[WSF-Discuss] [Fwd: State, Revolution and Global Social Emancipation]

[Madhuresh]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	State, Revolution and Global Social Emancipation
Date: 	Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:04:00 +0200
From: 	peter waterman <p.waterman at inter.nl.net>
To: 	<nigd-list at nigd.org>, "Elsa Duhagon" <eduhagon at item.org.uy>, 
"CACIM" <cacim at cacim.net>, "Chico Whitaker" <intercom at cidadania.org.br>, 
<ginavargas at telefonica.net.pe>, Tord Björk <tord.bjork at telia.com>, 
"Francine Mestrum" <fb208648 at skynet.be>



Here's an exchange on global climate change that I would consider relevant 
to our recent dialogue about the World Social Forum and its relations with 
the statepersons (and therefore the state and inter-state institutions).

What is at issue in this exchange is the relationship between the global 
justice and solidarity movement, the state and social transformation.

My sympathies are largely with Ewa Jasiewicz. This is because, whether she 
misquoted George Monbiot or not, he is not only prioritising climate change 
over and against social transformation, but repeating the traditional social 
movement error of trusting the state (nice governments) and/or capital (nice 
CEOs) to unfuck what they have repeatedly fucked up.

Whilst we have never yet seen a revolution that did not disappoint (and 
often devour) its children, I see no reason why we cannot combine the 
struggle for global social emancipation with every kind of concession or 
reform we can wring out of forces, institutions, ideologies that encapsulate 
alienation and destruction: capital, state/bureuacracy, patriarchy, church, 
the military, empire (and anything I've left out).

Readers might prefer the items in chronological order, therefore with Ewa 
Jasiewicz (1), followed by George Monbiot (2) and then my brief response to 
them both (3).

I have cleaned up the address details.

Thanks to Patrick Bond for posting the first two on 
debate at debate.kabissa.org.

Please forward  to relevant lists.

PeterW

***************************************************************************************************

3.

From: "peter waterman" <p.waterman at inter.nl.net>

Anarchism and climate debate - Ewa Jasiewicz and George Monbiot


> Maybe neither Ewa nor George 'get's it'.
>
> It is only by identifying with the poorest, most marginalised, most
> endangered, classes or communities, that one can put fear and urgency into
> the minds of the hegemons.
>
> In the meantime, by increasing one's autonomy from the hegemons, by this
> identification downwards, and by increasing 'the power of the powerless',
> one can ensure we don't get re-incorporated by them, begin to reproduce
> their alienating practice.
>
> A final thought addressed to Ewa: let us surpass those old labels and
> strategies which belong to earlier anti-hegemonic movements, such as
> 'revolution' (the turning upside down of society) and 'anarchism' (no
> government, laws, police, or other authority). Let us reinvent these as
> 'global social emancipation'. All respect to the historical tradition of
> anti-hegemonic movements, but new language demands new thought and 
> empowers
> new forms of action.
>
> Pw


****************************************************

1.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/21/climatechange.kingsnorthclimatecamp>>>> Time for a revolution:>> There can be no state solutions to climate change: governments won't>> give up the powers that lead to environmental ruin>> by Ewa Jasiewicz>>>> Thursday August 21 2008 08:00BST>>>> There was a joke going round the Climate Camp in the last days. As well>> as the "wellbeing tent", which dealt with mildly traumatised activists>> on the receiving end of 5am police batons, someone proposed a>>"wellmeaning" tent. It would accommodate those who'd like to include>> state and capitalism-based solutions in the movement to reverse climate>> change. The camp's outer fence would curve into the wellmeaning tent to>>create a round-table for stakeholders including the police (successfully>> kept out of the site after days of stand-offs), E.ON UK and other energy>> industry representatives – tea and hand-wringing optional.>>>> Thejoke was prompted by a controversial presentation by George Monbiot,>> in which he endorsed the use of the state as a partner in resolving the>> climate crisis. Monbiot held the audience rapt as he explained the>> fundamental incompatibility of economic growth with the emission cuts>> needed to avert catastrophic climate change. Yet he confessed not>> knowing where to turn next to solve the issues of how to generate the>> changes necessary to shift our sources of energy, production and>> consumption, and where the state and capitalism fit in. He ended by>> endorsing the use ofthe state: "By God, let's use it". Amid the>> applause, some were appalled. Let me explain why.>>>> Many of the organisers of the climate camps honed their skills in the>> anti-roads movement of the mid-1990s. Some came from the traveller,>> squatter and free party communities, an alliance of resistance built up>> to counter the Criminal Justice and Public OrderAct 1994, which>> criminalised travellers and activists reclaiming land and buildings for>> social, cooperative use. These activists came from a culture of>> anti-authoritarian anti-capitalism – rejecting the property ladder and>> the commodification of living space, and embracing collective enjoyment,>> dance and music.>>>> The continuum of this culture of resistance, of a struggle for a>> commons, for control over one's own and one's family's life, for>> non-alienated labour and social interaction, stretches back to the>> Diggers, Levellers and the Luddites – English radicals struggling>> against the monarchy, taxes, land enclosure and austerity measures>> designed to empower a new industrial class, funded by a feudal and>> colonial land-grab and slavery.>>>> This historical memory, and these beliefs in a global commons, in>> leaderless, participative organising and grassroots anti-state and>> anti-capitalist action run deep through the camps. They're also informed>> by a culture of direct action anda refusal to accept top-down solutions>> and a system of parliamentary democracy that reduces participation in>> politics to 16 "X"s in a box in an average lifetime.>>>> But did Scargill and Monbiot really "get" the camp and its cultures of>> resistance? The latest edition of the NUM's newsletter criticised the>> camp for being too middle-class, anti-miner, and alienated from "real",>> genuine working class "realities". Are these representations fair? Many>> participants in the camp could be defined as the "precariat" –>> neoliberalism's answer to the proletariat. No longer an urbanised worker>> in a regular job in for a majority of their workinglife, the precariat>> lives and works in a precarious state, at the mercy of a deregulated>> labour market. Work is dominated by casualisation, flexible and migrant>> labour, zero-hour contracts, temping, seasonal work, home working,>> self-employment and unemployment. Many at the camp forma part of this>> working class, no more in the control of the means of production than>> energy industry workers here or China or Poland.>>>> State solutions to the climate crisis were presented to us 10 years ago>> through the Kyoto protocol – what were they? To privatise the air we>> breathe and turn carbon emissions into commodities, to buy and sell>> atmospheric poison, to create a new market of trading in the means of>> ecological destruction. It's no wonder many at the camp reject state>> solutions to climate change.>>>> Entertaining as the two-minutes-in-a-room-full-of-poison standoff>> between Monbiot and Scargill is, this gesture politics isn't getting to>> the heart of the fight. The question is, who and under what conditions,>> controls decision-making, and has climate-changing power? Who will pay>> the price of exile from family and common land, water and food>> insecurity, as land and rivers become polluted or diverted into the>> energy industry's use, for bauxite, uranium, coal, and iron-ore to build>> new infrastructure, power nuclear energy, expand the global coal market>> and concomitant infrastructure to perpetuate the whole process?>>>> How do we bring about a transformation which empowers us all? Grassroots>> organising in cooperative, low-impact, sustainable ways, glimpsed at the>> Climate Camp, and practised daily by millions, is one way towards this.>> Another is to live at the sharpest end of climate chaos today.>>>> So how about this for a challenge, George and Arthur? Spend two months,>> not two minutes, (together!) living in Matlu Camp in Jharsuguda,in>> Orissa province, India. One of the poorest states on earth, here inthe>> heart of India's coal belt, are families displaced by mining, living in>> a polluted form of captivity. Where our very own Department for>>International Development has been restructuring governance, reinforcing>> the mining industries, and guiding land reforms allowing for the felling>> of pristine forest, more tribal resettlement and more environmental>> destruction.>>>> Changing our sources of energy without changing our sources of economic>> and political power will not make a difference. Neither coal nor nuclear>> are the "solution", we need a revolution.>>*******************************************************************************2.Identity Politics in Climate Change Hell>> Posted August 22, 2008>>>> Do you want to save the biosphere or boost your own brand of politics?>> Youcan’t do both.>>>> By George Monbiot. Published on Comment is Free, 22nd August 2008>>>> If you want a glimpse of how the movement against climate change could>> crumble faster than a summer snowflake, read Ewa Jasiewicz’s article,>> published yesterday on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site(1). It is a>> fine example of the identity politics that plagued direct action>> movements during the 1990s, and from which the new generation of>> activists has so far been mercifully free.>>>> Ewa rightly celebrates the leaderless, autonomous model of organising>> that has made this movement so effective. The two climate camps I have>> attended – thisyear and last – were among the most inspiring events>> I’ve ever witnessed. I am awed by the people who organised them, who>> managed to create, under extraordinary pressure, safe, functioning,>> delightful spaces in which we could debate the issues and plan the>> actions which thrust Heathrow and Kingsnorth into the public eye.>> Climate camp is a tribute to the anarchist politics that Jasiewicz>> supports.>>>> But in seeking toextrapolate from this experience to a wider social>> plan, she makes twograve errors. The first is to confuse ends and>> means. She claims to want to stop global warming, but she makes that>> task 100 times harder by rejecting all state and corporate solutions. It>> seems to me that what she really wants to do is to create an anarchist>> utopia, and use climatechange as an excuse to engineer it.>>>> Stopping runaway climate change must take precedence over every other>> aim. Everyone in this movement knows that there is very little time: the>> window of opportunity in which we can prevent two degrees of warming is>> closing fast. We have to use all the resources we can lay hands on, and>> these must include both governments and corporations. Or perhaps she>> intends to build the installations required to turn the energy economy>> around - wind farms, wave machines, solar thermal plants in the Sahara,>> new grid connections and public transport systems - herself?>>>> Her article is a terryifying example of the ability some people have to>> put politics first and facts second when confronting the greatest>> challenge humanity now faces. The facts are as follows. Runaway climate>> change is bearing down on us fast. We require a massive political and>> economic response to prevent it. Governments and corporations, whether>> we like it or not, currently control both money and power. Unless we>> manage to mobilise them, we stand a snowball’s chance in climate hell of>> stopping the collapse of the biosphere. Jasiewicz would ignore all these>> inconvenient truths because they conflict with her politics.>>>> “Changing our sources of energy without changing our sources of economic>> and political power”, she asserts, “will not make a difference. Neither>> coal nor nuclear are the “solution”, we need a revolution.” So before we>> are allowed to begin cutting greenhouse gas emissions, we must first>> overthrow all political structures and replace them with autonomous>> communities of happy campers. All this must take place within a couple>> of months, as there is so little time in which we could prevent two>> degrees of warming. This is magical thinking of the most desperate kind.>> If I were an executive of E.On or Exxon, I would be delighted by this>> political posturing, as it provides a marvellous distraction from our>> real aims.>>>> To support her argument,Jasiewicz misrepresents what I said at climate>> camp. She claims that I“confessed not knowing where to turn next to>> solve the issues of howto generate the changes necessary to shift our>> sources of energy, production and consumption”. I confessed nothing of>> the kind. In my book Heat I spell out what is required to bring about a>> 90% cut in emissionsby 2030. Instead I confessed that I don’t know how>> to solve the problem of capitalism without resorting to totalitarianism.>>>> The issue is that capitalism involves lending money at interest. If you>> lend at 5%, then one of two things must happen. Either the money supply>> must increase by 5% or the velocity of circulation must increase by 5%.>> In either case, if this growth is not met by a concomitant increase in>> the supplyof goods and services, it becomes inflationary and the system>> collapses. But a perpetual increase in the supply of goods and services>> will eventually destroy the biosphere. So how do we stall this process?>> Even when usurers were put to death and condemned to perpetual>> damnation, thepractice couldn’t be stamped out. Only the communist>> states managed it, through the extreme use of the state control Ewa>> professes to hate.I don’t yet have an answer to this conundrum. Doesshe?>>>> Yes, let usfight both corporate power and the undemocratic tendencies>> of the state. Yes, let us try to crack the problem of capitalism and>> then fight for a different system. But let us not confuse this task with>> the immediate need to stop two degrees of warming, or allow it to>> interfere with the carbon cuts that have to begin now.>>>> Ewa’s second grave error is to imagine that society could be turned into>> a giant climate camp. Anarchism is a great means of organising a>> self-elected community of like-minded people. It is a disastrous means>> of organising a planet. Most anarchists envisage their system as the>> means by which the oppressed can free themselves from persecution. But>> if everyone is to be free from thecoercive power of the state, this>> must apply to the oppressors as wellas the oppressed. The richest and>> most powerful communities on earth -be they geographical communities or>> communities of interest - will be as unrestrained by external forces as>> the poorest and weakest. As a friend of mine put it, “when the anarchist>> utopia arrives, the first thing that will happen is that every Daily>> Mail reader in the country willpick up a gun and go and kill the>> nearest hippy.”>>>> This is why, though both sides furiously deny it, the outcome of both>> market fundamentalism and anarchism, if applied universally, is>> identical. The anarchists associate with the oppressed, the market>> fundamentalists with the oppressors. But by eliminating the state, both>> remove such restraints asprevent the strong from crushing the weak.>> Ours is not a choice between government and no government. It is a>> choice between government and the mafia.>>>> Over the past year I have been working with groups of climate protesters>> who have changed my view of what could be achieved. Most of them are>> under 30, and they bring to this issue a clear-headedness and pragmatism>> that I have never encountered in direct action movements before. They>> are prepared to take extraordinary risks to try to defend the biosphere>> from the corporations, governments and social trends which threaten to>> make it uninhabitable. They do so for one reason only: that they love>> the world and fear for its future. It would be a tragedy if, through the>> efforts of people like Ewa, they were to be diverted from this urgent>> task into the identity politics that have wrecked so manymovements.>>>> www.monbiot.com>>>> References:>>>> 1. Ewa Jasiewicz, 21st August 2008. Time for a revolution. Comment is>> Free.>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/21/climatechange.kingsnorthclimatecamp>>>>


-- 

**********************************************
CACIM, A-3 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110 024, India
Ph : +91-11-4155 1521, +91-98-1890 5316 (Mobile)
madhuresh at cacim.net / kmadhuresh at gmail.com 
www.cacim.net
Check out the OpenSpaceForum @ www.openspaceforum.net
 
Subscribe to WSFDiscuss, an open and unmoderated forum on the World Social Forum and on related social and political movements and issues. Simply send an empty email to worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe at openspaceforum.net
 
And, NEW ! : Join CEOS at openspaceforum.net, the CEOS (Critical Engagement with Open Space) listserve for exchange and coordination on open space theory and practice and to facilitate a critical discussion of the idea of ‘open space’.  Just send an empty mail to CEOS-subscribe at openspaceforum.net