File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9711, message 258


Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:53:39 -0500
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: Global warming


James Heartfield:

>Louis completely misunderstands the question. I asked about temperature
>levels. He talks about CO2 emissions. But it is impossible to estimate
>the impact of CO2 emmissions on temperature levels if you do not know
>the trend in global temperature.
>

For over a hundred years, scientists have been carefully gathering and
verifying data on the earth's temperature. The latest data reveals some
striking trends:

--All 10 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years.

--The 1990s have already been warmer than the 1980s -- the warmest decade
on record -- by almost 0.2=B0F (0.1=B0C), according to the Goddard Institute of
Space Studies.

--In vast areas of the United States, temperature increases in a range of
2=B0-4=B0F (1.1=B0- 2=B0C) have been measured during this century.

--The global average surface temperature has risen 0.5=B0-1.1=B0F (0.3=B0-0.6=B0C)
since reliable records began in the second half of the 19th century.

Until recently, researchers were uncertain whether these developments
reflected natural variations in the earth's climate, or whether in fact
human activities contributed to the warming. But in fall 1995, scientists
with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the authoritative
international body charged with studying this issue -- reached a conclusion
in their Second Assessment Report, which summarizes the current state of
scientific knowledge on global warming, also called climate change. This
document received contribution and peer-review from over 2,500 of the
world's leading climate scientists, economists, and risk-analysis experts.

For the first time ever, the Panel concluded that the observed increase in
global average temperature over the last century "is unlikely to be
entirely natural in origin" and that "the balance of evidence suggests that
there is a discernible human influence on global climate."

(From the Union of Concerned Scientists Web Page: www.ucsusa.org)

>
>Again, Louis' method of setting aside the evidence of natural history
>only leads to a misunderstanding of social history. He is right in one
>respect: discussion of the climate is indeed a departure from the social
>science of Marxism (my original point). But to make a claim about the
>anticipated impact of CO2 on temperature change, it is clearly necessary
>to investigate how CO2 levels and temperature have correlated in the
>past.
>

Each year US energy use pours more than five and a half billion tons of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This means that each person contributes
an average of more than 20 tons a year -- five times more than the
per-capita average for the world as a whole. And the problem is getting
worse. US annual emissions have grown by more than half a billion tons in
the last decade and are predicted to continue growing rapidly. According to
the Worldwatch Institute, The United States is responsible for 23 percent
of global warming gas emissions, but contains only about 4 percent of the
world's population.

The reason that James Heartfield wants to discuss correlation between CO2
emissions and global warming from ten thousand years ago based on the
evidence of glaciers, etc. is that he wants to shift our attention away
from the immediate problem, which is the relationship between dramatically
increased use of oil and coal since the industrial revolution.

Marxists don't view the industrial revolution in the same way as capitalist
ideologues do or green anti-capitalist ideologues do. It is not as if we
are "for it" and people like Kirkpatrick Sale are "against it." The
industrial revolution was part of the ineluctable changes that took place
with the establishment of the capitalist mode of production. To stand
against these changes is to take a stand against history. This is for
utopians and anarchists, not Marxists. On the other hand, we understand
that the capitalist mode of production is harmful to the human race and the
natural world as well. We differ from Living Marxism which minimizes the
destructive aspects of the system. We, for example, understand that
capitalist production has been causing deforestration which can lead to
global warming. And we would never dream of stating that there is no such
thing as deforestration, that James "Rush" Heartfield does.

As Marxists we have to insist upon the rational control of natural
resources which was the position of Marx and Engels themselves. This means
that we have to face up to the problem of carbon emissions which are an
inevitable byproduct of the factory system and internal combustion engines.

This means that socialists have to first of all evaluate the social worth
of automobiles, for example. A socialist planet would be obligated to
consider alternatives to the automobile which is one of the main producers
of carbon emissions. (Living Marxism writes articles promoting the use of
automobiles under capitalism since it is an expression of personal freedom.
This position is indistinguishable from that of automobile trade
associations or libertarians.)

A socialist planet would place a priority on the development of alternative
energy sources such as wind, solar and thermal energy. It might even
consider prudent use of nuclear industry. The reason that anti-nuclear
sentiments are progressive today is that they are based on an understanding
that the capitalist class is not interested in the safety of people living
near nuclear power reactors. The difference between a nuclear power plant
and a coal-burning power plant is that material such as plutonium is much
more potentially deadly than coal. Of course, under capitalism we demand
that coal-burning plants be forced to comply with stringent
pollution-control standards. Living Marxism is pro-nuclear industry under
the capitalist system. Their position is indistinguishable from that of
nuclear industry trade associations.

In general the difference between Marxism and the curious and degenerate
ideology known as "Living Marxism" is that Marxism proceeds on the basis
that capitalism puts profits first. The working conditions of the
wage-earner and his or her wages are constantly under attack. Vulgar
Marxism tends to concentrate solely on these abuses, while genuine Marxism
also focuses on abuses to the living conditions of working-people. For
example, Engels's "Conditions of the Working Class in England" dwells
extensively on environmental issues. He writes about the problems of raw
sewage in the streets, unclean air and polluted water, in addition to the
long hours and low wages of the textile workers. Engels would not have been
satisfied if hours had been shortened and wages raised, if the conditions
of life outside the factory had not changed.

This, in actuality, is part of the crisis that the working-class faces
today. In places like New Jersey, the workers receive very high wages and
live in comfortable houses but there is an extremely high incidence of
cancer in the so-called "cancer alleys" near the oil refineries and
petrochemical plants. What good does a fancy car do you if you are sick
with leukemia? James couldn't understand me when I said that the real issue
was tumors, not alienation. I don't think he will ever understand this
since he embraces the narrowly defined understanding of the "good life"
promoted by capitalist propaganda.

People like William Morris were much closer to the original Marxist vision.
Socialists understand that what matters most to people is their health,
their access to natural and artistic beauty, their freedom from want, etc.
The capitalist system undermines these goals by promoting the production of
commodities rather than use-values. There is very little interest in the
original vision of socialism in Heartfield's group. It is a yuppie vision
of socialism that emphasizes fast cars and consumer goods rather than
communal and spiritual values.

It is a rather disgusting vision of life that is repellent to genuine
socialists. I think the average citizen, when presented with Living
Marxism's arguments, would simply reply "So what do we need socialism
for--capitalism is much better at attaining the basket of goods that you
think we need."

This is correct. What Living Marxism represents is a rather virulent and
exotic variation on the sort of socialism that has been embraced by the
market socialists. The market socialists looked at the collapsing societies
of the former Soviet orbit and drew the conclusion that what people wanted
is access to consumer goods. Period. This led them to dream up a version of
socialism that would compete with capitalism on its on terms. Hence, John
Roemer's blueprint for a market socialism which would give every citizen an
equity share of state enterprises.

Living Marxism takes this one step further. They don't even bother to come
up with market socialism utopias. They simply defend capitalism as it is.
They do this in terms of a rather vulgar understanding of works such as the
Communist Manifesto which were written at a time when capitalism was
revolutionizing the means of production and dealing a death blow to feudal
reaction. To simply restate these arguments after 150 years and without
taking into account the development of imperialism is not only ahistorical,
it is reactionary.

The political group that Living Marxism resembles most is the Lyndon
Larouche-led Labor Committees of 1972 when it was still nominally Marxist.
Larouche became preoccupied with the problem of capitalist growth in the
aftermath of the end of the Vietnam war and the beginning of a long era of
economic stagnation which has not ended.

Larouche convinced himself that the economic stagnation was tied to
bourgeois lack of self-confidence. The reason that people like Jimmy Carter
were hostile to economic growth is that a traitorous environmental and
anti-nuclear movement had bamboozled him. Larouche's identification with
the capitalist class eventually led him in a fascist direction.

Where will Living Marxism end up? This is an interesting question. Dennis
King, who wrote a groundbreaking book on Larouche, tied Larouche's extreme
right-ward shift to his wife leaving him for another man and subsequent
nervous breakdown.

Frank Furedi seems much more stable. I suspect that LM will function much
more as a "Marxist" component within bourgeois ideology. There is bound to
be a place in the editorial pages of the bourgeois media for socialists who
put forward pro-industry, anti-environmental positions with a thin veneer
of Marxist "productivism." It is useful that James Heartfield present his
ideas to this forum. It enables us to come to a deeper understanding of
what Marx stood for. James "Rush" Heartfield is the perfect foil since he
is smart and well-informed, if shockingly wrong on the substance.

Louis Proyect







     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005