Realistic Utopia

A serious critique of capitalism is essential to help solve the current world environmental crisis. Important questions are being raised about the dire state of the Earth’s ecosystems. We must now rethink our vision of a future society. We need to have a global perspective, understanding revolution and revolutionary transformation as a world process. Ecological issues must fundamentally be dealt with on a world scale. But that can only happen on the basis of a social and economic system—socialism—that does not treat the environment simply as a means by which to accumulate wealth. The world doesn’t need to go green to save the planet and the people on it, it needs to go red. The only solution is to get rid of capitalism.

Socialism presents a criticism of the god, Mammon, its high priests of finance and those lords of the universe, the industrialists, who worship the market at the sacred altar of money, and like a god, claim omnipotence that they can do anything. Socialism, disputes such a premise and argues that the market is unable to solve everything and that the world cannot live only for consumption and ever more consumption, as the "god-capitalism" always decrees it to be so. Who has eyes to see knows that there is a contradiction and conflict between capital and nature.  Ecological socialism (eco-socialism) denies the divinity of the market. 

Capitalism cannot deal with the environment in a sustainable rational way. Its logic is “expand-or-die”, limitless growth, to cheapen cost and to expand in order to wage the competitive battle and gain market share. And unplanned, large-scale, globally-interconnected production poses grave threats to the environment. Zero growth is not possible in a capitalist economy. Firms compete to make profit. Those who make the most profit can reinvest in capital and with more efficient machinery they out compete other firms. Firms have to make profit to survive. It’s not a case of wicked capitalists but instead a system with a built in growth imperative. Capitalism without growth is capitalism in crisis. Capitalism tend to be based on the short term. They seek to maximise returns quickly. They don’t think about the consequences in 10, 20, 30 years. Capitalist production is by its nature broken up into competing units of capitalist control and ownership over the means of production. And each unit is fundamentally concerned with itself and its expansion and its profit. The economy, the constructed and natural environment, and society cannot be dealt with as a social whole under capitalism. It’s all fragmented and each part looks at what lies outside itself as a “free ride.” An individual capitalist can open a steel mill and be concerned with the cost of that steel mill. But what they do to the air is not “their cost,” because it’s not part of their sphere of ownership. In mainstream economic theory, this is called “externality.” Socialism is not guided by profit but by social need, achieving rational balances between industry and agriculture, reducing gaps between town and country, factoring in the short-run, medium-term, and long-term, etc. And socialist planning is able to take into account non-economic factors: like health, the environment, alienation that people may experience from jobs. Society itself, and not a small oligarchy of property-owners—nor an elite of state techno-crats will be able to decide, democratically, what will be produced and in what way and in what quantities and they will be free to choose how much of the natural and social resources are to be devoted to education, health, or culture. Far from being “despotic,” planning is the exercise by a whole society of its freedom. A significant increase in free time is a condition for the democratic participation of working people in democratic discussion and management of the economy and of society. Human labour force itself is a natural resource. "The natural force of people" and "the natural force of the earth" are "the only two sources of wealth" and those are plundered by capitalism. A number of environmentalists don’t like to use the “c” word for risk of offence, but it’s all about “capitalism”.

The ecological socialist utopia is only a possibility, not inevitable. One cannot predict the future, except in conditional terms. In the absence of a socialist transformation the logic of capitalism will lead the planet to dramatic ecological disasters, threatening the health and the life of billions of human beings, and perhaps even the survival of our species. There is no reason for optimism.  Rosa Luxemburg could reasonably assume that the alternative to socialism would be barbarism. The ecological crisis has made barbarism even more probable. The entrenched ruling class is incredibly powerful, and the forces of radical opposition are still small. But socialism is the only hope that the catastrophic course of capitalist “growth” will be halted. Socialism is pragmatic, not utopian. The society we want to build must reverse the growth imperative and system of private and government ownership, make work life-affirmative, and create an economy based on community, cooperation, sharing, and a system of production that takes into account our impact on ecological systems. It should contribute to the betterment of society while allowing each individual to develop to their full potential. Technology will inevitably be part of our solution, but we must use and re-focus science and technology to serve the priorities of people and nature.

The language of life and death, of apocalyptic cataclysm is not poetic rhetoric — it is the reality of cancer from polluted waters, of choking asthma attacks from poisoned air. Climate change is no longer a future consequence. It is now an actuality. This is capitalism in all its naked brutality— willing to destroy everything for profits. This should not only cause us to despair but rather should motivate all of us to join the struggle to solve the ecological crisis in the only way it can ultimately be resolved — through the revolutionary transformation of our society. Our self-interest in preserving and regenerating healthy eco-systems, living and working in a way that does not compromise ourwell-being, will become central in making decisions about how food is grown and all other aspects of getting our basic needs met. When and where possible we should develop infrastructures for local food, water, and energy sovereignty, recognising that we will need an intricate balance between local production and a more centralised distribution and reallocation of resources. There are decisions that cannot be made on local or regional levels since their consequences obey no borders and affect other regions and, potentially, the entire planet; somehow, we must make these decisions globally. Those who live downstream must be as much involved in decision making as those upstream.

We must uphold the banner of socialism if we are to transform society and fight for all of humanity and for the planet that is our home. 

A world without frontiers

 Many distractors point their all-knowing finger to China and Cuba as 'proof' that socialism has failed. But nowhere have we ever claimed, or will claim, that these countries were socialist. These are examples of state capitalism (China, Cuba, the former Soviet Union etc - all of which had a wages system, commodity production and every other trait we associate with capitalism).

Many critics suggest that for socialism to be impemented would require the coercion of everyone who disagrees with it and the death of democracy, which is the exact opposite of everything we have always argued. We maintain that socialism will only come when a majority of the world's people understand what socialism means (and, no it has nothing to do with Lenin, or Mao or Castro), want it and are prepared to organise for it peacefully and democratically, without leaders and in their own interests.

Socialists are criticised for jumping on the environmentalist bandwagon. For the record socialist have been warning about the dangers capitalist production methods pose the environment for 130 years.

In 1875, in Dialectics of Nature,  Engels had this to say:

“At every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing over nature – but that we, with flesh and blood and brain, belong to nature and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly. We are gradually learning to get a clear view of the indirect, more remote social effects of our productive activity, and so are afforded the opportunity to control and regulate these effects well. This regulation, however, requires a complete revolution in our existing mode of production…in our whole contemporary social order”

Our priority remains the same – abolition of the profit system and the establishment of a system of society where the earth’s natural and industrial resources are commonly owned and democratically controlled.

Socialists are no different from others in desiring an envirionment in which the safety of all animal and plant spieces is ensured. Where we differ from our poitical opponents is in recognising that their demands have to be set against a well entrenched economic and social system, based on class privilege and property and governed by the overriding law of profits first.

It has long been our case that human needs can be satisfied without recourse to production methods that aversely effect the natural environment, which is exactly why we advocate the establishment of a system of society in which production is freed from the artificial constraints of profit. We are not talking about nationalisation or any other tinkering with the present system, but rather its entire abolition and replacement with a global system in which the earth’s natural and industrial resources are commonly owned and democratically controlled; a society in which each production processes takes into consideration not only human need but any likely effect upon the environment.

Once the Earth’s natural and industrial resources have ben wrested from the master class and become the common heritage of all humanity, then production can be geared to meeting needs in an ecologically acceptable way, instead of making profits without consideration for the environment. This the only basis on which we can meet our needs whilst respecting the laws of nature and to at last begin to reverse the degradation of the environment caused by the profit system. The only effective strategy for achieving a free and democratic society and, moreover, one that is in harmony with nature, is to build up a movement which has the achievement of such a society as itsobjective.

 The "carbon trading" and "green taxes" are just tinkering with the market system, whereas if carbon emissions are to be stabilised and the consequences of global overwarming tackled effectively it is the whole market system of competitive production for profit that must go.

Its replacement would be a world without frontiers where the Earth's natural and industrial resources have become the common heritage of all humanity. Only then will a world body capable of taking the necessary co-ordinated global action exist. Only then can the Earth's resources be used to satisfy people's needs not to make a profit for those who own and exploit them.The buying and selling of the market system would be replaced by giving and taking in accordance with the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

What politics is all about

 

Although both Labour and Tories have a large core of loyal supporters who would never vote for any other party, there is a vast number of voters who are not committed beforehand. It is these, commonly lumped together as the “floating vote”, who determine which party victory goes to in present day political conditions. The way in which they can ebb and flow is well demonstrated by the fluctuating percentages of support published in the public opinion polls. But even these are often not accurate predictions of the actual results, and elections have been won or lost on developments and events just before the votes are cast.

Most voters think the art of government is some mystical thing which is the prerogative of professional politicians; once they have voted, they are prepared to leave the job to “those who know best” so its no small wonder then that the working class get the government they deserve and leads to disillusionment. What we are after is the establishment of an administration we want—not a government we deserve

From time to time, there arise movements for the reform of the electoral system or, even more misguided, for the total rejection of the electoral system itself. But the adoption of various systems of proportional representation has demonstrated that such reform does not solve the basic problem, as the sway of government still passes between the major parties or major coalitions according to the temper of the day. Although it is possible for more shades of opinion to be represented in the debating chamber, the general effect is usually only leads to greater instability in the government.

Some people think there are fundamental differences between the Labour and Tory parties—others, and this view has gained more credence in recent years —think there is very little difference between them. The latter view is nearer the truth the more we consider fundamental issues; the former view reflects more correctly the views of those who are concerned mainly with surface appearances. It is the fundamental issues which are more important but we should not blind ourselves to the fact that there are considerable differences between Tory and Labour Parties on the ways and means of organising the economics and politics of the country. It is these differences which will decide the result of the next general election.

So how would work, as opposed to employment, seem in a sane socialist society? Well, for a start at least 50 percent, maybe up to 70 percent, of the existing jobs will disappear. In a world of common ownership, money will cease to exist or have any function. All the jobs concerning money—cashiers, bankers, insurance workers, tax collectors, etc, would be totally useless. That’s the majority of the most boring jobs out of the way, then. The abolition of production for profit, and the introduction of production for use, will mean the end of unnecessary long and stressful hours. The line between “work” and leisure will become very hazy, perhaps disappear altogether for some. The fact that work will be socially and individually useful will be a great motivating factor. Ideas, expressions, thoughts and intelligence will be of great value when it comes to designing, building, organising and problem-solving. No longer would we be victims of the needs of the wages system. Human beings will cease to be mere one-dimensional, profit-grinding zombies. Everyone of us has ideas, logic, experience, knowledge, reason and creativity that is of use to others and society in general. And yes, that includes small children, the elderly and the “disabled”. In a fully democratic society we would all be able to contribute on an equal basis (if we so choose) and take according to our self-defined needs.

The working environment will dramatically change too, of course. Being bossed around, getting up far too early, dread, anxiety, working too many hours amidst an unpleasant environment all have a negative psychological and physical effect on us. When people work in a stress-free environment and act on their own free-will they are much more cooperative. Instead of competing for jobs and promotion, which gives rise to a hostile and back-stabbing environment, emphasis will be on cooperation. Even when there are not so exciting jobs to do—cleaning perhaps, the work itself may still be mundane, but working in a co-operative and friendly environment will make whatever work we are engaged in so much more enjoyable. Cleaning can become bearable. Being around people who are enjoying themselves, enthusiastic, cooperative and engaged in socially useful work is a wonderful experience. It may be hard to imagine such experiences being part of everyday life, but don’t think of socialism as a utopia. The only thing which stands in our way is a working-class majority who understands and desires such a society. And who is willing to take the necessary political action to achieve it.

We would argue that workers have nothing to gain from being employed or unemployed. Every time we set foot in the workplace we are being exploited. And to those who want to get rid of such a reactionary society.

The Poison of Profit

 

Much of the world is in crisis. It is the capitalist chicken coming home to roost. Millions of acres of forests are on fire. Massive rainfall and flooding menace millions of people. Hurricanes and tropical storms are more frequent and intensive than before thanks to global warming. Then there are the droughts, heating of the planet by carbon emissions.  The profits system has fuelled and spread environmental destruction. Don’t expect the politicians to magically fix things. The ruling class has no solutions. The capitalist class is incapable of long term rational and decent management of society.  As Marx and Engels noted in 1848, class rule societies “end either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

Consumerism is the foundation of the prevailing capitalist socio-economic system. Governments and businesses are completely invested in maintaining high levels of consumption; their profitability and continued existence depend on it. Indeed, far from prioritizing the environment and working to change societal behaviour and deter individuals from spending, huge resources are expended to persuade and encourage consumption; expand market share, develop new products and increase profits for shareholders. Governments talk a concerned environmental talk, but policies are determined by economic growth rather than any concern about CO2 emissions, pollution, or bio-diversity. And most companies, routinely demonstrate that they don’t give a damn about the environment, unless by doing so sales increase and their annual dividends rise. Inherent within capitalism is a set of values that encourage selfishness, greed and complacency. Sufficiency, cooperation and social responsibility, all essential if the environmental crisis is to be met, whilst routinely spouted by politicians and CEOs are often totally absent.  Their insatiable thirst for power and profit while the majority suffer, it has served them very well, which allows their complacency to continue.

Environmentalists cannot wait until governments and businesses judge that going “green” is more profitable or popular than the destructive status quo before they act. Only governments and businesses can make the needed large scale changes (fossil fuels to renewables, electrification of transportation networks,  green production methods etc) only governments and businesses can make the needed large scale changes (fossil fuels to renewables, electrification of transportation networks,  green production methods etc) 

A revolution in consciousness is needed, moving away from selfishness to group responsibility, from apathy to action. Business-as-usual is causing these problems. The corporations are jeopardizing the entire global ecosystem, endangering the future for all children and holding the world's people hostage. Why do we allow such anti-social - even sociopathic - behaviour? How long will it take until the majority finally begins waking up to the fact that it is the capitalist system itself that is the criminal and must be summarily dealt with? Because of the high priority, it places on short-term corporate profit maximisation, capitalism tends to exacerbate the tendency to environmental harm. Under the rules of the capitalist system corporations are compelled to maximise gains and minimise costs, or lose to the competition. They do this by privatising gains and externalising costs to the public domain. So the environment serves as a free sewer to dump corporate wastes. The profit motive pushes other considerations, such as the need to preserve a healthy environment, down the agenda. If we fail to take preventive and precautionary steps civilisation may not outlive capitalism.  We have the technology to move to renewable energy sources. But the capitalist system is detrimental to human inventiveness and innovation. If something is profitable for corporations it happens - even if it is damaging to the vast majority of people, our communities and our natural life-support system. But if something is not seen as profitable - even if it would be beneficial to the majority - then, businesses aren't interested. The deciding factor, the highest priority of capitalism, is short-term profit maximisation for the companies and their shareholders.

 

Environmental education is important but our crucial question is how to shake our fellow citizens out of their stupor and a more effective campaign to dispel capitalist illusions. We can only be truly free when we, the working-class majority, join together and democratically decide what is produced, how it is produced and how the rewards are to be allocated. Only then can we disempower the parasites who are systematically stealing the wealth labour creates and wrecking the environment we all depend upon. As workers, we need to move beyond pay issues so that we are also concerned with wresting control over technology decisions in order to enhance, not damage, environmental health.

Sooner or later - and the sooner the better - we need to start building a cooperative economic democracy that will fundamentally change this world for the better.

Too late to stop global catastrophe?

 

The threat of global warming is clearly a global problem that can only be dealt with by co-ordinated action at the world level. But this is not going to happen under capitalism. As a system involving competition between profit-seeking corporations backed up by their protecting states, it is inherently incapable of world-wide cooperation. There never has been such cooperation. Just the opposite, in fact. The inevitable clashing interests between different states, each seeking to pursue the interests of its profit-seeking corporations, breeds war rather than cooperation. Look what happened last century. Look at the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

So it’s not going to happen. There is not going to be any coordinated world action to deal with global warming as long as capitalism is allowed to continue. Something will be done but it is bound to be too little, too late.

It’s certainly going to be too little. These days, when private corporations have governments under their thumb much more than in the recent past, what is being proposed is not even state intervention to force carbon-polluting corporations to limit their emissions in the overall capitalist interest. It’s to try to use the mechanisms of the market to solve the problem: fiddling about with the tax system to make investment in anti-pollution measures more profitable; establishing an artificial world market and price for carbon. Anybody can see that this is not going to work.

 

Governments are also proposing that individuals play their part, as if individuals rather than the system were to blame. They want us to drive smaller cars, even cycle to work, turn off the lights when we leave a room, not leave our TV on standby, not fly to our holiday destination. That’s all very well but unless they want us to reduce our standard of living that will just mean we would have money to spend on something else.

 

As the capitalist class are always wanting us to reduce our standard of living since this means more for them as profits - and provoke strikes and impose austerity to try to do so socialists are naturally suspicious of the motives behind the government propaganda here.

In any event since the great bulk of carbon emissions come from energy generated for industry, offices and commercial transport, as well as from deforestation, even if we did all the things they want - and we’re not saying we shouldn’t, that’s an individual life-style choice - it wouldn’t make much difference. Changing life-styles is no more a solution to global warming than letting the invisible hand of the market have a go.

Having said this, individuals do have some responsibility in the matter. Capitalism - the cause of the problem - only continues in the end because people put up with it. Most people don’t see any alternative to working for wages, producing for profit, using money, the world divided into states, the existence of armies. These attitudes both reflect and sustain capitalism. And every time people get a chance to vote, a majority back politicians committed to maintaining the capitalist system as the way of organising the production and distribution of wealth. So capitalism continues. As do its problems, including the threat of global over-warming. Maybe as this gets nearer people will be driven to consider an alternative.

Global warming can only be tackled by global action. And effective global action will only be possible within the framework of a united world. A united world is only possible on the basis of the Earth’s natural and industrial resources being the common heritage of all humanity.

 

“At every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing over nature – but that we, with flesh and blood and brain, belong to nature and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly. We are gradually learning to get a clear view of the indirect, more remote social effects of our productive activity, and so are afforded the opportunity to control and regulate these effects well. This regulation, however, requires a complete revolution in our existing mode of production…in our whole contemporary social order”

You could be forgiven for thinking the above quotation came from a modern day ecologist or environmentalist, commenting on impending global ecological catastrophe and drawing upon the myriad reports currently in existence, written by scientists that portend cataclysmic changes to our life styles if we don’t stop abusing our natural environment immediately. The quote is in fact 131 years old and is taken from Dialectics of Nature, written by Frederic Engels (1875).

So let’s get one thing straight from the outset. Socialists have been warning about the effects of capitalism’s penny-pinching production methods for well over a hundred years, and how they impact on the wider environment, and it is often with despair that we reiterate the Engels message from the latter 19th century, more so now that state of the art technology exists that provides hard evidence as to the dire effects of capitalist production.

In the oceans, almost fish stocks are being over-exploited. On land, soil erosion and degradation mean that half a billion people live in countries whose arable land can no longer support their own populations. The natural habitats of many animal species are being lost on an alarming scale, which with the decline of bird species, plants, forests - on which, ultimately, the human race depends – signals a crisis for biodiversity.

And the best capitalist politicians can think up is to tempt the master class with the whiff of profits to come if they agree to mend their ways. The very people who have disregarded the effects of their production methods on the natural environment for hundreds of years are now being asked to show it some mercy! Global environmental catastrophe can be halted by throwing money at the problem!

Right across the planet the economic system that governments defend plunders and squanders the Earth’s non-renewable mineral and energy resources and with one object in mind – profit. All over the world it pollutes the seas, the air we breathe, the forests, rivers and lakes, upsetting natural balances, eco-systems and defying the laws of ecology. Clearly, this destruction and waste cannot continue indefinitely. It should not and must not and no amount of money is going to redress the delicate balance.

Socialists have long argued that it is quite possible to meet the material needs of every person on this planet without destroying the natural systems on which we depend and on which we are party. So what stands in the way? Why isn’t this done? The simpler answer, which we must not get tired of reiterating, is that under the present economic system, production is not geared to meeting human needs but rather to accumulating profits for a few. Consequently, what we produce and the methods and the materials we employ are not decided rationally and democratically, but are dictated by market forces.

Production today is in the hands of business enterprises of one sort or another, all competing to sell their products at a profit. All of them – and it does not matter whether they are privately owned or state-owned – aim to maximise their profits. This is not the result of the greed of the owners or managers, as some Greens claim, but an economic necessity, imposed by the forces of the market. If a business does not make a profit it goes out of business. “Make a profit or die” is the law of the capitalist jungle.

Under the demands of the market, businesses only take into account their own narrow financial interests, ignoring wider social and ecological considerations. The whole of production, from the process employed to the choice of what to produce, is distorted by this drive to make and accumulate profits. The result is an economic system governed by anarchic market forces which compel decision-makers, however selected and whatever their personal views or sentiments, to plunder, pollute and waste.

So it’s no wonder that nature’s balances are upset today, and that we face problems like global warming, acid rain and the widening hole in the ozone layer, to name just a few. It’s no wonder that the Earth’s easily accessible resources are plundered without a thought for the future; that the power stations and factories release all sorts of dangerous and noxious substances into the air and water; that chemical fertiliser and pesticides that get into the food chain are used in agriculture; that animals are injected with hormones, fed unnatural diets; that human waste is not recycled back to the land; that non-biodegradable plastics and textiles are produced; that lead is put into petrol; that goods are made so as not to last, etc. The list of anti-ecological practises imposed by market forces is endless.

The conclusion is clear: If our needs are to be met while at the same time respecting the laws of nature, the present market-driven profit system must go and be replaced with a system capable of producing the essentials humans need, but in an ecologically friendly way.

 

Most Greens believe that things could be put right with a change of government policy, which is exactly what Labour now proposes. What is needed, they say, is a government that will pass laws and impose taxes – on air travel, motoring and high emission vehicles - to protect the environment. But experience shows that no government, however well meaning or determined, can protect the environment. Governments exist to run the political side of the profit system. They do not have a free hand to do what is sensible or desirable. They can only act within the narrow limits imposed by the market system. This is why the reformist policy advocated by the Green Party, Friends of the Earth etc. is not working. At most it could only succeed in slowing down the speed of decay, not in making the profit system work in an environmentally friendly way. Those who want a clean and safe environment are up against a well entrenched economic and social system, based on class privilege and property and governed by the overriding law of profits first. What Greens should work towards is not a change of government, but a change of society.

If we are to meet our needs in an ecologically acceptable way, we humans must first be in a position to control production or, to put it another way, to consciously regulate our interaction with the rest of nature – and the only basis on which this can be done is the common ownership of productive resources.

Once the Earth’s natural and industrial resources have become the common heritage of all humanity, then production can be geared to meeting needs in an ecologically acceptable way, instead of making profits without consideration for the environment. These include types of farming that preserve and enhance the natural fertility of the soil, the systematic recycling of materials obtained from non-renewable energy sources while developing alternative sources that continually renew themselves (i.e. solar energy and wind power); industrial processes that avoid releasing poisonous chemicals or radioactivity into the biosphere; the manufacture of solid good made to last, not planned to break down after a period of time.

We are talking about a system of society based on common ownership and democratic control of productive resources. That is the only basis on which we can meet our needs whilst respecting the laws of nature. And it’s the only basis on which we can begin to successfully reverse the degradation of the environment caused by the profit system. The only effective strategy for achieving a free and democratic society, in harmony with nature it to build up a movement which has the achievement of such a society as its sole aim.

Revolutionise Not Romanticise

Those who took part in today’s school strikes to draw attention to the climate crisis we face are doubtlessly sincere and caring young people who want something different. Environmentalists put out an appealingly radical message, but when examined it becomes clear that it is a case for the capitalist market with a green tint. Only by abolishing the system which is the cause of rising carbon emissions can the global warming effects be eliminated. It is simply impossible to reform this capitalist system to permanently benefit humanity. 

 There are members of the capitalist class who recognise that if they are to hold on to their power and wealth, they must appear to take into account the well-informed and vociferous demands of the environmental movement. However, they must also discredit the views of those people who point to the profit system as one of the main perpetrators of ecological destruction and unsustainable resource use. The apologists for capitalism sweep under the carpet the way in which businesses, driven by the necessity to make profit and expand capital, has systematically despoiled and polluted the environment and harmed the health and lives of workers, either at their place of work or where they live. To make money, screw everything and everybody else. This is the profiteers’ mantra.

The corporations propose policies of environmental reform which they believe can be incorporated into their production processes in the interests of the whole of society without endangering rates of profit. It is this poverty of thought which is the most lamentable aspect of their business-as-usual outlook. Capitalists only adopt new technologies and manufacturing methods or make new appropriate products when it is profitable to do so, not because the existing ones happen to be contributing to global warming or polluting the planet.

The Socialist Party has always argued the need for people to take conscious political action to create the framework of common ownership and democratic control of the means and methods of production and distribution, as the only way in which the social problems like pollution can be tackled. A society which was not constrained by private property, commodity production and buying and selling would use as a matter of course the best possible technology at hand to ensure the safety of those working in the plants and the protection of the natural environment. Social cost would be the deciding factor, not commercial cost. Capitalism is unable to do this. It is sheer folly to believe capitalists will adopt an environmentally sustainable plan if their competitors elsewhere in the world market do not. What would the shareholders say to a board of directors which introduced costly practices if it meant that the company lost its competitive edge and market as a result?

Those who believe that the threat to the environment can be dealt with within the capitalist system are hopelessly wrong. These dreamers imagine that politicians whose task it is to run the production for profit system can be persuaded to recognise and act on the danger which pollution brings to the planet. The Socialist Party has been saying for a very long time that people must wake up to the enormous threat of environmental damage which the profit system poses to the world around us. For decades it has been cheaper for capitalists to pollute the air workers breathe than to adopt clean technology. Methods of manufacture which are harmful and disease-spreading have long existed. Ourfood has been adulterated for as long as we have been wage slaves. Animals are made to suffer and die needlessly; endangered species which have no exchange value in the market are free to become extinct. There is nothing new about any of this. In order to make a quick dollar it has long been capitalism’s practice to destroy the Earth’s irreplaceable resources.

The Socialist Party is well acquainted with the arguments that green politics is about pragmatism, that is, cynical compromise. It is about “lesser evils". But why vote to support those who seek to administer the lesser evil when capitalism, which creates the evils, can be abolished altogether? The usual reformist answer is that the lesser evil will take less time to achieve than the grand socialist aim. It is a foolish myth that partial objectives are worthier of support. There is unlikely ever to be a green government, and if there is, then its greatest critics will be the environmentalist movement who will complain that it has sold them out. It is inevitable with reformism; it must sell out in order to fit in with the requirements of the capitalist system.

The Socialist Party is a materialist organisation, but not in the sense that the term is often used: it does not mean that it is obsessed by consumerism and wants people to have more and more “material” goods, such as cars. To be a materialist is to recognise that human beings are rooted in our social environments. Our consciousness is social, and through conscious action we can alter the material environment of which we are a part. The environment is not something “Out There” which must be protected; it is part of us and we part of it. The eco-warrior dream of a non-urban arcadian utopia, undisturbed by influence of Big Business and its needs, is looking backward at a deeply conservative ideal which serves as a valuable diversion for the ruling class.

Capitalism will pass a few minor reforms because the capitalists themselves realise that their investments are being damaged by the filth created by a lack of environmental concern. Just as they passed The Clean Air Act of 1956, so they will attempt a few more self-regulating laws. Needless to say, these laws will be evaded by those rich and powerful enough to do so. Even when the capitalists are agreed on their common interest, there will always be one or two who will try to make a fast buck at others expense.

The world belongs to the rich. We, who produce everything and run the planet from top to bottom, have given it to them. Our task is to take it back from them; to reclaim the planet for ourselves. If you do not stand for the socialist transformation of global society, in the end, you’ll all end up a rather futile reform group, in a pointless crusade, pleading with the master owning-class to make the planet a little bit better.

And we equally must disillusion those modern-day misanthropes who see humanity as a plague upon the planet and preach catastrophism and the apocalypse.

COOPERATIVE SOCIALISM