The left and the ecologists
YOU DO REALIZE THAT YOU NEED
TO GET YOUR POPULATION UNDER CONTROL!
HOW ELSE CAN WE MAINTAIN OUR
QUALITY OF LIFE!
International Viewpoint #245 May 1993
THE Rio conference in 1992 was centrally concerned with ecological problems. But it was, by its nature, unable to come up with solutions. At the conference itself the interests of the Western powers, and especially of the United States, prevented any serious measures being taken.
TR Nonetheless, the very fact that the conference took place is a sign of the pressure of growing public awareness of ecological issues. SAMI JOSHUA Marseilles, April, 1993
T HE revolutionary socialist
left has begun to address ecological issues, both in the sense of trying to meet a new challenge and of resuscitating traditional conceptions. This process has only just begun, but a practical political question has already come to the fore: the existence of movements that claim to present a new overall political vision based on ecology, which often entails a radical critique of society as it is. This text considers what common ground exists for a far-reaching alliance between revolutionary socialism and such ecology-based political movements.
My starting point is not that of the "social base" of the political ecological movements, but solely that of their programme and practice. Furthermore, I only deal with that part of the ecological movement which I define as genuinely democratic — the term "left" is not very useful in drawing distinctions amongst ecologists. This initial sorting is essential given that even some democratic" ecologists inhabit a world close to ecofascism.
There are two main schools of thought concerning humanity's relations with nature: the determinists who believe that the ecological environment more or less determines what people can do with nature and the possibilists who see no inevitable inbuilt limits.
The first have been proved wrong by history, since recent centuries have shown to what extent the environment can really be transformed. However determinism has made a come-back at an ideological level - the change may be real, but it involves the breaking of a taboo and for this a price must be paid. You do not get away with interfering with nature's harmonies!
Socialists can find no common ground with this outlook. It fosters the growth of all kinds of backward looking notions and makes it impossible to consider new solutions to humanity's problems - which involve a further change in humanity's relations with nature.
### Natural limits
Despite the odd aside in the classics, Marxism has always tended to possibilism. This flows from an exaggeration of the importance of social factors in determining the limits of the possible in terms of relations with nature. In this optic, only a specific mode of production, capitalism, stands in the way of an explosive development of the productive forces, in which the manipulation of nature is simply a matter of will, of making the ideological break.
In its extreme form this produced the
Russian pseudo-biologist Lysenko who asserted that it was possible to free oneself from the "bourgeois" laws of genetics discovered by Mendel. Even Engels sometimes sinned in this respect, in particular in the Dialectic of Nature where he sets out "laws of dialectics" which he uses to pass judgement on the validity of scientific hypotheses.
The whole Marxist literature is marked by these tendencies, in particular when dealing with the limits of humanity's ability to dominate nature. It is curious in this respect that no one doubts the existence of physico-chemical limits without the same being true for biological or even geological limits. "All bodies attract in direct relation to their mass and in inverse proportion to the square of their distance" — does anyone lose any sleep over this law?
We must now also admit that similar constraints exist in our relations with nature, as understood from an ecological point of view (eco-systems, biocenoses and biotopes) and that they form an additional limit to human omnipotence to which everyone can agree.!
But to accept such limits is not to accept some absolute (and elusive) notion of natural harmony. The land1. Biocenosis - An association of animals and plants living in equlibrium in a given biological milieu. Biotope — A fixed biological milieu offering a fixed animal and plant population a relatively stable living space.
29
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
ECOLOGY ORIL
International Viewpoint #245 May 1993 scape, flora and fauna of most of the planet already depend on human activity. This already ancient process can only speed up. This means that the natural harmony whatever it was is lost and gone at least insofar as human activity is not included in the definition of that har-
The recognition of the existence of a constraint does not mean bowing before it. Such a recognition is simply an essential condition for overcoming it. From Newton's law of the attraction of bodies it follows that all bodies fall to earth. But nonetheless, we can fly without being birds. Attempts to fly in the manner of Icarus or Leonardo de Vinci are doomed to failure. Only once I have had the humility to recognize that I can fall do I have the chance of inventing the airplane, which also "falls" but counters this fall permanently.
Alchemy can only nourish false hopes in the search for the philosopher's stone that can change base lead into pure gold. The recognition of the natural constraint set out by Lavoisier ("nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything changes") on the other hand allows the birth of chemistry. In a non-positivist conception of science, the constraints revealed by ecology are of exactly the same nature as those affecting older sciences.
There is no particular reason to treat them differently, unless we feel attached to use an upended version of Comte's hierarchy of the sciences. He placed physics at the top, but we could place physics on the side of artifice and evil and ecology on the side of the natural and the good.
### Complex objects
Of course, the objects that ecology deals with are complex. An ecological study even of a very simple system has to take into account a large number of factors. As a result the prevalent theoretical framework in ecology is that of system dynamics, that is, the study of complex objects and their dynamic development through the inter-relation of their component parts and their relations with other systems. Most systems of this type evolve towards their destruction. Some evolve towards harmony or — to put it another way - survive as a more or less self-identical system for a period of time considered sufficient in the framework of the chosen model.
Physics has long known how to predict how a system will evolve. Thanks to chaos theory, it is now trying to pre30
• dict with increasing success intermediary situations between the two extremes outlined above. Ecology, on the other hand, despite its dazzling theoretical growth, remains for the moment reliable mainly when dealing with the past - a long-standing system has good reasons to be in harmony and the search is on (often successfully) for the reasons for a sudden breakdown. Chaos theory tends to a pessimistic outlook in terms of medium-term prospects.
But science moves fast and that can also change. The results of an ecological approach upset the notion of the "domination of nature" but only in the sense that any scientific revolution does.
In any case they do not call into question the special character of human activity, that is to subject nature and make it work to humanity's benefit (which implies, as we have seen, understanding the constraints it
No way back
Accepting the great significance of the capitalist revolution means recognizing that there is no way back. Most political ecology movements thus talk about the need for "other relations with nature" and "eco-development" rather than a search for a mythical natural harmony. Even eco-development is a type of development, that is to say a higher and not lower form of the mastery of nature.
This being so, we ought to be able to dispense with some demagogic flourishes which make a public splash but which have a purely ideological foundation. A case in point is the notion of "inter-species solidarity" which some ecologists have proposed as one of the movement's three great principles. No one questions that the disappearance of an animal or vegetable species is an irreversible loss seriously hindering the future use of genetic diversity. But can we really imagine solidarity in the full sense of the term?
This principle is rooted in the myth of original natural harmony, and while defence of the whale or the African elephant may make the front page, little has so far been done in pursuit of solidarity with the locust and the tsetse fly. Indeed, the very point of "biological" agriculture is to change the balance among species against those considered harmful -showing a distinct lack of solidarity with the species to be wiped out.
Ecology itself warns us against such a rose-tinted view. The equilibrium of an eco-system is seen as the product of a struggle between species as much as of cooperation between them, far removed from any cross-species solidarity. The rational core of the "principle" of interspecies solidarity is that, contrary to the belief that has underlain the practice of thousands of years intervention at one point of the eco-system has an impact on the whole chain and thus a potential cost. This notion implies a sharp return to reality; it is not only necessary to take account of this cost but also to surrender the idea that any definitive solution is possible, even where matters currently appear to be well under control, an example being the appearance of resistance to insecticides and antibiotics.
The ecological press is full of salutary warnings on this score. But there is no justification for then smuggling in some general principle of non-intervention — as ever via the ideological path of "nature's harmony".
"To be radical is to go to the root. But, for man, the root is man himself". This quotation from Paris Manuscripts of the young Marx, contains some good sense, despite its idealist shell. What other guide do we have for making hard choices but the interests of humanity? And why should this formula, with all the necessary qualifications. be unacceptable to all ecologists?
### Reasoned intervention
Agreement can therefore be reached on the notion of reasoned intervention into nature. But this notion needs to be filled out. How are we to decide what is reasonable in this case? Far too many ecologists claim that we must ask the scientists, as is also the case with the signatories of the "anti-ecologist" Heidelberg manifesto.2
In the latter document a veritable galaxy of Nobel prizewinners warn us of the "irrational choices" proposed by the ecologists and call on us to pay heed to science.
By this they mean their own science, which they claim as the only true science as opposed to that of the ecological 2. The Heidelberg Appeal was signed by scientists and other celebrities. It attacks "the emergence of an irrational ideology opposed to scientific and industrial progress and harmful to economic and social development". Pleading for a scientific ecology, it denounces the unproved assumptions hidden under the notion of an "idealized state of nature". The signatories write: "our aim is to affirm the responsibility and duty of science towards society as a whole. The greatest evils threatening our planet are ignorance and oppression and not science, technology whose instruments, insofar as they are properly used, are indispensable tools that can enable humanity by itself and for itself, to put an end to such scourges as over-population, hunger and disease". (Le Monde, June 3, 1992).
International Viewpoint #245 May 1993 upstarts peddling alarmist predictions via an ignorant and undiscriminating mass media. However, in fact science does not provide grounds for all decisions, including for many absolutely crucial ones. Politics remains the sphere for choices involving the future of humanity, and only the mapping out and pursuit of new choices with all the risks this entails can open up new realistic perspectives — through a process of
The ecologists state that clearing of the planet, the rates of growth of production, of material goods and the rates of population growth are taking us towards catastrophe. Although we cannot be sure if they are right on this or that point, statistical comparison of the accelerated rhythm of these processes gives cause for reflection. Even if, in the abstract, Africa could support the same population as the Netherlands, it is hard to see by what miracle it could actually support the necessary population growth under any imaginable social regime.
### Productivist ideology
For ecologists, countering these trends also means countering the productivist ideology which holds that an increase in material wealth is a good thing itself. The ecologists' are in a sense appealing for a change in the principles of economic calculation to integrate the long-term and indirect costs of production while hoping to stimulate a debate on the direction of production.
This demand is ours also, even if some ecologists imagine they have already resolved the discussion - in particular on the way to ensure a massive advance in productive capacities of the world's dominated countries.
In my view, the abandonment of productivism is not only related to ecological questions. I believe it is also a necessary condition for communism, the building of which is tied as much to the advance of popular control over the labour process as to a relative reduction in compulsory labour.
In this sense, productivism is incompatible with progress towards the dying out of the social division of labour (without which, no communism) and with democratic control of social decision-making. Without going further into the matter, I feel quite comfortable with the abandonment of productivism, which I consider a major condition for the success of the communist project.
Here, having touched on the issue of democratic decision-making, we have come upon ecologist preoccupations from another angle. "Defence of the environment" leads into a whole new field of considerations about the functioning and preconditions for democracy. The big issue is that of the compatibility of local democratic demands and democracy at the centre. Often ecologists mistakenly present such relations as non-contradictory by nature, "the environment" desirable for the one also being the one desired by the other. But this is not evident at all.
Furthermore, revolutionary socialists also often underestimate this problem, in this case due to a certain candeur about addressing such issues and the rather one-sided universalism that impregnates
Here, even more than convergent positions, we find an area of common debate which we can have with political ecology and from which both sides can
If all the above could be deepened into a common struggle against capitalism as a social system, then I would be talking about fusion rather than alliance. But this is not on the cards.
This is perhaps simply for transient reasons — on our side in tackling ecological questions but mainly owing to the crisis of the socialist perspective.
### Social relations
However, there are also possibly more basic theoretical reasons. In the ecological press, there are hardly any references to overall capitalist social relations. Even the most systematically "left" often openly state that these relations are immutable, at least for the coming historical period. Indeed, it is not impossible to imagine a sort of "historic compromise" between the ecological vision and "modern" capitalists who accept the existence of ecological limits. Then these limits would be integrated into the market framework and ecology itself would become a new market. Signs of this can be seen every day, with the use of ecological themes to promote goods, the development of the de-pollution industry, water and waste management and so on.
It is thus absurd to say that in principle capitalism cannot, by its very nature, face up to ecological constraints. It can, but only in its own way, concerning itself only with what is profitable and thus almost solely in the "developed" part of the world. From this point of view it has the same capacities and limitations as in other fields.
However, one may argue, on some of these questions, capitalism's traditional limitations — tied to the inability to go beyond a local, immediate and profit-orientated point of view in a lasting way — will come into conflict with ecological demands of world scope. This is certainly true, but this is also true for a whole range of other areas including that of the "economy" in its classical definition. As a result, if the problems to be resolved have changed, with the addition of ecological questions to the others — capitalism's inability -or limited ability — to cope remains rooted in is its basic characteristics.
If you believe that the urgency of tackling ecological questions on the world scale requires overcoming that congenital incapacity, then it follows that a stepped up struggle is needed against the capitalist system whose very nature blocks the search for, and implementation of, adequate solutions.
Criticism of profit motive
A few notable exceptions aside, no precise statements on this issue can be found. That said, the criticism of the prioritisation of short term profit, the omnipotence of the commodity and the dictatorship of the market are ever-present in the same texts. What looks to us like theoretical incoherence does not seem like that to the ecologists.
Here then is another topic for debate but also a meeting point for alliances. At each decision, whether over the development of a new ski resort, population policy or the great road versus rail debate the question arises: should profitability be the guide or are there other cri-
Obviously, the struggle against capitalist social relations — and not just against their consequences - involves other dimensions, for example fostering the unity and independence of the working class. Such tasks cannot be centrally posed in the immediate term in the debate with the ecologists, given the weakness of the class perspective as a whole. But the range of shared preoccupations is already significant.
Thus, the debate on the basis of an alliance with the political ecology movement is both useful and rewarding. Useful, because it forces us to reconsider a whole dimension of Marxism. Rewarding, because it permits the working out of a basis for lasting alliances which can eventually find expression in daily social practice. But that is another story. *
31
The end of an era
The legislative elections of March 1993 represent a major turnaround in the French situation. A page has been turned. The period which began at the start of the 1970s, with the Union of the Left and then the coming to power of the Socialist Party in 1981, has come to an end.
International Viewpoint #245 May 1993
1995 presidential elections are already on the horizon and when a deep-going attack from the ruling classes can be expected.
The collapse of the Stalinist system in the East and the crisis of social democracy in the West have produced widespread
CHRISTIAN PICQUET & FRANÇOIS OLLIVIER — Paris, April 28, 1993
T HE RIGHT and far-right
received, in the second round, 63% of votes cast, while the total number of votes cast for the left and the ecologists was well below 40%. For the first time in decades, the left fell more than 25% behind all the reactionary parties taken together. The Socialist Party and Communist Party have a marginal presence in the new National Assembly, incapablre of exerting any influence in the institutional game.
As a result of a particularly unfair electoral system, the left's defeat has been greatly amplified; nonetheless, the results reflect a deterioration in the relationship of forces to the detriment of working people.