Re: [A-List] Fwd: Globalisation and revolution in the XXIst century

["Tom Warren" <tomzbox@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Mark Jones <jones.mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: The attached document (in English, in French and in Spanish)
> entitled Counter-revolution and revolution in the XXIst century, by Ludo
> Martens, President of the Workers Party of Belgium

Ahhh Mark, thanks very much for this, it has catalyzed some thoughts I had
been kicking around. Sadly I find some of my fears again are awake. A few
comments:

I will skip over the historical prelude, leave that to others who follow
that history more closely. The economics seem to be somewhat less clearly
laid out than the level we are used to with Anne and Henry. I will
concentrate only on my own area of enlightenment.

Martens:
> A worsening of the economical crises that rock the capitalist economy also
> marks the new phase of the general crisis of the world imperialist system.
> It is its second characteristic.

This is the heart of the A-List stated discussion. Are we really seeing an
economic crisis, or a consolidation of the imperialist hegemony? I think
this is a question begged.

Martens:
> All over the world, there is a growing awareness that the capitalist mode
> of production is no longer compatible with the simple survival of humanity,
> that imperialism has effectively become a genocidal system.

After reading the statement twice, I find this to be the only collection of
words to which I can attach any degree of eco-awareness, and I am straining
to do it via this slender rope.

Martens:
> More than ever, in the capitalist countries, socialism is an absolute
> necessity for the survival, the dignity and the spiritual and cultural
> development of the popular masses. And, more than ever, technological
> development makes socialism realizable.

See, now this is where my fears begin to ignite. Simonism! Technology will
save us!

Martens:
> Thanks to these material means, society can rapidly surmount sickness,
> hunger and malnutrition, analphabetism and ignorance. The condition is that
> society rid itself of the satanic strait jacket with which private property
> fetters the means of production. The condition is the reorganization on a
> socialist basis.

Fettering the means of production can be a good thing, Martha Stewart
notwithstanding. Material means are NOT going to 'rapidly surmount' the
disaster of 6 billion consumers on the planet, *regardless* of the
socio-economic format. This is the red flag that awakens my latent
anti-socialism. Many socialists on the old Crashlist, and perhaps some now
on A-List have repeatedly assured us or asserted that there is an
environmental consciousness to be had via socialism. If so, statements like
this must be corrected by other socialists, if those assertions are to stand
the test of credibility. More, or expanded, or even "more managed"
exploitation of the environment is the wrong damn road.

Martens:
> Socialist planning and management will be carried out in a responsible,
> transparent way, under popular control, with the sole objective of
> satisfying the interests and the material and cultural needs of the popular
> masses.

Is it hard to see why "sole objective" might be frightening to me?  See what
gets discarded in this kind of visionary statement? Just toss out Momma
Nature with the rest, y'all. ....unless we are going to hang by the threads
of "responsible" and "interests" to salvage any eco-consciousness in this
statement. Cold comfort, that.

Martens:
> Socialism will develop instruction for all, science and technology, and the
> means of production, faster and on an infinitely vaster scale than
> imperialism does today.

What this says to the earth is, "you'll have a new landlord, one who will
exploit your natural capital on an infinitely vaster scale than the old
landlord!" Will any socialist stand up and whisper "Pssst! This is part of
the imperialist problem, not part of the solution."? I don't hold my breath.
Neither do the 10000 species per year we currently drive extinct in the
imperialist model.

Martens:
> Socialism will develop as an international system of federated Socialist
> Republics. It will be guided by principles of solidarity and mutual
> assistance so as to be able to share, in a planed fashion, the progresses
> stemming from development. Proletarian internationalism will guide the
> bringing together of the peoples, the liquidation of all national or
> ethnical barriers, the disappearance of discriminatory acts and attitudes
> and of chauvinism, the mutually advantageous exchanges between the peoples,
> the sharing of knowledge without mercantile considerations, the harmonious
> and proportionated development of all the regions of the world, if, on this
> basis, production is submitted a plan taking into account, in a cooperative
> mode, the needs of all mankind.

"Proportionated development." "Mankind". Anthropocentric. [sigh] I have on
occasion been encouraged to chuck my lot in with the Socialist struggle, as
a way of advancing the cause of the environment. Several have assured me
that the way was: "1. The Revolution, then 2. environmental justice." This
certainly does not encourage me to do so. I'd feel a whole lot better if
some Socialist of equal stature would have in some way set this guy
straight, but I fear that there was just the usual chorus of hurrahs at the
Forum of Sao Paulo, Havana, Cuba, 4-7 December 2002.

In terms of the reality of the future, I wonder as usual if the battle I
must envision for us environmental activists is to simply continue the
struggle under the new "system of federated Socialist Republics" exactly as
it has been joined as a battle under the current system of Capitalist rapers
of the earth.

What's the difference?

tom
(apparently missing some fundamental point, once again)




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com