current scientific consensus on the topic, and second, the stance of some comrades who would criticize and thus not stand side by side with those in our society who are the most likely to bring about the change we all so passionately desire.

Actually, it is not clear whether XR is demanding one Citizens Assembly on what to do about climate change or a many such assemblies. I understood it to be one, as their site says (under “The Truth/Our Demands”):

“Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.”

I have not read anything in XR literature that they expect many such assemblies to be set up and for them to come to the conclusion that what is first required is the common ownership of the Earth’s resources. It would be nice to think that they would but, if they were going to, this would also reflect itself in other ways, in for instance not voting for political parties that wanted to retain capitalism but sending instead to parliament and local councils delegates mandated to pursue this, in fact even setting up their own citizens’ assemblies without waiting for the government to do so.

In other words, you are assuming that there is already a widespread desire for common ownership of the Earth’s resources, which XR’s leaders thinks the action of an active 3.5% can substitute themselves for.

Hi james19, you are describing why reformism is bad. I agree with that concept. Please reread my original post and try to understand what I am saying.

ALB, XR are not saying what exactly a CA would decide because this is up to citizens to decide it. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a CA, don’t you think so? Therefore writing now what conclusions XR expect or don’t expect the CA to come to, makes no sense whatsoever.

Nor does it make sense to write what I assume because you don’t know that, either. It doesn’t matter what the population may want in principle. When people are confronted with the fact that we are going to exterminate ourselves if we go the way of business as usual, they will change their mind, and very likely come to realize that common resource ownership is the only way out.

robbo203, it may or may not be realistic to expect capitalist government to abolish capitalism, but we will think about that later, when people realize that their capitalist government is betraying them. This is why XR’s 1st demand is for the government to tell the truth. At some point there will be a clash between citizens (and there are now more and more climate conscious citizens) and the government. This is only a beginning of the battle. But this is a way into solving this. Sitting on your behind, criticizing active movements that are actively convincing people that capitalism is destroying Earth, and doing nothing to help them is a morally bankrupt strategy.

You say, “I strongly suspect most members of XR think capitalism equates with the free market or neoliberalism”. In fact, many people on this forum assume things and start criticizing, without knowing. Have you been to XR meetings? How many forum discussions from the XR have you read? Why don’t you, instead of “assuming”, simply ask people who have read a lot, and do know? No, most XR members do not equate capitalism with free market, they realize that capitalism must go. But instead of trying to convince people through political discussions, they took the road of convincing people through showing them the facts about how capitalism is destroying our planet, and then by allowing them to come to this conclusion on their own.

“XR are not saying exactly what a CA would decide because this is up to citizens to decide it. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a CA, don’t you think so?”

Entirely agree, Shrenk. But XR have pre-empted what a CA might decide by laying down 2025 as the date by which the government should achieve net zero carbon emissions, don’t you think?

Whatever the scale of the problem, the answer is the same — the establishment of the common ownership and democratic control of the Earth’s natural and industrial resources as the only framework within which it can be rationally addressed and effective and lasting actions taken.

XR can “demand” as much as they like that “the government solve this problem”. The government won’t, not because it might not want to, but because it can’t, due to the constraints that operating within the framework of the competitive struggle for profits that is built-in to capitalism.

The problem with so-called ‘fellow-travellers’ is that whereas they often claim to have socialism/communism as their goal, their means of achieving it is either unstated, extremely vague or insurrectionist, which puts them totally at variance with the SPGB, which has always held the view, encapsulated in its declaration of principles, that the means cannot be separated from the ends

 

That’s going too far Dave.  Having different means to achieving socialism does not make fellow travellers “totally” at variance with the SPGB, only “partially” at variance. No one is suggesting we have to see eye to eye with fellow travellers on everything.  The salient thing is that they and us have the same goal.   That is crucially important.  This is what defines a fellow traveller.  Some of these fellow travellers do support democratic means of achieving socialism but dont think this can be done through parliament.  I dont agree with them but still that makes their position even closer to ours and a solid basis for friendly discussion and debate.

This is the whole point: You cannot reasonably treat fellow travellers in the same way as you might hostile opponents of the case for socialism.   That would be completely daft not least because FTs are by far and way the most like recruits to the WSM in the future.  PR matters and a sensitive discriminating approach  will bear fruit, I’m convinced

That said I am not entirely sure that XR are fellow travellers. Some might be but does the movement as a whole advocate for socialism as we understand it?

• This reply was modified 5 years, 1 month ago by robbo203.

In this country the Socialist Party of Great Britain has stood alone in its insistence that ends and means cannot be separated; that the wrong means must inevitably lead to wrong ends.”

Yes but I am not talking about the outcome of using wrong means  leading to wrong ends.  That may well be the case but this is not the issue.  The issue is the proximity of the persons political outlook to our outlook and what that means for us in terms of how we relate to this person as opposed to someone who is overtly hostile to socialism.

It is pretty obvious, Dave, that there is a huge difference between a Fellow Traveller and an anti-socialist.  Not least there is the fact that what we have to debate about, as far is the former is concerned,  is considerably diminished , meaning we have a lot more in common.   For example we dont have to go through the whole rigmarole of explaining why human nature  is not against socialism

The difference between us is reduced in most cases to a disagreement over the technical means of achieving socialism and even here the contrast is not as stark as you imagine.  As I said many FTers accept the need for a bottom-up democratic transformation but dont see the point in using parliament

In other words they agree with 95% of what we say with the remaining 5 % being a bone of contention.   I am NOT suggesting we brush this 5% under the carpet and ignore it.   But I am suggesting that our whole demeanour and approach to people in this position has to be different to say a virulent nationalist who loves Trump.

Not making a distinction is shooting yourself in the foot , putting off the very people most likely to join the SPGB from joining the SPGB.  That’s just not rational thinking, frankly