Dave Douglass at Kingsnorth "Climate Camp"

Well, i hope Dave's arguement wasn't as simplistic as yours or that would would of be a waste of everyone's time.

yeah i noticed

WTF? Expanding the coal industry will mean that catastrophic climate change is certain. Any worthwhile class struggle anarchist and libertarian communist should be campaigner to stop the development and building of new coal-fired power stations whilst being completely opposed to Nuclear Power.

I really can't believe that the NUM, scargill and Douglas are seriously thinking this is a good idea!

I was at the meeting with Scargill and Douglas and there was as expected alot of opposition to what they were saying. The interesting aspect was that the local Medway Trades Council Spoke out against the building of Kingsnorth and coal in the meeting.

why do you say that?

we do need power, dont' we?

I thought Douglas's point was that we need worker's control of power, which sounds pretty in tune with a class struggle anarchist position.

I am all in favour of workers control of power but the debate is about what power generation is needed. Douglas and Scargill were arguing for the expansion of the coal industry in the UK and the rebuilding of the NUM (now at around only 3,000 members). There is an urgency in stopping the building of these coal-fire power stations and Nuclear Power for the prevention of climate chaos that is a bigger threat to working class people the world over. To assume "supporting coal" and therefore supporting the building of the next generation of coal-fired power stations will lead to using British Coal and/or employing British workers is naive. I say that because the context we are in is based on the global market were labour and resources from all over the globe are in competition with each other.

So to say again, the main thrust of the argument was an expansion of the coal industry for the purpose of rebuilding the NUM and by that to pose the question of workers control. I will argue that we need workers control on all industries for the purpose of transition in the energy production to sustainable and renewable energies. Climate change and the continued burning of fossil fuels are not in the interests of the world-wide working class and therefore libertarian communists and anarchists should oppose them.

For what?

Honest question, I think if you think it through, 90% of current power usage is socially unnecessary - mostly used to power factories that produce useless shit, or transport goods produced in china because there are lower wages there, etc.

Also, isn't Dave Douglass an NUM hack? If so, It's really embarassing to hear him described as "fellow worker".

I think he's a dual carder

If it's a straightforward trade unionist argument that we need to protect British industry, as a means to build up a union in one particular industry, then I agree with you.

I thought it was more about the importance of worker's control, though.

There should also be a recognition of the demands of those workers who would be made unemployed by the closure of coal power stations. But I guess you accept that anyway.

again, my understanding of this was that we can't just 'oppose' climate change and the burning of fossil fuels. We need to present an alternative. As I understood it, the alternative that Douglas was presenting was the organization of society by those who actually produce it - i.e. the workers - which seems pretty sensible to me.

If I misinterpreted Douglas's argument, though, then I'm happy to stand corrected.

Thanks for that. Though CCT does not exist yet and on the current timescale will be available in around 15 years not enough time to stop the rise in global temperature. To call it "clean" coal is also misinformed as it reduces the emissions by only 20%. Again, there needs to be a mass reduction of emissions of CO2 for us to continue on this planet.

The special edition of "The Miner" (NUM journal) which was given out at the climate camp was a typical marxist analysist on expanding production and the economy. It was also eurocentric it its approaches to the so-called needs of the developing world where everyone can "enjoy" the same level of consumption as we do in the west. The point is that capitalist industrialisation in the global south has destroyed whole areas which have supported human beings for centuries, has caused massive environmental damage and by that has killed huge numbers of people. The NUM et al are still within the mindset that the future of the world proletariat will exist in a world of post-scarcity. This seems impossible. Whether we are being led in to a new age of "just and green capitalism" or "just and green Stalinism" the outcome is the same, there are finite resources, our eco-system can not support it, and a whole transformation of production has to take place with in the context of low-carbon, sustainable production. Ideas that we may have had of a post-capitalist future has to take this into account.

BTW I'm no primmo

yes, but just to argue 'no more power', without an (explicit) recognition of the need to also change the relationship of ownership over power, will probably in effect mean 'no more cheap power' - in which case it will be those further down the income scale that are hit the hardest (as usual).

Cheers for the response. Remember this is not just Dave Douglas position it is the NUM's official position though I understand there were some attempts to have the IWW oppose the climate camp on that basis which was firmly defeated. Have a look at what scargill said to the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7541910.stm

His concern seemed to be on Britains energy security, reliance on foreign fuels and supporting the interests of "our" people - whoever that is! Nothing about workers control in that interview - which does not necessarily mean he's not in favour of it but sought not to make that a political point. He argues against Nuclear Power on environmental grounds but sees a future for Coal?!

Just a quick point:

Currently the UK is forecasted to meet the power requirements of the lost of the coal-fired powered stations pose by 2020 with renewables. There is also room for a reduction in energy consumption by over 1/3 if energy efficiency measures are put into place - insullation, energy efficient appliances..etc.I have been told that Austria is running at around 60% renewable energy production. Germany has created an extra 250,000 "green" collar workers in the new industries.

We can look at it at what can be achieved under capitalist economy and we can look at the limitations that capitalism presents to managing the crisis that climate change poses all of us. I firmly agree that the only way to stop climate change (and a heap of alot of other environmentally damaging industries, not to forget the daily domination of work, alienation and class) can only happen if the is a mass social movement against capitalism. Many at the Climate Camp agree with this, the political basis of the camp was formed on this, that the struggle against climate change has to be a struggle against capitalism. There is however a very dominant and naive middle-class element within the climate camp that is a hinderance to this development.

What class do you think I am exactly?

Besides which, I'm promoting a class understanding of pollution - i.e. that pollution is caused by the actions of the ruling class, as opposed to the primitivist/capitalist view that pollution is caused by 'people'.

How exactly is the transportation of poorly made toys from China to Ireland 'social wealth'?

PS I'm officially requesting that you receive a ban for trolling - this isn't libcommunity.

What the Climate Camp has done is grow a space for a radical movement to develop. 1,500 people isn't bad for a minority at this stage (compared to a lot of things). It has also managed to become a visible force, a threat to the states plans for building coal-fired power stations, has managed to create debate and links with local trade unionists and local community - there were dozens of shops with anti-kingsnorth/coal posters in their windows, not to mention the many hundreds of locals that came on the site during the week.

I'm sure that this years Climate Camp has radicalised the many thousands which were there, has exposed the states violence to many who were there and who perhaps it was their first ever protest. I'm don't see the supporting the call for mass social movement as an abstract thing, it is a pratical thing one which involves all manner of initiatives - including camping!

True, though the political basis of the Climate Camp is based on Social Change and Just Transition. There is also an increasing anti-state anti-capitalist tendency (who actually organised the camp) attempting to reaffirm itself. The Climate Camp is very broad, but at the end of the day it brought a large number of people together, stuck them in a field, held of riot cops and made the site cop-free for 7 days. Seeing people from NGO's, people and planet, anti-capitalists, hippies, ordinary people, locals..etc -- all linked up facing riot cops and stopping them entering the site is inspiring even though half the people their were annoying twits!

Believe me, I'm a politically purist most of the time but when you can actually see the ability of radicalisation to occur and see the change in attitudes develop so quickly with people that you would assume are as stubborn as we are when it comes to politics and strategies it is inspiring and it needs to be spoken about.

I think most people believe that we all need to change our consumption habits but the main discussion was about stopping the states plan to build coal-fired power stations, and increasingly developing a social movement against capitalism. I think class struggle anarchists are making a mistake with not looking at the potential development of movements forming against climate change, if you look at the global south this has already taken on class dimensions as peoples lives are being destroyed by the destruction of the eco-system.

this sounds a lot like the trot 'practically, opposing 'x nationalist gangsters' means supporting imperialism.' if coal's not a solution, it's not a solution - if that means a solution on capital's terms is impossible then so be it. lesser-evilism when either evil is a potentially uninhabitable ecosystem doesn't seem very pragmatic to me.

Sorry mate, but how long do you think we have to actually turn things around? Things are looking very very bleak and we are facing in the next 10 years a massive ecological breakdown that is and will spell a disaster for all of us. The Climate Camp and all of those who were there are 100% against coal and nuclear. Whats so difficult to understand that if we are to try and take control of the situation we need to push for decentalised power-generation and heating systems, renewable and sustainable sources of power.

There is also another issue on who actually wants to go and work down a deep-coal mining? Will you?

i neither oppose or support privatisation or nationalisation per se, they're formal legal changes to the management of capital which are generally adpoted to attack our conditions or contain our struggles. i'm a communist, i base my activity on asserting our own needs, short of revolution it's up to capital's managers how they are met. we're not making public policy, we have to assert our needs. in this case, neither coal not nuclear offers us much of a future, so we have to oppose both. if capital can't accomodate this demand with a massive shift to renewables or whatever then either we destroy capital or we're fucked. yeah the odds are pretty long, but expanding coal production in the hope that someday the technology becomes available to reduce its emissions is nuts. and raw's point that working down mines is shit is also pretty important, workers control would surely see the elimination of such unpleasant jobs as much as possible. we shouldn't romanticise the old bases of proletarian power, especially against the needs of the whole class globally to have a livable environment.

I heard there were pat-down searches of everyone coming in or out though, I wouldn't say being sieged from the outside (and almost certainly infiltrated on the inside) is really an example of a totally autonomous space developing for radicals to organise in.

Personally what I'd like to see here is a cost-benefit analysis from each side. Basic numbers for the layperson. Frankly all the 'this or that will or won't work' stuff is meaningless without something more concrete to back it up.

If Dave and Arthur can put together a cost analysis showing that clean coal will reduce emissions, maintain power supply and ease the transition effectively into renewables without resorting to nuclear, I'll be all for it. Equally, if the people arguing for a radical change to lifestyles to 'cut power use by 90%' can show an effective way of getting people to do this voluntarily without destroying quite as many lives as mass flooding could manage, I'll be happy to go for that, too.

Fact-free bickering on the other hand, I have to say, is leaving me cold.

Maybe see here