Socialist Standard No. 1382 October 2019
- This topic has 38 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Editorial: Neither Brexit nor EU but World Socialism
- Pathfinders: Capitalism’s Holy Grail
- Letters
- Cooking the Books I: Who Are the Working Class?
- Wood for the Trees: The Myth of Parliament
- Material World: Indonesia: From Anti-Imperialism to Imperialism
- Extinction Rebellion: New Label Old Idealism
- Inequality: Yachts and Diseases
- Animal Farms: Wildlife Trafficking
- No Deal Brexit: Parasitical Fisticuffs
- Law and Order: Reactionary Fantasies
- Marx, Engels and Science
- Cooking the Books II: Not applying technology
- Proper Gander
- Reviews
- 50 Years Ago: The Failure of Civil Rights
- Meetings
- Rear View
- Free Lunch
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.
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.
Hi Schekn
Just to clarify – are you saying XR’s approach is to try to exert pressure via CAs on capitalist governments to “Change System” when the very function of these governments is to uphold and maintain the system that is a largely responsible for anthropogenic climate change. If so, I dont see the point in this. If its not realistic to implement net “Zero by 2025” then it is most certainly not realistic to expect capitalist governments to abolish capitalism!
Also, I vaguely remember having touched on this before but what do members of XR mean by “The System” and what do they propose to put in its place? I strongly suspect most members of XR think capitalism equates with the free market or neoliberalism and that the alternative to capitalism is just more state intervention albeit of a benevolent greenish kind. Am I wrong in suspecting this? I hope so but the depressing thought occurs to me that I may not be all that far of mark….
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.
everything everyone offers is reformism, hence against the SPGB principles, hence bad”
______
With respect. What reforms take priority? See the problem here?
Once you start making demands, reforms, Socialism ends up on the back burner.
Just to clarify, we support workers in regards to better wages, for example. However, we point out, that this can be a lifetime cycle of yearly effort…..
Re the last point. We say, rightly, such reforms are futile, something now nothing never. Are not in the interests of our class.
Nuclear weapons for example. The demand to ban them. When Capitalism’s class conflict, (not just capitalists vs workers) but Capitalists vs Capitalists erupts inevitably. Wars over trade routes, natural resources, land, sea and people to exploit. When such flair up, leading to the use of ‘nice’ conventional weapons, the use of is consequentially devastating for fellow workers.
YFS
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.
No. What is it that you don’t understand? At best reforms are a waste of time and effort, often not worth the paper they’re written on. Giving false hope, that you can change the slaughterhouse in the interests of workers, i.e, make capitalism a little more palatable.
At any rate reforms benefit capitalists. Again, to benefit the capitalist class, at the expense of one or more sections of the working class.
Reformers call for the end to nuclear weapons…..and fail to understand why wars happen. Capitalism is based on competition, not cooperation. A fight to the death over natural resources, land, trade routes, everything in and on the planet. Yet workers have not gained one inch in fighting in Capitalism’s wars!
What happens with reforms is when fighting for one reform, around the corner is a far more pressing issue…..a revolving door.
Capitalism is a hydroheaded monster, loop off one head and several appear.
What happens when workers are let down fighting for reforms? They become disappointed, disillusioned, leading to apathy and angry. We have been told by Labour Party members, if that’s socialism under Labour governments, that they want nothing to do with socialism.
We repeat it over and over, almost 115 years, the warning that capitalism has a built in mechanism for reforms.
Our position is if you oppose capitalism, its grotesque ideology, the propensity for war. You should make an effort to become a socialist.
Waste no time! Join our movement for Socialism.
“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?
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?
I don’t think so. There is a problem that people don’t see because the government is not telling the truth, and it appears even many comrades here don’t have a clue about the scale of the problem 😉
Therefore, XR are demanding that the government solve this problem. Now, how to solve it, that will be up to the CA to decide, of course led by a panel of scientists and other experts.
James19, I am a member, and I do not support reformism. I do, however, think that the party should cooperate with fellow travelers.
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.
“James19, I am a member, and I do not support reformism. I do, however, think that the party should cooperate with fellow travelers.”
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.
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?
“You cannot reasonably treat fellow travellers in the same way as you might hostile opponents of the case for socialism.”
You reckon?
“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.”
“So why do socialists insist on the need to capture parliament? Parliament is the seat of political power through which control of the state apparatus is exercised. Although external influences are exerted upon parliament from big business, unions’ pressure groups and the like, in order to be effective such influence has to be channelled via parliament and realised in the form of legislation.”
[…]
“Those who reject political action must explain how a revolutionary transformation can be brought about which would result in a classless moneyless system of free access and common ownership.”
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
Robbo “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.”
No doubt an individual expressing the following viewpoint, could be classified as a fellow traveller, as their goal is the same as ours:
“The principle of Communism, is that in a Communist society each works according to his abilities and receives articles of consumption, not according to the work he performs, but according to his needs as a culturally developed individual. This means that the cultural and technical level of the working class has become high enough to undermine the basis of the distinction between mental labour and manual labour, that the distinction between mental labour and manual labour has already disappeared, and that productivity of labour has reached such a high level that it can provide an absolute abundance of articles of consumption, and as a result society is able to distribute these articles in accordance with the needs of its members.”
So according to the “let’s snuggle up to Fellow travellers viewpoint, we should be snuggling up to Joseb Besarionis dze Jughashvil or to give him his more well known name Joseph Stalin
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.