Ecology and the Decline of Industry
Dec 2 2008 04:41
I have been working with a climate action group for a while now(Rising Tide), and this is one idea I have come up with after I saw a presentation by this guy: http://euglena-edu.net/wp/
if fossil fuels cause climate change, then we must oppose the use of fossil fuels, but the processes of industrial production require the use of fossil fuels, and there simply aren't any energy sources that can replace things like oil. this implies that if we are to effectively oppose global warming we must also oppose industry.
whatcha all think?
Dec 2 2008 06:54
#2
Jabberman wrote:
the processes of industrial production require the use of fossil fuels, and there simply aren't any energy sources that can replace things like oil
for energy, or for plastics? for energy, this is simply untrue. while things like hydrogen for vehicle fuel aren't an energy source, and so are more expensive, requiring electricity to produce, this is a matter of a profit economy versus one based on need, not something inherent to industry. does plastic production necessarily create emissions? i'm not sure the processes, but i don's see why it necessarily must be so (e.g. there are chemical or biological ways to fix CO2 for starters). and what about recycling plastic? industrial production per se isn't in any way inherently reliant on fossil fuels; the pen factory i used to work in used huge amounts of electricity and no oil at all (except in the forklift trucks in the warehouse, and the delivery lorries; electricity and electric trains/hydrogen-powered lorries could replce them), but this electricity could have come from any source, like renewables. sounds like you've been listening to too many primmo fantasists.
Dec 2 2008 08:15
#3
We are not in a position to advise the bourgeoisie how they ought to organize production, what stuff they ought to produce, how they should produce it, how it should effect the environment etc. This is precisely why we need revolutionary change to abolish capitalism and the state and put control of production into workers councils etc.
After the revolution comrade, we can debate on how we want to produce and distribute things and vote on it democratically.
Dec 2 2008 08:27
#4
Fighting on a class basis doesn't preclude struggling against the damaging effects of certain industries (and who pays ultimately for war and environmental destruction? Not the owning class). This is a good example of how this can work: http://www.libcom.org/history/1976-the-fight-for-useful-work-at-lucas-aerospace
Dec 2 2008 09:13
#5
i'm going to be a minor pedant here...
tsi wrote:
After the revolution comrade, we can debate on how we want to produce and distribute things and vote on it democratically.
while i agree we're in no position to advise the bourgeoisie on energy policy (nor should we be), i don't think you can separate revolution from communisation. i mean clearly something like a transition from fossil fuels takes time, but say you've got a general strike situation, financial services workers shouldn't be taking over their workplaces and self-managing them, but abolishing the industry as useless to human need. they may take over their offices/computers for other purposes of course. the lucas aerospace struggle Django mentions is also instructive... class struggle is the assertion of our needs; revolution, as the moment these struggles push capitalist society to breaking point is at the same time a process of communisation, of reorganising society around our needs. so for instance if we had any kind of industrial class power, assertion of our needs to a livable environment may well feature in a revolutionary upsurge alongside other material demands like shorter hours or whatever (there have been limited examples of such ecological class demands, most notably green bans).
Dec 2 2008 09:59
#6
Regarding energy, there's an interesting article in the Guardian about the possibilities of alternative energy sources.
What's interesting about many of these solutions, is that they require integration of energy networks across the planet. For example, the article claims that Europe could get most of its energy from solar plants in the Sahara. In fact, energy distribution across Europe is already integrated in a technical sense but the division of the continent into nation states and the commodity form presents a more and more constraint obvious constraint on the transformation of all these technological achievements into a benefit for humanity.
As Marx put it: "Beyond a certain point, the development of the powers of production becomes a barrier for capital; hence the capital relation a barrier for the development of the productive powers of labour. When it has reached this point, capital, i.e. wage labour, enters into the same relation towards the development of social wealth and of the forces of production as the guild system, serfdom, slavery, and is necessarily stripped off as a fetter."
Dec 2 2008 17:31
#7
Jabberman wrote:
if fossil fuels cause climate change, then we must oppose the use of fossil fuels, but the processes of industrial production require the use of fossil fuels, and there simply aren't any energy sources that can replace things like oil.
your question rests on this assumption. I do not believe that this assumption is true. Do you have any evidence to back it up?
I would contend that things like wind, wave, solar, tidal and geothermal energy could replace it (and hopefully one day nuclear fusion!)
Dec 2 2008 18:52
#8
Joseph K. wrote:
Jabberman wrote:
the processes of industrial production require the use of fossil fuels, and there simply aren't any energy sources that can replace things like oilfor energy, or for plastics? for energy, this is simply untrue. while things like hydrogen for vehicle fuel aren't an energy source, and so are more expensive, requiring electricity to produce, this is a matter of a profit economy versus one based on need, not something inherent to industry. does plastic production necessarily create emissions? i'm not sure the processes, but i don's see why it necessarily must be so (e.g. there are chemical or biological ways to fix CO2 for starters). and what about recycling plastic? industrial production per se isn't in any way inherently reliant on fossil fuels; the pen factory i used to work in used huge amounts of electricity and no oil at all (except in the forklift trucks in the warehouse, and the delivery lorries; electricity and electric trains/hydrogen-powered lorries could replce them), but this electricity could have come from any source, like renewables. sounds like you've been listening to too many primmo fantasists.
from what I understand renewables produce less energy than fossil fuels and have other downsides too: solar panels use oil in them, and have a limited lifespan. Dams contribute to the extinction of salmon, windmills create dead zones(places without wind) in the areas behind them. all of this points to at least a scaling back of industry.
I would also add that this is not primitivism, because it would not reject agriculture.
waiting for the revolution to do anything about the environment is the worst idea i have ever heard.
Dec 2 2008 21:51
#9
Django wrote:
Fighting on a class basis doesn't preclude struggling against the damaging effects of certain industries (and who pays ultimately for war and environmental destruction? Not the owning class). This is a good example of how this can work: http://www.libcom.org/history/1976-the-fight-for-useful-work-at-lucas-aerospace
100% agreed that we ought to be fighting against war and environmental damage. These are things that hurt us and things that we ultimately pay for.
I just can't conceive what forms a popular struggle against the institution of industry itself would take, not that I would be supportive of one anyhow.
Making it more difficult for the ruling class to pollute the earth (and ultimately stopping them wherever possible), on the other hand, is certainly something within the scope of what I think we can accomplish with organized direct action.
The fight for useful work at Lucas Aerospace is an inspiring story, as are the many stories of dockworkers striking to resist militarization. Yes, if we had more class power, we would be probably be more successful at having these demands met. However, during an era where de-industrialization is being used as weapon of class war with catastrophic effects, I'm not sure that, "down with industry!" or "down with automobile production!" are the sorts of demands we should be making. "No pollution!" or "Support for laid off workers!" or that sort of thing seem to be more in order.
Joseph K. wrote:
i mean clearly something like a transition from fossil fuels takes time, but say you've got a general strike situation, financial services workers shouldn't be taking over their workplaces and self-managing them, but abolishing the industry as useless to human need. they may take over their offices/computers for other purposes of course. the lucas aerospace struggle Django mentions is also instructive... class struggle is the assertion of our needs; revolution, as the moment these struggles push capitalist society to breaking point is at the same time a process of communisation, of reorganising society around our needs. so for instance if we had any kind of industrial class power, assertion of our needs to a livable environment may well feature in a revolutionary upsurge alongside other material demands like shorter hours or whatever (there have been limited examples of such ecological class demands, most notably green bans).
Good point about communisation and revolution. Our goal is to restructure production around our needs, one of which is not to live in poison and to not have all of our resources buried under melting polar ice caps. These demands will certainly come to the fore in a revolutionary upsurge. Like war, pollution is a Class issue, as we are invariably the ones who suffer from it.
My point was just that a lot of anarchist anti-industrial talk tends to obscure the very social relations that we need to be destroying in order to actually make it possible for us to organize production to suit our needs. Yes, those needs themselves will be central in the process of communisation, and it's probably mistaken to see that process as being separate from the process of revolution. Nevertheless, I think that it's quite crucial that we have a class based analysis of environmental destruction and a class based approach to dealing with the issue.
If we're talking about how our needs would best be met in a communist society, then that's fine, I simply disagree with the anti-industry comrades about that as a purely practical matter. But if we're talking about a struggle against industry per se versus a struggle against Capital and State, then I think we've got a problem.
Dec 3 2008 09:47
#10
Jabberman wrote:
I have been working with a climate action group for a while now(Rising Tide), and this is one idea I have come up with after I saw a presentation by this guy: http://euglena-edu.net/wp/if fossil fuels cause climate change, then we must oppose the use of fossil fuels, but the processes of industrial production require the use of fossil fuels, and there simply aren't any energy sources that can replace things like oil. this implies that if we are to effectively oppose global warming we must also oppose industry.
whatcha all think?
I think its nonsense, its probably a classic example of how far the climate camp stuff has lost its way. I mean personally I would probably broadly say i was a ''green'' but to me being 'green'' always meant campaigning for alternatives to fossil fuels. Instead all this climte camp stuff seems to have become obsessed with a poorly developed somewhat misanthropic view of the world in which they have to define themselves as being against something. Its easier then to be a little ''us against the world'' group of protestors, than to actually go out there and argue for anything.
So instead of campaigning for new houses to have solar panelling/heating put in as a matter of course or really campaigning around public tranpsort issues you end up with some statement about how industry needs to be cut back. Personally i think looking at how a more ecological and renewable economy would be implemented and what effects it would have gives far more scope for radical ideas that challenge monopolistic capital than some malthusian statement about ''cutting back industry''.
Quote:
from what I understand renewables produce less energy than fossil fuels
Not really, fossil fuels generally are a more centralised form of power production. In the sense that you have a smaller number of plants with each individual plant producing a large amount of power, and as i've said on another thread on here, renewable energy isn;t science fiction. It makes up 9% of the EU's total energy consumption which even by minimal estimates should increase to about 20% in the next ten years or so.
Quote:
and have other downsides too: solar panels use oil in them, and have a limited lifespan.
Solar panels don;t neccesarily use oil, there are other ways f producing plastics, however its soemwhat academic. The point is not that solar power as it crrently stands offers a giant leap towards some utopian idea of zero carbon footprint or whatever, but that it fofers a way of reducing emissions.
Quote:
windmills create dead zones(places without wind) in the areas behind them
A dead zone is an area of the ocean without oxygen, they arent caused by wind turbines ''sucking the air out'' or somethng, they're either a naturally occuring phenomenon, linked to rapid increases in temperature and the extinction of marine fauna and coral reefs and so on or a product f agricultural pollution http://whistleblower.typepad.com/all_things_whistleblower_/2008/08/dead-zone-in-th.html . The only people who blame wind turbines for this seem to be somewhat whacky ''socialists under the bed'' type internet conservatives.
Dec 3 2008 10:09
#11
Quote:
windmills create dead zones(places without wind) in the areas behind them
That may be the most ludicrous thing I’ve heard in a long time. Do you complain about houses because they block the free movement of wind? In terms of flat surface they interfere with wind patterns more than the average wind turbine…
edit: Better chop down those troublesome trees as well.
Dec 3 2008 11:21
#12
as tsi says...
tsi wrote:
if we're talking about a struggle against industry per se versus a struggle against Capital and State, then I think we've got a problem.
there are various reasons we may want to scale back industry, including ecological ones and shortening the working day (bearing in mind how many commodities are built-to-fail). there are also reasons we might want to expand industry (to produce more stuff we want, anti-AIDS drugs say). but the problem is not industry per se but the capitalist social relations within which it presently operates, social relations which preclude the widespread adoption of energy efficiency and renewable technologies which already exist as well as impeding their development. The point is production according to need, not production according to profit, and 'need' clearly means producing within ecological limits since we need a livable environment.
As others have said, the arguments Jabberman has offered against various renewables range from pretty weak to pretty ridiculous. I mean i don't think anyone wants to dam every salmon-spawning river for example. there are numerous renewable energy sources and efficiency technologies that make ecologically sustainable* industry possible. the question is whether it's possible under capitalism, at least before it's ecologically too late or there is a terrible human cost. i'm not convinced it is, which is another reason to fight for communism.
* in the long run, minerals run out. we could recycle. in the long long run the sun burns out. well spotted, we're all doomed.
Dec 3 2008 11:52
#13
Jabberman wrote:
from what I understand renewables produce less energy than fossil fuels and have other downsides too: solar panels use oil in them, and have a limited lifespan. Dams contribute to the extinction of salmon, windmills create dead zones(places without wind) in the areas behind them. all of this points to at least a scaling back of industry.
This is impossible, wind is a flow of air, so what goes in one side of a wind farm must come out the other, unless you think the turbines suck up the air?
Also I don't see how the use of oil in solar cells would be a problem, it's not a large component in most, the biggest component is sand, and if the oil were to run out then there are other ways of producing materials normally made from oil as well as bacteria that produce some of the chemicals in oil.
As well as this photovoltaic cells are not the only way of generating power from the sun, the heat can be used to drive turbines.
Dec 3 2008 12:09
#14
radicalgraffiti wrote:
This is impossible, wind is a flow of air, so what goes in one side of a wind farm must come out the other, unless you think the turbines suck up the air?
i think it's possible, since the turning the turbine blades must take some of the energy out of the moving air. whether it happens, or is a problem if it does is another matter entirely.
Dec 3 2008 12:25
#15
Dead zones sound weighty, like some kinda lunar vacuum shit. Blatantly oxygen-depleted air is some kinda intoxicant, I'm on the case yo...
Dec 3 2008 12:51
#16
Joseph K. wrote:
radicalgraffiti wrote:
This is impossible, wind is a flow of air, so what goes in one side of a wind farm must come out the other, unless you think the turbines suck up the air?i think it's possible, since the turning the turbine blades must take some of the energy out of the moving air. whether it happens, or is a problem if it does is another matter entirely.
I don't think its possible because the the turbines are powered by air that flows through the blades, and the air that goes in the front must come out the back, (not counting the small amount of air deflected to the sides or the top) so although the air is slowed it can't be stopped or the turbine would not function.
I don't think it would be a problem if it did though, we could probably use it for something 
Dec 3 2008 13:29
#17
radicalgraffiti wrote:
so although the air is slowed it can't be stopped or the turbine would not function.
this is true
I tried to raise this issue a bit on another thread, http://www.libcom.org/forums/news/greenpeace-pour-mocking-scorn-onminers-mining-communities-ex-communities-15112008, but not much luck.
Well, not exactly from an anti-industry point of view, but there is a question here.
The Climate Summit started yesterday here in Poland, and we want to go make some agitation, so we had some discussion on what our positions could be. It has to be pointed out that Poland is heavily dependent on coal for industry, has largely old-fashioned and inefficient production and is one of the countries fighting against limits on CO2 production. Almost all major unions have taken the stand that Poland must be allowed to ignore these limits in order to develop. Even some anarchists have come to the conclusion that limiting CO2 production means "a loss of jobs".
We feel that we cannot simply defend all jobs, regardless of what they are. What about the people producing weapons and military aircraft here in Poland? We'd be happy if these things weren't produced, just as we'd be fine with, for example, auto production dropping as a result of say, increased use of public transportation and bicycles. However, taking into account the fact that people must earn to buy their survival from the capitalists and owning classes, we can't just be insensitive to this. We also can't ignore it, like the NGOs and liberals that will be at the conference lobbying for better ecological policy, but unable to relate to the issue of the potentially displaced workers.
It is obvious that the development model based on heavy industry production is sold, like all "development" as something that provides jobs and opportunities for people. In reality, it usually benefits the capitalists more than normal people, who wind up living in ecologically degraded areas, working in factories, taking out loans to buy cars, etc.etc. And in some places this is accompanied by other processes, for example, seizure of land, etc.
That said, I do not take the primitivist view of opposing industry altogether. I do think though that industry can and should be scaled back in some areas. We need to be working towards a deeper social revolution, not just fighting industry - that's pointless. It's clear that in order for people on a large scale (not just individual dropouts) to live a different type of life, which abuses the earth less, we have to get people out of the currents models, out of capitalist society (or "socialist" ones that do the same shit), deal with the property problem, etc. etc. This idea that some people seem to have that just choosing as an individual to be more ecofriendly (although I'm not against this), is simply not enough when so many people are stuck working in the sweatshops of the world, just trying to make a living. In many of the poorest countries, those people don't just have a lifestyle choice to make (work in the factory or start a hippy commune).
So what I think is that we can and should be concerned with ecological issues, we need to think about what alternatives there are and could be, but just telling people you are against industry and not balancing this with other social issues just sounds like primitive primitivism. Mind you, I'm not as bothered as most people on this forum by primitivists, but I think they threw the baby out with the bathwater and most are proposing radical solutions that they are not really capable or willing to live with themselves. Rather than just OPPOSING something, we should be telling people what we are FOR.
Personally I am for a new set of social values, where we look at things not as individual consumers, but as members of society as well. It's like with cars. Don't drive, not into them and want to promote public transport, bicycles, etc. That said, I know that it is useful for some people to have cars and in general, it is useful to be able to get from one place to another. But we can think of alternative fuel. We can also get rid of corporate food production models which require that food be shipped across continents - that would do a lot to cut down on the use of motor vehicles. Probably with issues like this, there is a better chance to reach people is the problem is explained, if we look at the systemic causes of the problem and propose productive (sic) solutions instead of just telling people we're against industry.