This is pretty good, and I'm one who often asserts the fact that all economies are subsets of the eco-system, whether they observe its rules and limitations or not. They are ignored at one's peril. Moreover, the ecosystem doesn't care one way or another what we do. Human civilization can collapse; the eco-system merely adjusts and endures.

But I have two objections. One is labeling socialisms or environmentalisms as 'true.' This is a slippery slope to metaphysics. Better to call them effective or harmonious in varying degrees.

More important is the assertion that once human needs are met, economic growth should stop. This is a serious mistake often made by both socialists and ecologists (Save for Buckminster Fuller, and perhaps a few others), in that it ignores the importance of information as a commodity, especially when information is organized as new knowledge and high design. This is a source of wealth we want to grow infinitely. In fact, it is precisely by the growth of this sector that we can have both more quality and lighter ecological footprints in all the others. People, especially radicals, need to free themselves from the notion that economies are restricted to 'guys digging stuff up, burning things, stamping things, putting thing together, busting stuff up and moving heavy stuff around."

I highly recommend Bucky Fuller's little book on the topic, 'Operators Manual for Spaceship Earth.' It's different from Marx in some respects, but not anti-Marx. In any case, you'll look at Marx in a new and green way once you read it.

This is not in direct response to this post, and I don't share many of the writer's ideas, but here's an article expressing a perspective well worth understanding in light of what we are seeking in a red-green alliance, and as we try to stop the intertwined horrors of extraction and exploitation:

Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist
by Paul Kingsnorth
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/6599

From the article:
"Today’s environmentalism is about people. It is a consolation prize for a gaggle of washed-up Trots and, at the same time, with an amusing irony, it is an adjunct to hypercapitalism: the catalytic converter on the silver SUV of the global economy. It is an engineering challenge: a problem-solving device for people to whom the sight of a wild Pennine hilltop on a clear winter day brings not feelings of transcendence but thoughts about the wasted potential for renewable energy. It is about saving civilization from the results of its own actions: a desperate attempt to prevent Gaia from hiccupping and wiping out our coffee shops and broadband connections."

I was there and he was awesome.

However I find the whole "eco-socialist" framework as celebrated by Socialist Alliance (who put on this conference) and Socialist Worker a little problematic.

Elevating ecology, in many cases above class analysis, leads to simplification. Ghan Buri Ghan has dealt well in another thread with the problem of populism and simplistic class analysis. Much of SW also follows a "collapse" analysis which says capitalism will collapse whether or not we push it, which while it may be true, is used to justify abandoning a specifically communist project.

I also have a problem with any framework which elevates one aspect of the struggle, one aspect of liberation, one aspect of communism above the others. Marxism has an element of ecology, teased out brilliantly by John Bellamy Foster, but classical Marxism doesn't deal directly with queer oppression. As the GLF said, "no revolution without us," ALL elements of liberation are essential to communism - but I wouldn't call myself a homo-socialist.

Ian writes:

<blockquote>"Elevating ecology, in many cases above class analysis, leads to simplification."</blockquote>

could you elaborate this more? What do you mean by "class analysis" here?

I agree with your overall point that communism (as we envision it) involves the elimination of all oppression. But I think we do need to confront the fact that previous communist politics has not sufficiently integrated sustainability into its view of socialist economics and development. In other words, I think we face a specific (even historic) project of describing our goals and proposals <em>in light of what people are starting to understand about the dangers to our biosphere.</em>

At the risk of stating the obvious: The threats to Earth's ecosystems affects virtually all of humanity, globally, though it does so in diverse and uneven ways. I think part of our argument is that the uprisings of the deeply oppressed working people, and their political radicalizaiton, are crucial toward carrying out the kinds of changes that can hopefully stop capitalism's juggernaut. So there is a connection between the revolutionary movements at the <em>bottom</em> of society and the possibility of solving the deepening ecological crisis.

Is that what you mean by "class analysis"? Or?

I think that increasing destruction of ecological system (by a mix of capitalism and petty farm production) can only ultimately be solved by large parts of the world taking the socialist road -- with a radical reconception of development, production, consumption, etc integral to that.

I am not sure I understand yet <em>how</em> different our view of socialist economics and production will be from previous socialist and current capitalist assumptions (which had, as we know, some significant overlap). That remains to be worked out, I assume.

But I think one way to look at it is this: Globalization and ecological destruction make it very hard for there to be much historic expansion of consumption (especially in the imperialist countries). Capitalism is attacking previous social contracts. And the aging of oil economies (and the problems of maintaining cheap energy) suggest that the future (and sustainability) will require reduction of waste (per capita BTU consumption, carbon footprint etc.) Capitalism responds to such things by a stampede toward austerity and (worse) a consolidation of repressive "two tier" societies. In response we can propose a socialist sustainability, where countries in (say) North America abandon imperialist exploitation of other countries and capitalist waste of global resources, and (while this inevitably involves a decline in consumption) it can be based on an increase in quality of life (community, egalitarian elimination of poverty, etc.)

So part of the debate is about how to offer a rejection of that historic fetish of "more stuff" within an atomized, and highly destructive capitalist society polarized more and more sharply between rich and poor -- vs. an egalitarian ecologically-sustainable society of community, justice and socialism. (And part of that contradiction is the historic and extreme need for much more development and "stuff" in places like Nepal, while in places like Germany or the U.S. the needs of humanity require a radically different approach toward energy and product consumption.)

Somewhere in that exploration we will emerge with a sense of how revolutinary politics needs to present its goals -- what people can expect from a new socialist society, and how it will be different from capitalism. And my sense is that our emerging understanding of ecological issues require significant changes in how we present socialist society (to speak to the popular desire for a halt to ecological destruction, and to offer a practical solution rooted in sustainability).

My broad view on this topic has been published here before:
http://kasamaproject.org/2011/04/26/earth-day-to-may-day-reform-or-revolution/

Though my views have developed since then, in particular Ian Angus and John Bellamy Foster are useful. It is connected to the struggle against imperialism in deep ways (in fact the recent general strike in Nigeria was partly about energy imperialism.) We could be articulating this more. It's definitely present in indigenous politics in NZ, making the binary posed by a recent troll somewhat false.

I suppose what's problematic to me is a form of opportunism. Ecology should not be a short-cut. At cynical times I think the entire eco-socialist strategy is to attract people by using the "eco" prefix. There are all sorts of dodgy alliances in environmentalist movements - with small business, reformist forces etc - which are glossed over in the name of a supposedly (but in some cases not actually) broad movement against the coming ecological collapse. Theoretical clarity is diminished. This is how I've seen it applied, and there needs to be a better strategy.

Fight the Fossil Fuel Industry and Its Carbon Lobby!

Without action, theoretical discussion of the nature of "eco-socialism" is empty.

A mass movement will be built through mass struggle, not just debate and discussion removed from any struggle.

Except that's not what's happening. Been involved in a local group Climate Justice Aotearoa, including occupying buildings to oppose all fossil fuel extraction. At-least one of their members is now a Green Party staffer.

Theory is important.

Mike Haywood said:

<blockquote>"A mass movement will be built through mass struggle, not just debate and discussion removed from any struggle."</blockquote>

Who are you arguing with?

As Ian implies: the early and primitive beginnings of a discussion here on these matters is hardly an argument against action (on the contrary!)

I have to say, as an observation, that there seems to be no serious discussion that doesn't solicit the argument that we shouldn't be having it. Some people apparently see <em>any</em> discussion (however initial) as the occasion to blurt one-liner complaints against "discussion removed from any struggle." What is that but an apparent aversion to thought, and a lack of understanding of how practical politics is shaped by understandings of science, economics, and history.

As Ian says, theory is important and greatly undervalued. And a great deal of discussion has to go on <em>in its own right</em> (if not for <em>its own sake</em>. For example the discussion and understanding of global warming and climate change are scientific and political matters that need layers of discussion and debate. There is no particular requirement that those excavations and summations need to be directly or constantly connected to this or that campaign. And if we want to prepare conditions for socialist revolution, it is particularly important not to get subsumed within specific reform campaigns <em>without</em> a sophisticated sense of how our work (and the popular mobilizations) connect to actually <em>solving</em> the problems we all face.

I did enjoy the article, yet I disagreed with a few key points. First, I don't agree that the so called "ecosocialist" revolution can be 100% peaceful-not even the Egyptian Revolution of last year was entirely peaceful. If our leaders are willing to carryout the destruction of the world's ecosystems for their own gain and the gain of large corporations, then how can we expect them to give up without a fight? I don't know-I just can't find myself agreeing with that statement.

Another issue is what happens after the ecosocialist revolution? How is the new society, built up from the ashes of the old capitalist society, supposed to ensure that humanity will build an ecologically friendly society and not repeat the mistakes of past socialist states like the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China?

"A mass movement will be built through mass struggle, not just debate and discussion removed from any struggle."

Agreed. debate and discussion on matters such as philosophy and on the state can only go so far. Eventually, something's going to have to give. A mass movement has to be created, capable of weathering the storm of reactionary oppression, which inevitably will happen once humanity starts resisting capitalism on a large scale.

Furthermore, by allying with all green, reformist, and even corporate forces this could be dangerous, if not fruitless. I don't know much about party building, but I know that compromises won't always work. Without a doubt the reformist forces would not want to work too much with the red forces, negating any gains or advantages. If they did want to work together however, how can we be sure they would want to implement socialist/communistic policies, if at all? If not, then what's the point of working together?


I am still grappling with ideology. The more unsavory things I learn about Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao from the many biographies/history books I read make me question the viability of Leninism and/or Maoism more and more.

Alas, I continue to read Marx and further my studies of capitalism. Maybe I someday I will find my niche.

Mike E, this one is for you: I want to join the Kasama Project. I was thinking of writing a submission essay, if possible. Would that be acceptable?

Redbean91 says:

<blockquote>"Furthermore, by allying with all green, reformist, and even corporate forces this could be dangerous, if not fruitless. I don’t know much about party building, but I know that compromises won’t always work. Without a doubt the reformist forces would not want to work too much with the red forces, negating any gains or advantages. If they did want to work together however, how can we be sure they would want to implement socialist/communistic policies, if at all?"</blockquote>

Reds need to make strategic alliances with radical environmentalists, not reformist ones.

The gulf between deep green and bright green is as wide as that between communists vs. democrats. Deep greens want to bring down the system. Whether we have the same vision of the future or not (by working together, they may converge -- that is my hope, at least), we do need one another to defeat our common enemy.

Mike, thank you for posting my talk here. I look forward to a vigorous discussion. Some preliminary responses to comments so far…

Carl, I read Fuller many years ago, but I’ll you’re your suggestion to read it again. I agree that the production of new ideas must be a central focus of a new society. In fact, in my talk I said, “the transformation will undoubtedly require new knowledge, and new science.” But I’m not convinced that it is useful or accurate to describe that as a form of <i>economic</i> growth.

Stephanie, thanks for the link to Kingsnorth’s article. His views are decidedly non-Marxist, indeed anti-Marxist – closer to “deep ecology” than ecosocialism. I empathize with his love for nature as such, but he offers no perspective for change. If we all walk out alone in the hills, we as he plans to do, we will leave ecocidal capitalism free to destroy the nature he loves.

Ian Anderson – I appreciate your concern about what a friend of mine calls “hyphenated socialism.” As I’ve written <a href="//climateandcapitalism.com/?p=3910”" rel="nofollow">in another article</a>, in my view, “ecosocialism is not a new theory or brand of socialism — it is socialism with Marx’s important insights on ecology restored, socialism committed to the fight against ecological destruction.” I would certainly never insist that the prefix “eco” is mandatory, but I think helps to make an important point about the nature of the movement I think we need to build and the kind of socialism we need to fight for.

As I said in the talk In Melbourne, there is no copyright on the word “ecosocialism,” and there are certainly people who use it to stand for ideas that I don’t agree with. But that’s also true of the word “socialism” itself. What it actually means will be determined in practice, in the fight for change.

@Ian Angus

<blockquote>Carl, I read Fuller many years ago, but I’ll you’re your suggestion to read it again. I agree that the production of new ideas must be a central focus of a new society. In fact, in my talk I said, “the transformation will undoubtedly require new knowledge, and new science.” But I’m not convinced that it is useful or accurate to describe that as a form of economic growth.</blockquote>

The knowledge sector is a huge part of the economy, including much of the top Fortune 500--Microsoft, Oracle, Google, Yahoo just to name a few off the top of my head. They produce commodities--information organized as software/knowledge--albeit 'commodities of a new type,' ie, they sell them and keep them at once. This is a consequence of the the revolution in the productive forces wrought by semiconductors. It has fascinating theoretical implications if you tease them out, as some in the Open Source movement are doing.

Good article, as usual, by Ian Angus. A couple of points, I think, though, really need to be clarified in the process of getting practical initiatives and discussions with people off the ground. I have been a long-time labour organizer and activist, co-op, worker-ownership and CED business development and urban ecology, as well as social democratic movement; and from this experience, I see it's critically important to address two things related to Ian's article.

First, when referring to China, former Soviet Union/eastern bloc economics models, we need to get away from any romantic attitudes about the Russian Revolution and address these models as what they are--what the very leaders and architects of those models recognized they were/are: a highly centralized authoritarian form of state-owned capitalism:

Lenin: State Capitalism During the Transition to Socialism:
http://www.ebook3000.com/LENIN-ON-STATE-CAPITALISM-DURING-THE-THE-TRANSITION-TO-SOCIALISM_35326.html

Lenin: State Capitalism as a measure to rebuild the Russian Economy
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/23b.htm

Stalin: Five-Year Plans: State Capitalism to Accelerate Industrial Development and Challenge the West
http://lrp-cofi.org/book/intro.html
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/stalin_report.htm

Mao: On State Capitalism--a fiscal framework for building the Chinese Economy 1953
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_30.htm

These are just a few sources showing that capitalism in various forms continues to dominate those economies just like everywhere else. It may certainly have started out as a progressive transitional strategy toward socialism (Stalin's 1928 coup obviously changed that) and certainly has substantial operative differences than traditional industrial or colonial/mercantile capitalism. But most of the general fundamentals are similar.

Second, when we emphasize the fundamental democratic cooperative and personal liberties required for any form of practical socialism, as well as the greater freedoms, quality of life, enlightenment and ecological compatibility and sustainability that can result, we need to show we aren't just talking about pie in the sky. We need to point to various successful initiatives and efforts, even as compromised and primitive or rudimentary as they may be. While socialism/communism have never been predominant in any national economy (again, despite what various regimes have claimed), there are legions of successful ventures and initiatives at the regional, local and sectoral levels both around the globe, and likely even in each person's neighbourhood, and have been for a long time. Here are just a few:

http://tinyurl.com/yljnl4z Emiglia Romagna
http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/ENG.aspx
http://www.essortment.com/all/whatiskibbutz_rghm.htm
http://cac.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/173
http://www.clbc.ca/Research_and_Reports/Archive/archive12169501.asp
http://www.xpdnc.com/links/lscif.html

Furthermore, the facts show, the more prevalent these reforms and practical developments, and the democratic and social reforms these socialistic economics and values have inspired over the last three and more centuries, in every national economy, the better things are overall.
http://www.scandinaviacomplete.com/culture/society/UNreport.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/business/nordic-nations-top-the-list-of-countries-with-the-highest-freedom-of-expression/338025

This way we can PROVE that what we are advocating for can and does actually work--even under the dominance of an oppressive capitalistic regimen.

Ian said:

<blockquote>"is views are decidedly non-Marxist, indeed anti-Marxist – closer to “deep ecology” than ecosocialism. I empathize with his love for nature as such, but he offers no perspective for change. If we all walk out alone in the hills, we as he plans to do, we will leave ecocidal capitalism free to destroy the nature he loves."
</blockquote>


Oh, I totally agree that walking away is not the answer. I linked to it not because I agree with it all (which I stated), but because this represents a viewpoint that's out there, that reds should try to take into account. If an alternative was offered that spoke to people like this, they could be important allies. They are frustrated with the left as it has been, because the left has not been offering an alternative that realistically includes a living planet. This is a giant gap that must be bridged.

I would offer that in my experience, one of the reactionary elements of current "Green" thinking is the neo-Luddite component (without going into the fringe "primitivism"). This is the metaphysical confusion of technology and unsustainability. The reality is that any humanist, non-reactionary, sustainable development of human needs needs to be scientific and technological: you cannot satisfy the food, water, energy, work and leisure needs of billions without leaps and bounds in how food, water, work and leisure are done. A good example is the internet itself: it has destroyed the objective need to use trees to create paper and minerals to create ink - and its impact has not been trivial (in spite of the residual need to print things): just think of the millions of corporate memos that are no longer printed and distributed as things. And this is one example. This neo-Luddism also confuses the issues: sometimes, we need to do things that are not sustainable in order to get there. For example, computers are deeply unsustainable, but the next generation is always more sustainable, yet we couldn't get there without the unsustaible ones, in which the new generation is designed. It is a dialectic, and it is important and central to any vision of sustainability to understand this balance.

The other issues that capitalism can provide, and does provide albeit unevenly, many of these answers through market pressures. For example, in the Western World a large amount of the raw materials now in use are from recycled/reused sources, simply because the economies of scale enabled by State mandated recycling, within a capitalist framework. NIMBY campaigns are generally effective - unless the communities affected are marginal - and have forced many corporations, even in very unecofriendly industries like coal, to develop incresingly ecofriendly solutions to problems. Beijing today is not very different than LA was 30 years ago, and LA today is pretty clean for a megalopolis of an effective population that approaches 15 million - in spite of being one of the most car-centric major metro areas in the world. The Gulf States are using their oil wealth to develop huge solar energy projects, expecting to entirely derive their energy needs from solar and other sustainable, non-impacting, energy sources within the next decade. And so on.

So there is this myth that many socialists tell themselves that ecological barbarism is part of the "socialism and barbarism" formula. It isn't, not based on the experience of actual capitalism.

What I have always believed in is in class-based environmental justice - that is, environmental issues that are directly tied with class. Some of them are reformists - lead paint in the ghetto, for example. Others have longer terms effects, like kicking the Navy out of Vieques. They serve both as ways to elevate class consciousness, and to inject a broader concern beyond NIMBY.

And in term of environmental vision - I believe that one of the fundamental problems of ecology and socialism is the fascistic origin of the ecological field (the guy who coined the term was a proto-fascist, linked with social darwinism)

But even in revisionists Cuba, there are great inroads being done in balancing sustainability and development, and by an large, societies with mixed economies or of actually existing socialism, have been more successful in moving ecological issues to the forefront of political decision making. Even in China, green issues are much more important and seriously considered than in the USA. So there is something to be said about liberal lies that point to other parts of the world before the USA - the USA is the greatest polluter of the world per capita, and by factors of many numbers ahead of their closest competitors.

The fact is that a sector of capital sees a profit in creating the means of production of clean energy and green manufacturing, and these productive forces will be required for a green and socialist future. These guys show up and put up their stalls at every one of the huge 'Good Jobs, Green Jobs' conferences held annually in DC. GAMESA, the Spanish firm making state-of-the-art wind turbines with three recycled old plants in Pennsylvania, partnered with the state and the USW to create 1000 new USW jobs, is a case in point.

This sector of capital, not to be confused with the 'greenwashers,' is often hamstrung and thwarted by finance capital and the military-carbon burning-industrial sector--and to that degree they are an ally of the working class. They are helping to bring into being producing forces that will be needed in the future. The question is on what terms--high road or low road--a matter decided by class struggle and the relation of forces.

A smart strategy and tactics on our part takes them into account, and makes what we can of it--as the USW did with GAMESA.

<blockquote>"I would offer that in my experience, one of the reactionary elements of current “Green” thinking is the neo-Luddite component (without going into the fringe “primitivism”). This is the metaphysical confusion of technology and unsustainability. The reality is that any humanist, non-reactionary, sustainable development of human needs needs to be scientific and technological: you cannot satisfy the food, water, energy, work and leisure needs of billions without leaps and bounds in how food, water, work and leisure are done. A good example is the internet itself: it has destroyed the objective need to use trees to create paper and minerals to create ink – and its impact has not been trivial (in spite of the residual need to print things): just think of the millions of corporate memos that are no longer printed and distributed as things. And this is one example. This neo-Luddism also confuses the issues: sometimes, we need to do things that are not sustainable in order to get there. For example, computers are deeply unsustainable, but the next generation is always more sustainable, yet we couldn’t get there without the unsustaible ones, in which the new generation is designed. It is a dialectic, and it is important and central to any vision of sustainability to understand this balance. "</blockquote>



well gee, sks, have you ever bothered to question whether humanist ideology and its sweeping generalizations of scaled unity also are not reactionary?

1st off there is no such thing as sustainability perse, the bigger issue is balance and relationality to ones surroundings, something modernity is inherently bad at.

Scientific and technological are not well defined the way you are using it, do you mean western plato/aristotalian derived science(there's far better stuff out there), do you mean the same logic for technology, technology can be understood in this current crude form or it can be defined in the old way in terms of variables(not constants) and how it is used.

Martial arts is a technology,how about a technology and science of individuation for example, I've had all I can stand of the large scale ideological alienated brand of such discourses, also stop thinking in terms of billions, ever heard of Dunbar's number, while it's a bit of a line draw it does express that human relationships still require context and specificity if they are to be potent, anything beyond that and you are in the sewage infested waters of ideology.

Promoting something like "Stop Climate Catastrophe, No Matter What It Takes!" and providing leadership to a mass struggle within which a debate can take place over what to replace the current system with is broadly speaking the way to go, it seems to me.

Theory is important, of course, but theorizing must address the way to fight the planet-killing system, not just the abstraction of what eco-socialism might look like.

@Mike Haywood --

I agree completely.

There is such a mass struggle being initiated by Deep Green Resistance, called "Stop the Machine."

Description: "Occupy the Machine is an ad hoc umbrella group using serious, sustained direct action campaigns to shut down major targets that destroy the land and exploit humans, permanently."

Here's the statement and plan:
http://deepgreenresistance.org/occupythemachine/

Stephanie: On the Internet it's difficult to tell if a person is being sarcastic.

Deep Green Resistance says explicitly that there is no potential for mass action to defend the environment. Three quotes (of many similar) from the book, <i>Deep Green Resistance</i>:

<blockquote>"The vast majority of the population will do nothing unless they are led, cajoled, or forced. ... It is our prediction that there will be no mass movement, not in time to save this planet, our home." (26)

"The DGR strategy is instead a recognition of the scope of what is at stake (the planet); an honest assessment of the potential for a mass movement (none); and the recognition that industrial civilization has an infrastructure that is, in fact, quite vulnerable."(189)

"Humans aren't going to do anything in time to preserve the planet from being destroyed wholesale.... Therefore, those of us who care about the future of the planet have to dismantle the industrial energy infrastructure as rapidly as possible. We'll all have to deal with the social consequences as best we can. Besides, rapid collapse is ultimately good for humans -- even if there is a die-off -- because at least some people survive." (438-39)</blockquote>

DGR's clearly stated objective is to destroy industrial civilization through direct action by small groups of militants. One could say many things about that, but it is not "mass struggle."

In saying that: "one could say many things about that, but it is not "mass struggle." Ian Angus is being too kind by a country mile.

DGR may be a loony fringe, but what they advocate has more in common with terrorism than with mass politics. It strikes me that considerable effort is required to miss the contempt felt for human sensibility and aspiration in general, let alone working class aspirations in particular, in the DGR quotes that Ian pointedly supplies.

I am puzzled, Stephanie, why you think the ideas, the 'project' if you like, of DGR is admirable or progressive when their program seems like a secular version of the Taliban.

Hello comrades; thanks for an excellent conversation-starter. It will be interesting to watch how DGR's attempt to ally with Occupy in Texas pans out next month. My prediction is that their sudden shift (once Occupy emerged) toward big nonviolent blockades that "decicively shut down targets" is highly unlikely to "decide" anything. But if they do it right it will make the cops look repressive and will draw attention to the need to move beyond Bill McKibben's failed liberal response to the Tar Sands. It may provoke a much-needed discussion about direct action.

I am by no means an adherent of DGR; I'm a socialist and I want a militant mass movement that forces states to act on climate change, hopefully by rebuilding the capacity for massive, prolonged strike action (though I have no idea how this will work; I just know that we are running out of time to stop runaway climate disruption, and states won't act unless we force them by material means). Because, given my experience of the attempt to radicalize Occupy (see below), I think it will be very hard to place faith in this spontaneous uprising as a way to rebuild mass action capacity, I am beginning to wonder whether socialists shouldn't consider some kind of CRITICAL engagement with DGR's ideas about direct action.

I am extremely skeptical of "decicive ecological warfare" and I loathe the primitivist, apocalyptic basis of DGR. BUT, after all that, it still seems to me that the green left shouldn't be dogmatic in condemning any and all anarchist-style direct action as elitist, a PR disaster, and ineffective. Most is, of course. However, it seems to me that while their crypto-Maoist strategy and primitivist ideology are disastrous, DGR does clearly reject the mindless black-bloc actionism of the recent past, and makes some attempt to engage a class analysis. I feel that the left has been too hastily dismissive (a lot of anarchists have responded in the silliest, most dogmatically anti-authoritarian ways). As for a Marxist response, it's been largely absent. I'm worried that we might be knee-jerk in rejecting anything confrontational, or involving property destruction, even if it's strategic. The notion of a military campaign to "bring down civilization" (or even the more legitimate enemy, capitalism) is of course reprehensible and absurd, and plays right into the hands of the right and the police state. However, why not have a discussion of how these militant tactics of doing economic damage to the 1% might not play into a strategy of building mass political power (i.e. a militant working class able to shut down cities, force concessions from the state, and build worker-controlled green industries)? If a bunch of kids in arm-tubes can cost Shell Oil or whoever a few million, why not support them? Mass anger over the abuse of these kids by state violence seems to me to be one of our best hopes for a mass workers' mobilization: look at Scott Olson, the only event that was able to mobilize a general-strike-like action in an Occupy group. Draconian laws suppressing what the masses see as sacred "constitutional freedoms" are also a good bet for a catalyst: in the history of nonviolent struggle, this has been the case. For instance, abolition radicalized when Fugitive Slave Laws started infinging on civil liberties. If direct action like this can avoid the obvious insurrectionist pitfalls, and provoke the state to overreact, it could be just what we need to put public opinion behind us again, as happened with Olson. Or rather, mass public support, which is more important than "opinion." People willing to hit the street. Again, I'm not for DGR's primitivism or Maoist-esque guerilla strategy that scorns mass movements in a millenarian "chosen few" mentality. But I think we need to not just dismiss the notion of sabotage deployed tactically against infrastruture that could buy time, holding off James Hansen's "game over for the climate if the tar sands are expanded", which our movements are not ready to deal with. The Right would seize a massive climate crisis. (This is one reason I think speeding up collapse a la DGR is a terrible idea--and they think Transition Towns and permaculturalists, a passive, liberal lot if there ever was one, with zero organizing skills or ability to relate to the working class, will be the defense against the Right seizing the moment of crisis!) Though mass movements might want to distance themselves, I'm not at all sure I'd be against sabotage of the tar sands, and certainly not against nonviolent blockading, if it were at all effective in costing money and getting media attention, and I think several thousand demonstrators supporting the actionists would go a long way toward pushing theses tactics into the mainstream, making them harder to isolate in the media. Thoughts on this? As Zizek is alway saying, "am I crazy?"

Meanwhile, I think it's important for the green left to make good on our ideas of mass climate justice movements in the North. This is easier said than done. There are local struggles of working people being screwed by fossil industries, etc, and then there are the taks of radicalizing spontaneous mass movements: my experience of the difficulties of this latter are worth sharing, I think. Marxists generally end their articles with an appeal to the failure of orthodox Marxism and the need to engage social movements and move them toward socialism. This is good, but my experience of it in practice with the ISO and Occupy has been that the socialists are too insular, nad the Occupiers are too violently liberal/anarchist to be educable: they rabidly defend their absurd consensus model, fetishize process, are incredibly insular and distanced from the working class, and are quickly becoming a liberal/anarchist cult-like subculture. This may not be true of all Occupy chapters, but it's a decicive thrust within the movement. So socialists, including the more politically serious anarchists who are some of my best friends in the movement but who are getting disillusioned with its subcultural, isular and hopelessly liberal/naive/dysfunctional personalities rule turn over the winter, need to have a serious conversation about our tactics within these movements. Talk to me people, tell me if I'm crazy or not.

PS, if you want to see what I think of that Kingsnorth article, see page 31 of the largely inane comments thread at Orion.