JH
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I did not say being an ex-stalinist should be considered a crime and I have no doubt that there are members of SPGB who are ex-stalinists. However I doubt that many of them were involved in promoting and defending the Iraq war in the way that Aaronovitch was, nor, I suspect, do they get regular spots on the radio and TV or are invited to write opinion pieces for 'The Times,' as Aaronovitch does. (Incidentally you do note, but I would like to emphasise that one of the prime factors in energy demand under capitalism is War and preparations for war.) I do read him occasionally, its hard to avoid and sometimes its good, as in his attacks on Goves view of history teaching, but I don't trust him or his motivation and I am certainly not prepared to pay for the privelege as the piece you referred to required.I therefore did not read the piece but merely responded to the quote you put out, 'windy nimbies' and references to high speed rail, which you do not comment further on.My objection to the term 'nimbies', is that it can and is, used as a blanket term of abuse, especially in relation to environmental issues, hence why it has arisen in this thread in relation to 'fracking'. There may well be instances were it can be applied as in the 'Green piece' article you reference. However I am hesitant to even use it in reference to wind power opponents, not the ones quoted in the article, without looking at specific instances. For their may well be arguements about specific cases, locations, effects on views, wildlife,etc . which it is difficult to assess without being effected. We are human beings not merely consumers and employees and we should be concerned about the environments in which we live.This is well represented in socialist literature, the writings of William Morris,etc. We want 'bread and roses too'. To simply emphasise the technological requirements of a different society, ignores the fact that the depradations of present day capitalism on our environment have long term effects from which it may not be possible to recover. We would not want to be in the position of the American General in looking back on the basis of socialism, 'We created a desert and called it Peace'. Hence my comments on the need to be involved and I doubt if anyone, SPGB or not, has not been concerned about some development in their locality from supermarkets, to incinerators or parking.I am argueing that once involved the issues take on significance and are surprisingly relevant to the need for socialism, fracking, being one such instance of that.
Sounds exacty what's been happening in this country. Its the exploration companies bumping up the prospects in the hope of being taken over by the bigger conglomerates.Talk of' ' progress' and 'objective science' are often ways of concealing underlying commercial interests.I'm not saying abandon a scientific approach but such an approach has to be critical and in cases like this requires analysis of both the underlying interests and the social context – capitalism.Talk about 'hired guns'. I find it difficult to read anything by the ex-stalinist Aaronovitch. He who thought the invasion of Iraq was in the interests of 'progress' and was rewarded ever afterwards by regular appearances on the BBC and regular columns in the Murdoch media, only outdone by that other 'great communicator' Alistair Campbell.This the context in which we have to assess the information with which are provided and in which the Socialist Standard is produced.It would not surprise me given some of the comments here, to hear the Yanomi, described as 'NIMBYS' and enemies of progress. It is capitalist accumulation that drives the energy needs of capitalism not human need and you will look in vain for any semblance of progress in terms of meeting human need under capitalism. The idea that knocking half an hour off the journey from Manchester to London (HS2) is anything other than an opportunity for capitalist investment at a time of recession and to provide some stimulus for growth and to see it in terms of human progress is nonsense.How long before the population of the world suffering from the impact of climate change and trying to preserve a reasonable environment in which to live are derided as 'NIMBYS', enemies of capitalist progress. Marx and Engels long ago realised the impact of capitalist degradation of the earth and took sides on all issues, exposing and analysing the underlying forces.Don't let the Standard abandon that approach in favour of some abstract 'objective' science.You cannot stand above the class struggle on that way and end up supporting the dominant interests if you try.'The educators must themselves be 'educated'.
To add to my comments on science and the debate. It is my impression that the nature of the issue of 'objective science', which by its nature requires democracy and transparency, is being made increasingly difficult by developments within capitalism. The plethora of think tanks, spin doctors and PR consultants being employed by corporate interest groups and their increasing use in areas such as energy use, especially since 'climate change' emerged as a major area of debate makes any real discussion of the issues very problematic.See this http://www.monbiot.com/2013/02/18/secrets-of-the-rich/See also the reports on changes in the Department of Climate and Energy which are using seconded consulltants from the energy industry to replace civil servants and advise on policy, coupled with prosecution of climate change protestors by firms such as EDF
I'll leave you to argue the 'ruling ideas' thesis with Marx. I did intend it as a bit of a joke but it does seem relevant in this particular debate. 'Science' was a key feature in the development of capitalist ideology and the 'objectivity' arguement does allow for particular interests to pose as universal. I always found the ruling ideas arguement useful in providing an explanation for the rejection of alternative and particularly 'socialist' ideas in political arguements. Why people regard socialists who argue for a moneyless society as 'up a tree' or 'on another planet'.I do not reject science but my purpose in quoting from the phone in discussion was to show how some ideas can be excluded from the necessary scientific discussion.This must be clear to SPGB members, particularly in areas such as economics and sociology which are portrayed as 'social sciences' and which then try to exclude marxist ideas on the basis of lack of objectivity. As an organisation you clearly have problems with the BBC and other media which like to portray themselves as 'impartial' and 'objective'. Similar arguements are at work in all areas of science. In a class divided society the notion of 'objective science' is fraught with difficulties and such a science is only really possible in a socialist society.I at no stage accused Paddy of being a 'capitalist lackey'. He seems to have drawn this implication from reading the RP article because it draws distiinctions betweeen 'official' and 'unofficial' narratives. I think it is a useful distinction and does not necessarily imply that people who share the official view are 'lackeys' in the way he interprets it.In terms of not argueing for fracking but simply 'not dismissing it out of hand' he certainly had me fooled and in the context of the fraught debate, in the areas concerned, that sort of ambiguity cannot be afforded and it would probably have been better to stay out of it altogether, rather than lay into the opponents 'the opposition lobby' of dominant corporate interests.
It’s a good and necessary debate.The issues of water use and disposal which I raised and which Paddy appears to ignore have been dealt with in other posts.Paddy refers to the OFGEM report on energy capacity fall as providing a context for discussion. It is but it is a context in British capitalism and what I find significant is the lack of any mention of fracking in the establishment debate which followed. I get the impression that there is some falling off in enthusiasm for the project. I would like to think that this is due to protest but it could be other reasons including logistical problems, disposal etc. exposing too early consequences of relaxation of planning regulations, etc. Whether so or not it shows the potential dangers of socialists tying themselves to a particular form of technology as Paddy appears to do in his very much pro article.What I find unacceptable is his sudden discovery of a ‘class issue’ in fuel poverty. I don’t deny that this is a class issue although it hardly fits his criteria of involving the whole class but he suggests that somehow the anti-fracking people are responsible for this by putting impediments in the way of energy production. It seems to miss his notice that the main criteria for energy production is not human use but profit. As most consumers know by now their problems are not really of interest to the energy companies as long as they are making a profit and may one suggest that if profit was taken out the equation (the real class issue) then many of the problems would not be there.What prompted me to criticise the fracking article in the first place was its lack of engagement with the real issue and it is a real issue for people living in areas affected and the derision poured on their concerns. Read it again.Paddy continues this vein in his reply, ‘local residents frightened by scare stories’. What a patronising attitude.It is also the case that the main focus of the article seems to be to attack ‘greens’ and the language used to do this, ‘up a tree’ etc., is hardly conducive to constructive debate.In my reply I used info from an article in RP which I had recently read and which I thought provided a useful summary of some of the evidence against fracking. I didn’t endorse or reject the article's particular position.However again Paddy proceeds to launch an attack on not just the political argument and the argument is ‘political’, not objectively ‘scientific ‘ as Paddy appears to think, but also the motives of the author, accusing him of ‘opening gambits’ to put opponents in position of being ‘capitalist lackies,’ etc. , ‘sleight of hand’ etc.I find this whole approach problematic.It is clear to me that Paddy appears to think that opponents of fracking have some ulterior motives and are deliberately misleading people. The same depth of sceptiscism is not applied to the commercial interests of the energy industry who he appears to think are driven by concerns to end fuel poverty.Now there may well be capitalist interests involved in promoting renewable industry and some politicians who seek political power on the back of these issues but there are also people motivated by genuine concern for the future of the planet, the impact of certain forms of technology and a scientific curiousity which the dominant interests do not allow to develop.I am listening on a local radio phone-in to a discussion on attempts to set up a barrage to harness the power of tides on the Mersey. It is argued that such a technology could provide 80% of Merseyside's current energy use. Now there are environmental concerns about the effects such a barrage could have, fish, wildlife, etc. but someone has just rung in to propose floating barges that would rise and fall with the tides thus minimising effects on wildlife. However the main reason the scheme was rejected after investigation was apparently the return on investment which would take up to 30 years to recover.I raise this to point out both the main motivations governing energy use under capitalism and the untapped potential of human ingenuity which would be utilised in socialist revolution and which would make energy problems so qualitatively different.When I said in my initial response that I found Paddy's article unengaged I meant precisely this. If he went to some of the anti-fracking events or public consultations, he may find some anti-scientific people, conservatives, renewable energy interests, etc. amongst opponents as ALB suggests, but he may also find people open to a socialist argument as a solution to their problems and concerns.He will do this only if he relates to their concerns and does not suggest they are NIMBYs (heaven forfend that people should be concerned about the environments in which they live) or in some way responsible for fuel poverty or recession. It may well be as ALB suggests that the position taken by Paddy is the position most SPGB members would support. It is clearly a position taken by the ruling class and we all know that ruling ideas are ever ideas of the ruling class. It is a complacent position that asks nothing of people and socialist ideas are never promoted in such a way. It's fine if the Socialist Standard is only intended for its members but if it's intended to promote socialist ideas amongst the working class as a solution to the problems of capitalism, its lofty approach of objective science is disastrous and chimes too well with the interests of capital.
As regards 'the class issue' I am a little confused by your reply.You say that an issue can only be considered a class issue if there is a 'common class interest in it'.This suggests that only attempts to maintain or abolish capitalism can be considered 'class issues'. Your strictures would mean that even issuuse such as war could not be considered a class issue because it could be argued that some workers benefit from it, eg. soldiers, workers in the arms industry, etc.In a similar way health service or education cuts could not be considered as class issues because according to your arguements some workers may benefit from them as attempts to reduce costs, bring 'us' out of recession, etc.Yes capitalism is a complicated system of conflicting interests, including within classes and particularly within the capitalist class but it is necessary to identify those interests and indeed take sides.What I was highlighting in the fracking issue, was the interests of capitalists in pursuit of profit as the main driving force for this development. It is true that some workers may benefit from this, as within capitalism the development of capital is the condition for their well being, but it is that. They remain workers tied to the interests of capital, a 'class for capital'.I was highlighting the conflicts between the drive for capital accumulation and the needs of the population. The conflict between the forces of production and the social relations of capitalism. The basis of class struggle.The energy problems to which you refer are the energy problems of capitalism. Of course there will be problems about how our needs are met under socialism but they will be significantly different.What you are doing in your attempts to be 'objective' is stepping outside of the class struggle (an impossibility) and implicitly objectifying capitalism and its needs.The struggle over environmental issues is indeed part of the class struggle and one which demonstrates that human needs are in conflict with the competitive pursuit of capitalist accumulation.
You say you are unsure of subject of 'complaint'.Firstly the article derides the anxieties and concerns of residents in areas subject to fracking, portraying them as dupes of oppositional lobbies and green campaigners. Their experiences are real, an earthquake, however minor, as a result of fracking, is not something to be dismissed, nor are the horror stories arising in other parts of the world, which have been well documented. (The 2010 documentary film 'Gasland' directed by Josh Fox , or 'Burning Water' – Esler and Richards 2010 documentary, show clearly the effects on residents in areas subject to fracking).I find the dismissal of concerns of residents, who are not rich and powerful, in favour of the spin of energy companies and their political lackies a worrying development in a socialist journal.You say I 'offer no evidence to show why any statement in the article is wrong'.Clearly it is not as simple as that. The environmental impact of fracking is a disputed area.What you provide is a one sided, positive evaluation of the project, selecting your evidence to support that case. Most worrying is that you appear oblivious to the possibility that commercial interests may be providing and distorting the evidence on which you rely.The negative impacts are not covered at all other than your mention of 'a minor energy slump and shareholder panic' in the U S as a result of depressed local gas prices.Water should not catch fire. The earth should not shake under your feet.Fracking requires enormous amounts of water. Between 5 and 11 million litres of water for each well drilled. The water used for fracking is is mixed with chemicals, including toxins and carcinogens. Much of it comes back up and then has to be disposed of. More worrying still is that. which remains underground and which may seep into the water table. (See article in January issue of Radical Philosophy for more comprehensive discussion of problems or any amount of articles on internet) Do you only rely on 'official sources'?
