Bill Neal's notes

These notes by Bill Neal came my way as part of a discussion of the talk I'll be giving in L.A.:

"There has been a sea change around the question of global warning over the last year. The media no longer considers denial as credible and major outlets are running significant series on aspects of environmental destruction. NPR has a year long series partnering with National Geographic that has been powerful, if weak on solutions. Two major movies have been released and the Al Gore one has become a major framework for the debate. Meanwhile, the US Congress has done nothing, the White House continues to stalemate efforts that don't go after China and India, and the models being put forward are overwhelmingly focused on consumer solutions ( i.e. the light bulbs and Prius solution). What all this means is that given current trends there is no way permanent, irreversible environmental destruction that threatens human existence will NOT happen.

I don't think we can fully grasp what this means. The world depression in the 1930's became the dominant geopolitical factor in international politics. The threat of nuclear annihilation dominated the politics of resistance in the post WW2 1950's Cold War framework. Similarly, environmental concerns are going to be forced to the center of geopolitics in the coming era and reshape perspectives, politics, and even theory.

No one is better positioned to provide a framework for explaining the crisis and putting forward the best solution than Marxists. Ultimately this talk is about the theory of accumulation for accumulations sake, and the nature of competition under capitalism, the alienation of the working class, and the inadequacy of reformism to solve the problem. The anti-human, destructive aspects of capitalism are laid bare when exposed to a Marxist analysis. The long term unworkability of capitalism becomes evident, and the sobering reality of the need for revolution becomes clearer. The only question is 'will it be too late?'

Along the way questions are raised that are complex and difficult for socialists, and ones which we all too infrequently discuss. Why can't reforms work, surely it is also in capital's interest to defend the health of the planet? What drives accumulation for accumulations sake? Can't it be modified by state oversight? Is the post-industrial economy a good thing because it will lower pollution? What is wrong with consumer solutions and are socialists actually against them? Then what can individuals do other than wait until it gets worse? What are working class solutions to the problem? Aren't worker's interests counter-posed to the environment because they depend upon the jobs industry provides? What is the socialist strategy for reforms? What guarantee is there that socialism will be better? Haven't socialist countries have been some of the worst polluters? What replaces accumulation and competition under socialism? What would socialist production look like? How can we galvanize working people around a socialist vision of production? We have a lot to learn about economics, explaining economics, arguing reform or revolution in this context, agitating for demands that the working class can rally behind, explaining socialism, and making environmental arguments part of our repertoire.

By the way, there is nothing inevitable about the Socialist solution winning out in this struggle. That brings up the question of organization and class politics. I think this kind of talk gives people the kind of big picture/scale of the crisis/urgency of socialism framework that would flow into the rest of the day well."