Climate Change 'war effort'

No.

You're asking two questions it seems. Can capitalism adapt to climate change and can capitalism solve the climate crisis. The answer to the former is: yes, it already is. I don't know the answer to the second question. I'm extremely skeptical that an economic system that relies on endless resource extraction, limitless expansion and 'eating its own tail' so to speak is capable of scaling back.

Can capitalism mobilise workers and industry, Scallywag?

My personal blog has an item about WW2 and the production of food.

https://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2011/06/war-communism.html

Capitalism is flexible. It mutates like a virus. Perhaps it can survive the impact of climate change even though it is a system predicated on market expansion and accumulation and cost-cutting. I can't imagine the form it will re-shape into. Maybe some nations will try to pull out all the stops but will they economically succeed if competing countries do not.

Costa Rica is getting accolades but its benefiting from operating in a niche corner of the economy like some co-ops can.

https://truthout.org/articles/heres-what-a-green-new-deal-looks-like-in-practice/

In defence of the GND and AOC and "radical" reformism

I am definitely not saying that we have to overturn capitalism completely before we can get serious about climate stabilization...the struggle for an egalitarian climate stabilization project — a Green New Deal — will serve, in my view, as one of the principal areas of struggle in advancing a democratic socialist alternative to capitalism..

Scallywag, another statement on Green New Deal in the language of war mobilization

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/02/07/major-party-backing-ocasio-cortez-and-markey-unveil-green-new-deal-outlining-wwii

"This resolution outlines a plan to launch a WWII scale transformation of our economy, including a just transition for workers and frontline communities, and moving to 100 percent clean and renewable energy by 2030,"

Man, some of the responses in this thread make me feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone... I don't know if people on here just aren't familiar with the science or what, but there has never been a time in history when it has been clearer that capitalism is fundamentally incapable of taking any substantive steps to mitigate the environmental crises it creates....

Doesn't matter, let's just all start cheerleading for the new "green" capitalism to come. It will surely be worth supporting, right?

To deal with climate change will require a far greater level of planning than we've seen in any capitalist state, and this planning, unlike that in the US during WII or the USSR will have to centralize on an international scale.

Scallywag

How about instead of just mocking, you actually make some contribution to the discussion or don't bother

How about no. Some ideas don't deserve anything but mockery, and dignifying them with a serious response would already mean ceding ground.

Scallywag

I was merely questioning if this view is entirely correct and if it is actually possible for capitalism to change itself especially when at some point it inevitably must do so in the face of environmental catastrophes.

No, it does not "inevitably" have to do so. It can go on with business as usual and drive the human species to extinction (common ruin of the contending classes), or it can be overthrown by the working class and replaced with a classless society that makes rational use of natural resources to satisfy human needs.

Scallywag

Its still something we should pressurize governments to pursue though.

Maybe the first step would be to get the right government, so that it's, you know, more amenable to being pressurized. Go, Corbyn, go!

Oh wait. You suggested that too.

Scallywag

Even if one country manages to go renewable it would be an example to others of what is possible.

And now it's "green capitalism in one country". Leading by example. Holy shit.

Scallywag

Fine mock ideas as much as you like, but it was pretty clear you were mocking me for even bringing up the idea of capitalism going green.

I was mocking the sheer naïvety of a reformist coming to a libertarian communist forum with a hypothetical reform and expecting everyone to agree that it would "surely be worth supporting".

Scallywag

This is exactly what I said. Capitalism will inevitably come up against climate change and the ecological crisis and then it inevitably MUST change or morph into something else otherwise it will lead to catastrophe for all.

No, capitalism being overthrown by world revolution is not exactly the same as capitalism "chang[ing] or morph[ing] into something else"; the proletariat destroying the entire mode of production based on value by abolishing itself as a class is not exactly the same thing as a WWII-style "economic restructuring". Those two scenarios don't even exist on the same continuum; rather, they are exact opposites, since they express the interests of two irreconcilably antagonistic classes.

I can see why a social democratic reformist posting on an anarchist forum would pretend otherwise, though.

Scallywag

Yes the working class could rise up and replace capitalism with a rational system, but that seems just as unlikely any time soon as capitalism changing itself.

So you consider the two outcomes to be equally unlikely, and yet you would still like to see your hypothetical "massive social movements" press for the latter rather than the former. I.e., you are a reformist. Not only that, your reformism seems so natural and "inevitable" (you like to use that word a lot) to you that you are genuinely unable to even conceive of the idea that other people might not be reformists themselves. Specifically, you are unable to imagine that others might not be reformists while posting on a website literally named after libertarian communism.

That's just freakin' hilarious, and I don't expect to get tired of mocking it anytime soon.

Scallywag

I'd say given what's at stake with climate change we should do all that we can which can include direct action, but also getting governments to take serious meaningful action on climate change. We don't have a lot of time.

Absolutely; since we are pressed for time, nothing's off the table, really. Maybe run for office yourself to really shake things up? No, wait, start your own environment-friendly business! Get Greta Thunberg on the board of directors!

Scallywag

donald parkinson

To deal with climate change will require a far greater level of planning than we've seen in any capitalist state, and this planning, unlike that in the US during WII or the USSR will have to centralize on an international scale.

I guess this is very unlikely in the current political climate with Trump in the Whitehouse, Bolsonaro in Brazil and Brexit.

Of course. What makes centralized planning on a planetary scale unlikely is not the continued existence of an inherently wasteful and anarchic mode of production; it's the fact that we don't have the right person in the White House. Warren/Kamala/Bernie 2020!

AnythingForProximity, while I agree with you in this discussion, I think your behaviour is bordering on the unhinged here. We're facing ecological collapse and environment-related humanitarian crises in our lifetimes (and, perhaps another few generations after that, species extinction); like Scallywag, I also vaguely entertain the notion that somehow capitalism will 'sort itself out' as communist revolution doesn't seem on the horizon to 'sort capitalism out' (in the Kray twins sense of the phrase rather than reform).

I recognise it's clutching at straws more than anything else (don't want to speak for Scallywag but I imagine it's something similar with them) but idea that other working-class people deserve derision for not being 'hard as steel, clear as glass' in the face of what feels like certain doom ('unless there's a revolution!' *groans*) just makes you look like someone completely lacking in human empathy. I imagine there's a sense of security, however, in feeling like you're holding the communist line so maybe everyone's just dealing with their anxiety differently here!

Ed

We're facing ecological collapse and environment-related humanitarian crises in our lifetimes (and, perhaps another few generations after that, species extinction); like Scallywag, I also vaguely entertain the notion that somehow capitalism will 'sort itself out' as communist revolution doesn't seem on the horizon to 'sort capitalism out' (in the Kray twins sense of the phrase rather than reform).

I quite like the idea that mitigating catastrophic climate change might occur together with a radical global reduction of the work week, redistributing of socially useful activities and the suppression of a great variety of pointless/noxious/destructive activities. Though this might take the form of counterplanning from below on a massive scale, I don't at all imagine this will be a spontaneous mass movement that just pops up one day.

Even if this seems a questionable bet, we can now be fairly sure that any anticapitalist social movement will take place in the context of acute ecological crisis (one where many human and non-human habitats will be threatened), so thinking about how those two are connected is quite important. It's not that working class revolution is the only solution in that context (there are more horrible 'solutions') but it's the more desirable one, and it's a matter of realism to think through the consequences of what context it will occur in, if it does. Some might think that this is just trying to hitch the car of communism to the train of climate change, but it just demonstrates that the labour-based critique of capitalism isn't (and can't be) separate from the point of view of the reproduction of nature, of planetary life in general, that all our so-called 'labour' only precariously sits on top of.

I don't think, in addition, that the climate/ecological crisis should make us think "the state is the only possible pragmatic solution", I think that depends on illusions of what the state is, as some sort of detached rationality (right) hovering over society, and as something having more power to act than social forces themselves potentially have. The state is a result, not a cause. Any effective transformation of capitalism to sort out its ecological issues will be a class project, whether it's a molecular social revolution or a "state project", and it'll be the work of social class forces trying to either conserve class society in one form or another or overthrowing it.

This old blog post seems relevant to whether capitalism has the capacity to reform or not, although the question of whether it can reform enough to hit zero or negative greenhouse gas emissions is a bit easier to answer with a definitive 'no': https://libcom.org/blog/reform-possible-22122011

People tend to conflate reforms and concessions a bit too much in discussions like this, especially socdems pushing stuff like the Green New Deal tend to do so when people point out the plan itself is insufficient (whether that limited plan could even be implemented at all).

Something like the 1970s occupations against Narita, the '90s anti-roads protests in the UK, recent anti-pipeline protests in the US like NODAPL - these were concrete struggles that attempted to extract concessions (i.e. not building an airport, not building new roads, not building new pipelines) - even if they were limited to preserving the status quo.

This is very different from say a car scrappage scheme to encourage people to trade in petrol cars for electric ones (which would be counter-productive anyway because a lot of carbon is emitted during the process of car manufacture, not just from fuel) - which is purely a capitalist reform that will benefit particular sections of capital via subsidies with marginal or zero impact on climate change.

There are probably things in the middle (cycling infrastructure? free house insulation?) which straddle capitalist reforms vs. material concessions - not to say people should go out to campaign for those, and building bicycle routes to nowhere is worse than useless, but a communist revolution doesn't change the law of physics so dwellings will need better insulation either way.

OOTW are always worth a look on this stuff: https://libcom.org/outofthewoods

There's an interesting interview with Kali Akuno from Cooperation Jackson on the (initiatives toward a) Green New Deal here:
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/02/kali-akuno-interview-climate-change-cooperation-jackson

Would be interested to hear takes from people here on their views on this, specifically the notion of a "build-and-fight" dual strategy to achieving both socialism and broader ecological transformations.

"It would seek to construct new worker-owned and self-managed enterprises rooted in sustainable methods of production on the build side and to enact various means of appropriation of the existing enterprises by their workers on the fight side, which would transition these industries into sustainable practices (or in some cases phase them out entirely)."

You did ask for opinions so here is mine

a "build-and-fight" dual strategy to achieving both socialism and broader ecological transformations.

I didn't really get any socialist message from reading this article. He does dismiss state capitalism but in his transitional system suggests a place for nationalization. Plus a whole list of palliatives that as he said will take millions of activists to achieve so why stop short with half-measures if such a mobilization succeeds.

I frowned when I read the reference to Earth First! I thought Bookchin had done a sufficient demolition job on deep greens.

This is radical reformism with an advocacy for frugality. I wonder how that will resonate with a world enduring austerity policies.

If this is the best eco-socialists have on offer then i'm going to have to prepare for death

So all in all - not impressed

ajjohnstone

I didn't really get any socialist message from reading this article. He does dismiss state capitalism but in his transitional system suggests a place for nationalization. Plus a whole list of palliatives that as he said will take millions of activists to achieve so why stop short with half-measures if such a mobilization succeeds.

Well, apart from the title, he outlines socialism as follows:

Ultimately, I think we are going to have to develop a comprehensive and democratic planning system that equitably distributes the essential goods and services we all need to survive and thrive. And to be clear, I’m not arguing for a return to the centralized state-capitalist economies of the twentieth century, but the democratic socialization of the emergent information-based exchange economies, and that would utilize technological innovations to create a regenerative economy.

Agreed on the radical reformism. But hypothetically, if an anarcho/communist society arrives with full powers, so to speak, as a result of a clean break with the ideological/institutional past (rather than how a hybrid "solidarity economy" will look resulting from a reformist strategy), wouldn't it still be faced with the task of transforming all the material and social processes that capitalist society has left as its inheritance?

What are the concrete directions of these changes to envision and anticipate? There are many possible examples: dealing with the divide between cities and countryside and land use generally, or transforming/radically minimizing/phasing out the whole chain of petrochemical-to-plastic production and all the activities that "productively consume" its products. What are sensible ways of working with those issues, but not turning them into a technocratic matter unrelated to the form of society? I think it's a matter of both engaging with these questions concretely and pressing on the question of the limits of the capitalist social form and how a transition towards a sustainable social formation also requires new organizational forms capable of giving impetus to that transition.

Marx and Engels talking about mending the divide between city and countryside for a long time (and from the point of view of largely urban-concentrated social movements) seemed to be one of the "utopian" remnants in their thought, but actually today, and looking at it through the lens of social reproductive metabolism, it seems to be one of the most common sense things in their view of a society beyond capitalism. Likewise the critique of politics that is an underexamined part of Marx's critique of bourgeois society.

Our critique should be different from the already quite mainstream sense of "business and politics aren't doing what they need to do". Anticapitalists have a critique of both economics and politics, capitalism and the state, as two interlinked aspects of a social form which has its inherent limits. It seems that climate change is only the most coagulated result of these limits, and for that reason presents a radical problem to capitalism as a social structure (a concrete form of Zusammenbruch that most theorists of collapse hadn't exactly conceived like this).

I guess my point in the above is also that transition is different than reformism, it refers to the substantial transformation of social structures and their ecological aspects, the content of which is a concrete question for both reformists and nonreformists. Preserving a livable planet presents us with certain requirements and far-reaching consequences. The problem for reformist currents is that they link themselves to a set of institutions (capitalist property, the state, the individual company) that revolutionary currents think are part of the problem and cannot deliver the required changes.

Basically I think we need to engage with those concrete questions a lot more, without removing the centrality of social form from our critique and activity. That would be the consequence of not attacking the line of argument that says "this is a crisis, there's no time for sociopolitical innovation, only the state can save us now", which I don't think is really the case, considering how weaved into the mesh of capitalism climate change really is.

wouldn't it still be faced with the task of transforming all the material and social processes that capitalist society has left as its inheritance?

Spacious, you are right. People in a socialist society will have one helluva mess to fix.

But unlike what many environmentalists I have heard advocating degrowth say, the first stage towards a steady state society has to be an increase in productivity and use of resources, bringing the undeveloped and developing world (in fact much of the developed world, too) up to a standard of living that they seek and which is equitable to our own, although not a replication of all the consumerist addictions we are inflicted with. I'm talking decent diet, decent housing, decent healthcare, decent transport systems, decent education, all in all, a decent level of life. That will mean an initial rise in general production. This is possible in a benign sustainable way using renewables. But it will be very much horse for courses for the first generation of socialists to choose from. All we can do at this moment in time is generalize, unable to go into the fine details.

Am I optimistic that the course of action recommended by KA will succeed in preserving a liveable planet and would not be just reforms but revolutionary reforms. No.

Was it Tolstoy who said the ruling class will do everything and anything but get off the backs of the workers. Any reform that threatened their existence is simply not going to be enacted and if we are to engage in a possible civil war for reforms, as I said, we should make it worthwhile and go for socialism - and if we don't discuss now and debate now, socialism, it isn't going to feature in any future exchange.

Marx also provided a scenario other than the establishment of socialism in the Communist Manifesto, the battle will end “either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes”

Spacious, Scallywag

Have you read this by Wayne Price

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/31250

I came across this article at IWW, on climate change, capitalism and transformation, might interest a few here:

Avoiding “Hothouse Earth”: Organizing Against Climate Catastrophe and Extinction
https://ecology.iww.org/node/3213?bot_test=1

ajjohnstone

Have you read this by Wayne Price

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/31250

Belated thanks for this.

Allo amigos, I am a piece of junk but I want to contribute to the conversation so far that I read: Extinction is definitely in the books, and we are trying to reverse it - we communists, libertarians, anarchists, liberal front, and fellow feelers. What is to be done? No one fucking knows. JUST PRESSURE SOCIETY TO GO GREEN and RED. If the World ends, who cares? Let's try to have fun.

Gratuitous music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDQ7KgvwfaQ

Came across some more articles on climate change and ecosocialism (whether of a statist hard nosed "problemsolving" variety or of an antistate anarcho/communist bent):

Richard Smith - An ecosocialist path to limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees:
https://systemchangenotclimatechange.org/article/ecosocialist-path-limiting-global-temperature-rise-15%C2%B0c

And a libertarian response to the above was just posted by ideas and action themselves:
Green New Deal? An ecosyndicalist alternative
http://ideasandaction.info/2019/04/green-deal-eco-syndicalist-alternative/

I've also been reading a few things by the Belgian ecosocialist Daniel Tanuro:

https://climateandcapitalism.com/2019/04/12/no-shortcuts-the-climate-revolution-must-be-ecosocialist/ (this was adopted as a declaration by the Belgian organisation Gauche Anticapitaliste)

And an interview with Tanuro: "Ecosocialism is more than a strategy, it's a project for civilization"
https://climateandcapitalism.com/2017/03/13/ecosocialism-is-more-than-a-strategy-its-a-project-for-civilization/

From the latter, I liked this bit: "The reason capitalism opts for [technological fixes] is that they suit the race for profit. The alternative is to develop and generalize a peasant organic agriculture and careful forest and land management, respectful of Indigenous peoples. In this way, it will be possible to remove great amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and to store it in the soil, while fostering biodiversity and providing good food to everybody. But this option means a fierce anticapitalist battle against agribusiness and landowners. In other words: the solution will not be found in the technological field, but in the political arena."

That bit seems to tie in with George Monbiot's (among others) project https://www.naturalclimate.solutions/

And the NGO Grain that is involved in a lot of peasant and agriculture-related struggles writes:
"The crises that all of humanity is confronting, linked to the capitalist, extractivist, and colonial model that now dominates most societies on the planet, have reached such a magnitude that they are no longer just being denounced by the same social movements that have been talking about them for fifty years; they are now found in the official reports of governments, international organisations and scientific organisations that have not been co-opted by corporate interests. A particular feature of all these crises is their close interconnection with the industrial agri-food system — indeed, they are all deeply and causally rooted in it."
https://grain.org/e/6195

I think an awareness that capitalism is becoming an acute problem is really spreading beyond the usual small portions of the radical left, but how that will play out is of course very much open. The school strike movement and (whatever their tactics and middle class bias) Extinction Rebellion have really contributed to breaking through the stagnancy in popular opinion. Greta Thunberg has supported the notion of a global climate general strike, where it's not just students on strike, that would be quite something to organize towards.

Below I'm just posting some links to stuff I've read and found interesting on the topics of capitalism and required transformations in relation to climate and ecological crisis.

- George Monbiot is now no longer a critic of something-something capitalism but of capitalism as such (and as he's never been an enthusiast for state communism, let's hope he's also rethinking his enthusiasm for solutions that depend on a still-to-be-established benevolent state, socialdemocratic or otherwise):
Dare to declare capitalism dead – before it takes us all down with it

"A system based on perpetual growth cannot function without peripheries and externalities. There must always be an extraction zone – from which materials are taken without full payment – and a disposal zone, where costs are dumped in the form of waste and pollution. As the scale of economic activity increases until capitalism affects everything, from the atmosphere to the deep ocean floor, the entire planet becomes a sacrifice zone: we all inhabit the periphery of the profit-making machine."

- Montly Review has this rather awesome long essay on capitalist extraction/expropriation/exploitation and ecology by John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark (including, besides much else, an extended argument of what Monbiot notes in the quote above):
The Expropriation of Nature
"... at the root of the problem is the extreme expropriation of the earth itself and the consequent transformation in social relations."

And this by Jasper Bernes, "We cannot legislate and spend our way out of catastrophic global warming":
Between the Devil and the Green New Deal

Bernes writes:
"We need a revolution, a break with capital and its killing compulsions, though what that looks like in the twenty-first century is very much an open question. A revolution that had as its aim the flourishing of all human life would certainly mean immediate decarbonization, a rapid decrease in energy use for those in the industrialized global north, no more cement, very little steel, almost no air travel, walkable human settlements, passive heating and cooling, a total transformation of agriculture, and a diminishment of animal pasture by an order of magnitude at least."

spacious

- George Monbiot is now no longer a critic of something-something capitalism but of capitalism as such (and as he's never been an enthusiast for state communism, let's hope he's also rethinking his enthusiasm for solutions that depend on a still-to-be-established benevolent state, socialdemocratic or otherwise):
Dare to declare capitalism dead – before it takes us all down with it

Will be interesting to see if he recants his strawman of anarchism (or any kind of anti-state communism) as expressed in articles like this https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/22/climatechange.kingsnorthclimatecamp

Until that happens taking his conversion from avowed liberalism with a large pinch of salt.

Mike Harman

Will be interesting to see if he recants his strawman of anarchism (or any kind of anti-state communism) as expressed in articles like this https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/22/climatechange.kingsnorthclimatecamp

Until that happens taking his conversion from avowed liberalism with a large pinch of salt.

Yes, or if he recants his anticapitalism once a responsible business coalition emerges that is ready to save capitalism and humanity as a package deal.

I note that Monbiot in a Novara Media discussion did come round to saying that it was capitalism ''including it's Social Democratic forms'' that was the problem in a piece where he also eventually took issue with another contributor (Anne Pettifor) who was harking back to better times in 'international relations' and talking about 'self sufficiency' in national terms. The Guardian piece referring to 'state communism' was correctly contested by one spgb'er on the guardian comments page but then Monbiot had already admitted that the USSR was operating much the same as the capitalist west. I suspect however that Monbiot's depth of understanding of the fundamental basis of capitalism is pretty limited to a criticism of it's 'market competitive' function allowing him to stay friends with those promoting a mix of state regulation and social market policies.

Viewpoint magazine has posted this article critiquing Jasper Bernes' critical essay "Between the Devil and the Green New Deal" (linked to a few posts above), by Thea Riofrancos. Riofrancos sees Bernes' view as representing "resignation in the cloak of realism". She argues that instead we should claim the Green New Deal as a terrain of struggle on which more radical approaches to dealing with ecological/climate crisis can be developed and fought for:

https://www.viewpointmag.com/2019/05/16/plan-mood-battlefield-reflections-on-the-green-new-deal/

"Waiting for ever-deferred moment of revolutionary rupture is functionally tantamount to quiescence. In an extremely asymmetric conflict against fossil fuel executives, private utilities, landlords, bosses and the politicians that do their bidding, we need both extra-parliamentary, disruptive action from below—taking inspiration from Standing Rock, the teachers’ strike wave, Extinction Rebellion, the global youth climate strikes—and creative experimentation with policies and institutions."

And another (somewhat older) article on the GND in the Brooklyn Rail by Max Ajl:

https://brooklynrail.org/2018/11/field-notes/Beyond-the-Green-New-Deal

"We ought to remember two things about the New Deal, Mark I. The first is that it did not end the Great Depression. That was accomplished by the military-Keynesianism of World War II. The second is that it occurred in the face of a rising and red labor movement. There have been socio-political rustlings since 2008 and especially 2011. But the level of mobilization is not that of 1933. So whence the notion of a Green New Deal? It often seems to be of a piece with the current definitional dilution “socialism” is facing, as Ted Kennedy-type liberals like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez redefine the word to fit snugly along the left edge of the Democratic Party agenda. In this sense, the Green New Deal can often be a historical-analogical shoehorn to fit our moment back into the comforting clasp of the Fordist comfort zone, maybe a few degrees left vis-à-vis social distribution—Norway plus solar panels.
We ought also not forget that the original New Deal was social containment to avoid a world transformed."

The Bernes and Riofrancos pieces are interesting, especially read together.

Bernes IMO accurately critiques the Green New Deal - as it's proposed by AOC it means the following:

- replacing fossil fuels with electric, meaning massive subsidies for the solar, wind and battery industries.

- loft insulation and double glazing subsidies (the UK had a massive free insulation scheme until recently).

- high speed rail improvements

- ignoring agriculture, international shipping and aviation, and any kind of reorganisation of social life (like completely removing the need for people to commute etc.).

But Bernes ends up not really hinting out what a reorganisation of social life would be like beyond a sort of boilerplate 'and this is why we need an international communist revolution', and the tone is a bit defeatist.

On the other hand Riofrancos hints (barely though) at what a reorganisation of social life might be like (although only via links) - reconfiguring urban environments to be walk/cycle friendly, massive changes in agriculture. But... these are seen as policy tweaks which can be fought for within the framework of US state stimulus, not things which must happen and which major factions of capital and the US state will fight.

What I think both are missing (and I'm not sure I've seen a recent article that does this either) is a bit more of an overview of the changes that actually need to be made - utopian or not - a projection of how particular areas of social life in highly-polluting countries could/must change to slow down or reverse capitalist ecocide.

We can then look at those changes and think about what might be won as concessions from capital by a mobilised working class, what might be implemented as top-down 'reforms' (and how that might undermine them), what is capital a complete barrier to etc. etc.

So there are obvious things like monocrop industrial agriculture (especially on drained wetlands). Built-in obsolescence (everything from shoddy furniture to electrical/electronics) and the massive extraction and energy required to replace those goods. The sheer waste of people commuting to/from pointless jobs in cars ten times per week (let alone the jobs themselves). And there are solutions to these things (cut out all the pointless work, ensure goods are durable/repairable/upgradeable, switch at least some agriculture from mega-farms to urban/suburban gardening etc., switch from individual car ownership to vehicle pools (which would include cars as well as e/cargo bikes and etc.) which all enable resources to be used more efficiently without actually making things worse for people.

Some of them are completely impossible in a capitalist system, some capital might pay lip-service to or try to co-opt, some might be won as concessions but insufficient on their own - but can't talk about that unless you know what people actually think is necessary.

donald parkinson

To deal with climate change will require a far greater level of planning than we've seen in any capitalist state, and this planning, unlike that in the US during WII or the USSR will have to centralize on an international scale.

I was going through this thread, and though I agree with the general idea that stopping climate breakdown will require a lot of planned intervention and social reorganization, I don't think this means necessarily that this will take the same form as state planning of wartime production, or USSR-style bureaucratic planning of industrial expansion (the "planning of value" as Robert Kurz called it).

I'm not really sure about how different strains of anarchist thought relate to this concept, apart from those strains that link it fully and exclusively to capitalism and state socialism/state capitalism.

I think the idea of "conscious social planning" and the possibility that this takes highly decentralized/autonomic but still coordinated forms, and that it can be directly related to social self-determination away from capitalist disciplines, seems very worthwhile at least to counterpose to the more inherently hierarchical forms, centralized state planning etc., that most people almost exclusively have in mind when they say 'planning'.

Edit:
There's an interesting discussion on the requirements, problems and different conceptions of Green New Deals - does it mean a massive investment towards a "green industrial revolution" or "limits to growth" qua materials and energy throughput? - on the site of Steadystate Manchester. The article ends on a note of how socialism and ecosocialism (of the anti-productivist variety) come back onto the agenda because of what capitalist relations render impossible:
https://steadystatemanchester.net/2019/02/28/what-kind-of-a-green-deal-the-implications-of-material-and-monetary-flows/#sdfootnote41sym

And the left think tank Autonomy has published a short research-based paper arguing how a radical reduction of work hours (to a 9-hour work week) could serve to reduce GHG emissions:
http://autonomy.work/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/The-Ecological-Limits-of-Work-final.pdf

The Green New Deal Can’t Be Anything Like the New Deal - Samuel Miller McDonald
https://newrepublic.com/article/153996/green-new-deal-cant-anything-like-new-deal

Why It Is Too Late for the Green New Deal (As Presently Envisioned) - Bill Henderson
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-05-30/why-it-is-too-late-for-the-green-new-deal-as-presently-envisioned/

Just looking back at Mike's post #37 I thought this short article, addressing the 'urban-rural divide',
modern World Bank influenced agricultural changes and the effects of pesticide use, was useful in highlighting the continuing damage to the ecology and human life from global capitalism whilst briefly intimating that there were some limited efforts to resist this which though inadequate pointed to the possibilities that a different libertarian communist society could benefit from. See here:
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2019/no-1378-june-2019/when-profit-is-all/

Below is Peter Gelderloos' sketch of an "anarchist solution to climate change" - or what social life might look like when the dust has settled and capitalism and fossil fuel-based productivism are gone:

https://anzacgf.home.blog/2019/07/12/an-anarchist-solution-to-global-warming-peter-gelderloos/

Many in the ecology movement have accused socialists of ignoring the environment but here is Anton Pannekoek in 1909 writing about the topic, that could easily have been text from today

https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-destruction-of-nature-1909-by-anton.html

"...This is an economy which does not think of the future but lives only in the immediate present. In today’s economic order, nature does not serve humanity, but capital. It is not the clothing, food or cultural needs of humanity that govern production, but capital’s appetite for profit, for gold. Natural resources are exploited as if reserves were infinite and inexhaustible. The harmful consequences of deforestation for agriculture and the destruction of useful animals and plants expose the finite character of available reserves and the failure of this type of economy..."

Thank you for digging out that Pannekoek piece, it's great.

Another pretty good article from a Left communist viewpoint drawing on Monbiot's more recent 'anti-capitalism' comments:
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2019-08-12/''capitalism-is-dead''-george-monbiot-but-only-the-world-working-class-can-bury-it

Spikymike

Another pretty good article from a Left communist viewpoint drawing on Monbiot's more recent 'anti-capitalism' comments:
http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2019-08-12/''capitalism-is-dead''-george-monbiot-but-only-the-world-working-class-can-bury-it

Cheers.
I think the url was edited by admins, here's a working link: http://libcom.org/blog/capitalism-dead-george-monbiot-only-world-working-class-can-bury-it-21082019

Another interesting article: I'd be interested in what folks here think of the arguments in this one by Jasper Bernes, who also wrote the "Between the Devil and the Green New Deal" one:

https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/2018/08/04/the-belly-of-the-revolution-agriculture-energy-and-the-future-of-communism/

Basically he's arguing that future revolutions (at least initially successful ones) will necessarily need to involve a near-instantaneous reorganization of social reproduction and food production in a way that's much more a matter of hands-on mass agroecology than what some might imagine (urban conceptions of post-work futures, etc.).

(It's a chapter from a book, Materialism and the Critique of Energy, free pdf here: http://www.mcmprime.com/books/marxism-and-energy. Seems quite solid/interesting.)

And this is very much in the same direction:
Samuel Miller McDonald - Lifecycle of a leaf
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/08/lifecycle-of-a-leaf