Re: Ecology

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Russell:
>This is just another way of saying that bourgeois ideas are dominant. Given
>the current political balance of forces, to the average punter your position
>must look pretty much like that of the Sierra Club or worse. "Social
>ownership of the means of production and scientific planning in pursuit of
>the common good" are all very well but meaningless to just about everyone
>outside a few left wing lists. And no doubt in your eyes I look like part of
>the WSJ camp.  So we both face the problem of building a new relevant and
>distinctive left politics. What's new?

Russell, bourgeois ideas are dominant everywhere. Unfortunately, you have
so little familiarity with anti-capitalist, left-wing environmentalism that
your reference to the "average punter" must include you as well. If you go
to the links/ecology section of the Marxism list webpage, you will find
ample references to groups like Project Underground (www.moles.org) who
focus on radical political economy:

Drillbits & Tailings Volume 4, Number 21  December 22, 1999

DIARY: Mining Companies Rate Investment Attractiveness Of Jurisdictions Who
Makes the Grade?

The Fraser Institute, Canada's leading "economic think tank", released the
results of its 1999/2000 Annual Survey of Mining Companies.  In the survey,
companies accounting for a combined total of over US$857 million in
exploration (in 1998) rated the investment attractiveness of mining
jurisdictions in North America and internationally.

"Exploration investment is a key indicator of the future health of the
mining industry," said Laura Jones, survey coordinator and The Fraser
Institute's Director of Environmental and Regulatory Studies.  "While  many
jurisdictions have favourable geology that could easily compete with other
regions around the world to attract investment, unfavourable  policies
increasingly threaten new exploration."

>Given the current balance of forces and relative invisibility of the left, I
>think your "third way" is either utopian, or worse still, runs
>the risk of falling into the mainstream Western development camp which these
>days happily uses all your environmental language.  Out here I have no
>problem arguing against the "sustainable development" camp.  This kind of
>ideology, peddled by NGOs and a petit bourgeois political leadership, has an
>insidious and corrosive influence on collective struggles for survival and
>development.

This is so _un-specific_. Why don't you give listers an exact idea of what
you are talking about. LM campaigned for the Narmada Dam in India, which
favored the capitalist landowner against the small peasantry. The World
Bank was one of the main financiers of the project, but was forced to
withdraw because of militant protests. When you folks support such World
Bank-sponsored efforts to underwrite capitalist development, there is a
real question as to which class you orient to. In the 20th century, and the
21st century as well I suspect, class struggles between the agrarian
bourgeoisie and peasants have led to powerful anticapitalist
revolutions--in China, Vietnam and elsewhere. Do we take the side of the
landlords or the peasants? Lenin was clear on this question. Years ago,
when LM supporters still took Lenin seriously and wrote favorably about his
ideas in RCP literature, you might have been in a better position to
understand battles like Narmada in class perspectives. That apparently went
out the window when you replaced Lenin with Julian Simon.


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/