File: secE1.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 13.4-1
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: squeeze, wheezy
size: 24,760 kB
ctags: 640
sloc: makefile: 27
file content (649 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 41,225 bytes
parent folder | download | duplicates (2)
<html>
<head>

<title>E.1 What are the root causes of our ecological problems?</title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>E.1 What are the root causes of our ecological problems?</h1>

<p>
The dangers associated with environmental damage have become better
known over the last few decades. In fact, awareness of the crisis we
face has entered into the mainstream of politics. Those who assert
that environmental problems are minor or non-existent have, thankfully,
become marginalised (effectively, a few cranks and so-called "scientists"
funded by corporations and right-wing think tanks). Both politicians
and corporations have been keen to announce their "green" credentials.
Which is ironic, as anarchists would argue that both the state and
capitalism are key causes for the environmental problems we are facing.
</p><p>
In other words, anarchists argue that pollution and the other environmental 
problems we face are symptoms. The disease itself is deeply imbedded in the
system we live under and need to be addressed alongside treating the more
obvious results of that deeper cause. Otherwise, to try and eliminate the 
symptoms <b>by themselves</b> can be little more than a minor palliative and, 
fundamentally, pointless as they will simply keep reappearing until their
root causes are eliminated.
</p><p>
For anarchists, as we noted in <a href="secA3.html#seca33">section A.3.3</a>, 
the root causes for our
ecological problems lie in social problems. Bookchin uses the terms
<i>"first nature"</i> and <i>"second nature"</i> to express this idea. First nature
is the environment while second nature is humanity. The latter can
shape and influence the former, for the worse or for the better. How
it does so depends on how it treats itself. A decent, sane and 
egalitarian society will treat the environment it inhabits in a 
decent, sane and respective way. A society marked by inequality, 
hierarchies and exploitation will trend its environment as its members
treat each other. Thus <i>"all our notions of dominating nature stem 
from the very real domination of human by human."</i> The <i>"domination 
of human by human <b>preceded</b> the notion of dominating nature. Indeed,
human domination of human gave rise to the very <b>idea</b> of dominating
nature."</i> This means, obviously, that <i>"it is not until we eliminate
domination in all its forms . . . that we will really create a 
rational, ecological society."</i> [<b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 44] 
</p><p>
By degrading ourselves, we create the potential for degrading our 
environment. This means that anarchists <i>"emphasise that ecological 
degradation is, in great part, a product of the degradation of human 
beings by hunger, material insecurity, class rule, hierarchical 
domination, patriarchy, ethnic discrimination, and competition."</i> 
[Bookchin, <i>"The Future of the Ecology Movement,"</i> pp. 1-20, <b>Which 
Way for the Ecology Movement?</b>, p. 17] This is unsurprising, for
<i>"nature, as every materialist knows, is not something merely external
to humanity. We are a part of nature. Consequently, in dominating nature
we not only dominate an 'external world' -- we also dominate ourselves."</i> 
[John Clark, <b>The Anarchist Moment</b>, p. 114]
</p><p>
We cannot stress how important this analysis is. We cannot ignore <i>"the 
deep-seated division in society that came into existence with hierarchies 
and classes."</i> To do so means placing <i>"young people and old, women and men, 
poor and rich, exploited and exploiters, people of colour and whites <b>all</b> 
on a par that stands completely at odds with social reality. Everyone, 
in turn, despite the different burdens he or she is obliged to bear, is 
given the same responsibility for the ills of our planet. Be they starving 
Ethiopian children or corporate barons, all people are held to be equally 
culpable in producing present ecological problems."</i> These become 
<i>"<b>de-socialised</b>"</i> and so this perspective <i>"side-step[s] the profoundly 
social roots of present-day ecological dislocations"</i> and <i>"<b>deflects</b> 
innumerable people from engaging in a practice that could yield effective 
social change."</i> It <i>"easily plays into the hands of a privileged stratum 
who are only too eager to blame all the human victims of an exploitative 
society for the social and ecological ills of our time."</i> [<b>The Ecology
of Freedom</b>, p. 33]
</p><p>
Thus, for eco-anarchists, hierarchy is the fundamental root cause of
our ecological problems. Hierarchy, notes Bookchin includes economic 
class <i>"and even gives rise to class society historically"</i> but it 
<i>"goes beyond this limited meaning imputed to a largely economic form 
of stratification."</i> It refers to a system of <i>"command and obedience in 
which elites enjoy varying degrees of control over their subordinates 
without necessarily exploiting them."</i> [<b>Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 68]
Anarchism, he stressed, <i>"anchored ecological problems for the first 
time in hierarchy, not simply in economic classes."</i> [<b>Remaking Society</b>,
p. 155]
</p><p>
Needless to say, the forms of hierarchy have changed and evolved over
the years. The anarchist analysis of hierarchies goes <i>"well beyond economic
forms of exploitation into cultural forms of domination that exist in
the family, between generations and sexes, among ethnic groups, in 
institutions of political, economic, and social management, and very
significantly, in the way we experience reality as a whole, including
nature and non-human life-forms."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 46] This means that
anarchists recognise that ecological destruction has existed in most
human societies and is not limited just to capitalism. It existed, to
some degree, in all hierarchical pre-capitalist societies and, of
course, in any hierarchical post-capitalist ones as well. However, 
as most of us live under capitalism today, anarchists concentrate
our analysis to that system and seek to change it. 

Anarchists stress the need to end capitalism simply because of its
inherently anti-ecological nature (<i>"The history of 'civilisation' 
has been a steady process of estrangement from nature that has 
increasingly developed into outright antagonism."</i>). Our society 
faces <i>"a breakdown not only of its values and institutions, but 
also of its natural environment. This problem is not unique to our 
times"</i> but previous environmental destruction <i>"pales before 
the massive destruction of the environment that has occurred since 
the days of the Industrial Revolution, and especially since the end 
of the Second World War. The damage inflicted on the environment by 
contemporary society encompasses the entire world . . . The 
exploitation and pollution of the earth has damaged not only the
integrity of the atmosphere, climate, water resources, soil, flora
and fauna of specific regions, but also the basic natural cycles
on which all living things depend."</i> [Bookchin, <b>Ecology of Freedom</b>, 
p. 411 and p. 83] 
</p><p>
This has its roots in the "grow-or-die" nature of capitalism we
discussed in <a href="secD4.html">section D.4</a>. An ever-expanding capitalism must 
inevitably come into collision with a finite planet and its 
fragile ecology. Firms whose aim is to maximise their profits in 
order to grow will happily exploit whoever and whatever they can 
to do so. As capitalism is based on exploiting people, can we doubt 
that it will also exploit nature? It is unsurprising, therefore, that
this system results in the exploitation of the real sources of wealth, 
namely nature and people. It is as much about robbing nature as it is 
about robbing the worker. To quote Murray Bookchin:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Any attempt to solve the ecological crisis within a bourgeois framework
must be dismissed as chimerical. Capitalism is inherently anti-ecological.
Competition and accumulation constitute its very law of life, a law . . .
summarised in the phrase, 'production for the sake of production.' 
Anything, however hallowed or rare, 'has its price' and is fair game for 
the marketplace. In a society of this kind, nature is necessarily treated 
as a mere resource to be plundered and exploited. The destruction of
the natural world, far being the result of mere hubristic blunders,
follows inexorably from the very logic of capitalist production."</i>
[<b>Post-Scarcity Anarchism</b>, pp. viii-ix]
</blockquote></p><p>
So, in a large part, environmental problems derive from the fact that
capitalism is a competitive economy, guided by the maxim "grow or die." 
This is its very law of life for unless a firm expands, it will be 
driven out of business or taken over by a competitor. Hence the 
capitalist economy is based on a process of growth and production for 
their own sake. <i>"No amount of moralising or pietising,"</i> stresses 
Bookchin, <i>"can alter the fact that rivalry at the most molecular base 
of society is a bourgeois law of life . . . Accumulation to undermine, 
buy out, or otherwise absorb or outwit a competitor <b>is a condition for 
existence in a capitalist economic order.</b>"</i> This means <i>"a capitalistic 
society based on competition and growth for its own sake must ultimately 
devour the natural world, just like an untreated cancer must ultimately 
devour its host. Personal intentions, be they good or bad, have little 
to do with this unrelenting process. An economy that is structured 
around the maxim, 'Grow or Die,' must <b>necessarily</b> pit itself against 
the natural world and leave ecological ruin in its wake as its works it 
way through the biosphere."</i> [<b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 93 and p. 15] 
</p><p>
This means that good intentions and ideals have no bearing on the 
survival of a capitalist enterprise. There is a very simple way to 
be "moral" in the capitalist economy: namely, to commit economic 
suicide. This helps explain another key anti-ecological tendency
within capitalism, namely the drive to externalise costs of 
production (i.e., pass them on to the community at large) in order
to minimise private costs and so maximise profits and so growth.
As we will discuss in more detail in <a href="secE3.html">section E.3</a>, 
capitalism has an
in-built tendency to externalise costs in the form of pollution as it
rewards the kind of short-term perspective that pollutes the planet 
in order to maximise the profits of the capitalist. This is also
driven by the fact that capitalism's need to expand also reduces 
decision making from the quantitative to the qualitative. In other words,
whether something produces a short-term profit is the guiding maxim
of decision making and the price mechanism itself suppresses the kind
of information required to make ecologically informed decisions.
</p><p>
As Bookchin summarises, capitalism <i>"has made social evolution hopelessly 
incompatible with ecological evolution."</i> [<b>Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 14]
It lacks a sustainable relation to nature not due to chance, ignorance 
or bad intentions but due to its very nature and workings.
</p><p>
Fortunately, as we discussed in <a href="secD1.html">section D.1</a>, 
capitalism has rarely 
been allowed to operate for long entirely on its own logic. When 
it does, counter-tendencies develop to stop society being destroyed
by market forces and the need to accumulate money. Opposition forces 
always emerge, whether these are in the form of state intervention or 
in social movements aiming for reforms or more radical social change
(the former tends to be the result of the latter, but not always). 
Both force capitalism to moderate its worst tendencies. 
</p><p>
However, state intervention is, at best, a short-term. This is because
the state is just as much a system of social domination, oppression and
exploitation as capitalism. Which brings us to the next key institution
which anarchists argue needs to be eliminated in order to create an 
ecological society: the state. If, as anarchists argue, the oppression
of people is the fundamental reason for our ecological problems then 
it logically follows that the state <b>cannot</b> be used to either create
and manage an ecological society. It is a hierarchical, centralised,
top-down organisation based on the use of coercion to maintain elite
rule. It is, as we stressed in <a href="secB2.html">section B.2</a>, 
premised on the monopolisation of power in the hands of a few. In other words, it 
is the opposite of commonly agreed ecological principles such as 
freedom to develop, decentralisation and diversity.
</p><p>
As Bookchin put it, the <i>"notion that human freedom can be achieved, 
much less perpetuated, through a state of <b>any</b> kind is monstrously 
oxymoronic -- a contradiction in terms."</i> This is because <i>"statist 
forms"</i> are based on <i>"centralisation, bureaucratisation, and the 
professionalisation of power in the hands of elite bodies."</i> This 
flows from its nature for one of its <i>"<b>essential functions is to
confine, restrict, and essentially suppress local democratic
institutions and initiatives.</b>"</i> It has been organised to reduce 
public participation and control, even scrutiny. [<i>"The Ecological 
Crisis, Socialism, and the need to remake society,"</i> pp. 1-10, 
<b>Society and Nature</b>, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 8 and p. 9] If the creation 
of an ecological society requires individual freedom and social 
participation (and it does) then the state by its very nature 
and function excludes both.
</p><p>
The state's centralised nature is such that it cannot handle the 
complexities and diversity of life. <i>"No administrative system is capable 
of representing"</i> a community or, for that matter, an eco-system argues
James C. Scott <i>"except through a heroic and greatly schematised process 
of abstraction and simplification. It is not simply a question of 
capacity . . . It is also a question of purpose. State agents have no 
interest -- nor should they -- in describing an entire social reality 
. . . Their abstractions and simplifications are disciplined by a small 
number of objectives."</i> This means that the state is unable to effectively
handle the needs of ecological systems, including human ones. Scott 
analyses various large-scale state schemes aiming at social improvement
and indicates their utter failure. This failure was rooted in the nature 
of centralised systems. He urges us <i>"to consider the kind of human 
subject for whom all these benefits were being provided. This subject 
was singularly abstract."</i> The state was planning <i>"for generic subjects 
who needed so many square feet of housing space, acres of farmland, 
litres of clean water, and units of transportation and so much food, 
fresh air, and recreational space. Standardised citizens were uniform 
in their needs and even interchangeable. What is striking, of course, 
is that such subjects . . . have, for purposes of the planning exercise, 
no gender; no tastes; no history; no values; no opinions or original 
ideas, no traditions, and no distinctive personalities to contribute 
to the enterprise . . . The lack of context and particularity is not an
oversight; it is the necessary first premise of any large-scale planning 
exercise. To the degree that the subjects can be treated as standardised 
units, the power of resolution in the planning exercise is enhanced . . . 
The same logic applies to the transformation of the natural world."</i> 
[<b>Seeing like a State</b>, pp. 22-3 and p. 346]
</p><p>
A central power reduces the participation and diversity required to 
create an ecological society and tailor humanity's interaction with the 
environment in a way which respects local conditions and eco-systems.
In fact, it helps creates ecological problems by centralising power
at the top of society, limiting and repressing the freedom of individuals
communities and peoples as well as standardising and so degrading complex 
societies and eco-systems. As such, the state is just as anti-ecological 
as capitalism is as it shares many of the same features. As Scott 
stresses, capitalism <i>"is just as much an agency of homogenisation, 
uniformity, grids, and heroic simplification as the state is, with 
the difference being that, for capitalists, simplification must pay. 
A market necessarily reduces quality to quantity via the price mechanism 
and promotes standardisation; in markets, money talks, not people . . . 
the conclusions that can be drawn from the failures of modern projects 
of social engineering are as applicable to market-driven standardisation
as they are to bureaucratic homogeneity."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 8] 
</p><p>
In the short term, the state may be able to restrict some of the worse 
excesses of capitalism (this can be seen from the desire of capitalists
to fund parties which promise to deregulate an economy, regardless of
the social and environmental impact of so doing). However, the interactions 
between these two anti-ecological institutions are unlikely to produce 
long term environmental solutions. This is because while state intervention 
can result in beneficial constraints on the anti-ecological and anti-social 
dynamics of capitalism, it is always limited by the nature of the state 
itself. As we noted in <a href="secB2.html#secb21">section B.2.1</a>, 
the state is an instrument of class 
rule and, consequently, extremely unlikely to impose changes that may 
harm or destroy the system itself. This means that any reform movement 
will have to fight hard for even the most basic and common-sense changes 
while constantly having to stop capitalists ignoring or undermining 
any reforms actually passed which threaten their profits and the 
accumulation of capital as a whole. This means that counterforces are 
always set into motion by ruling class and even sensible reforms (such as 
anti-pollution laws) will be overturned in the name of "deregulation" and 
profits.
</p><p>
Unsurprisingly, eco-anarchists, like all anarchists, reject appeals to state 
power as this <i>"invariably legitimates and strengthens the State, with the result 
that it disempowers the people."</i> They note that ecology movements <i>"that 
enter into parliamentary activities not only legitimate State power at 
the expense of popular power,"</i> they also are <i>"obligated to function 
<b>within</b> the State"</i> and <i>"must 'play the game,' which means that they
must shape their priorities according to predetermined rules over 
which they have no control."</i> This results in <i>"an ongoing <b>process</b> of 
degeneration, a steady devolution of ideals, practices, and party 
structures"</i> in order to achieve <i>"very little"</i> in <i>"arrest[ing] 
environmental decay."</i> [<b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 161, p. 162 and p. 163]
The fate of numerous green parties across the world supports that
analysis. 
</p><p>
That is why anarchists stress the importance of creating social movements
based on direct action and solidarity as the means of enacting reforms
under a hierarchical society. Only when we take a keen interest and
act to create and enforce reforms will they stand any chance of being
applied successfully. If such social pressure does not exist, then 
any reform will remain a dead-letter and ignored by those seeking to
maximise their profits at the expense of both people and planet. As
we discuss in <a href="secJcon.html">section J</a>, this involves creating alternative forms
of organisation like federations of community assemblies 
(see <a href="secJ5.html#secj51">section J.5.1</a>) and industrial unions 
(see <a href="secJ5.html#secj52">section J.5.2</a>). Given the nature 
of both a capitalist economy and the state, this makes perfect sense.
</p><p>
In summary, the root cause of our ecological problems likes in hierarchy
within humanity, particularly in the form of the state and capitalism.
Capitalism is a "grow-or-die" system which cannot help destroy the
environment while the state is a centralised system which destroys
the freedom and participation required to interact with eco-systems.
Based on this analysis, anarchists reject the notion that all we need
do is get the state to regulate the economy as the state is part of
the problem as well as being an instrument of minority rule. Instead,
we aim to create an ecological society and end capitalism, the state 
and other forms of hierarchy. This is done by encouraging social 
movements which fight for improvements in the short term by means direct 
action, solidarity and the creation of popular libertarian organisations.
</p>

<h2><a name="sece11">E.1.1 Is industry the cause of environmental problems?</a></h2>

<p>
Some environmentalists argue that the root cause of our ecological
crisis lies in industry and technology. This leads them to stress that 
"industrialism" is the problem and that needs to be eliminated. An 
extreme example of this is primitivism 
(see <a href="secA3.html#seca39">section A.3.9</a>), 
although it does appear in the works of "deep ecologists" and 
liberal greens. However, most anarchists are unconvinced and agree with
Bookchin when he noted that "cries against 'technology' and 'industrial society'
[are] two very safe, socially natural targets against which even the
bourgeoisie can inveigh in Earth Day celebrations, as long as
minimal attention is paid to the social relations in which the
mechanisation of society is rooted."</i> Instead, ecology needs <i>"a 
confrontational stance toward capitalism and hierarchical society"</i> in
order to be effective and fix the root causes of our problems. [<b>The 
Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 54]
</p><p>
Claiming that "industrialism" rather than "capitalism" is the 
cause of our ecological problems allowed greens to point to both 
the west and the so-called "socialist" countries and draw out what 
was common to both (i.e. terrible environmental records and a growth 
mentality). In addition, it allowed green parties and thinkers to 
portray themselves as being "above" the "old" conflicts between 
socialism and capitalism (hence the slogan <i>"Neither Right nor Left, 
but in front"</i>). Yet this position rarely convinced anyone as any
serious green thinker soon notes that the social roots of our
environmental problems need to be addressed and that brings green
ideas into conflict with the status quo (it is no coincidence that
many on the right dismiss green issues as nothing more than a form
of socialism or, in America, "liberalism"). However, by refusing to 
clearly indicate opposition to capitalism this position allowed many 
reactionary ideas (and people!) to be smuggled into the green 
movement (the population myth being a prime example). As for 
"industrialism" exposing the similarities between capitalism and
Stalinism, it would have been far better to do as anarchists had
done since 1918 and call the USSR and related regimes what they
actually were, namely "state capitalism." 
</p><p>
Some greens (like many defenders of capitalism) point to the terrible 
ecological legacy of the Stalinist countries of Eastern Europe and 
elsewhere. For supporters of capitalism, this was due to the lack of
private property in these systems while, for greens, it showed that
environmental concerns where above both capitalism and "socialism." 
Needless to say, by "capitalism" anarchists mean both private and 
state forms of that system. As we argued 
in <a href="secB3.html#secb35">section B.3.5</a>, under 
Stalinism the state bureaucracy controlled and so effectively owned 
the means of production. As under private capitalism, an elite 
monopolised decision making and aimed to maximise their income by 
oppressing and exploiting the working class. Unsurprisingly, they 
had as little consideration "first nature" (the environment) as they 
had for "second nature" (humanity) and dominated, oppressed and 
exploited both (just as private capitalism does). 
</p><p>
As Bookchin emphasised the ecological crisis stems not only from 
private property but from the principle of domination itself -- a 
principle embodied in institutional hierarchies and relations 
of command and obedience which pervade society at many different 
levels. Thus, <i>"[w]ithout changing the most molecular relationships 
in society -- notably, those between men and women, adults and children, 
whites and other ethnic groups, heterosexuals and gays (the list, in 
fact, is considerable) -- society will be riddled by domination even 
in a socialistic 'classless' and 'non-exploitative' form. It would be 
infused by hierarchy even as it celebrated the dubious virtues of 
'people's democracies,' 'socialism' and the 'public ownership' of 
'natural resources,' And as long as hierarchy persists, as long as 
domination organises humanity around a system of elites, the project 
of dominating nature will continue to exist and inevitably lead our 
planet to ecological extinction."</i> [<b>Toward an Ecological Society</b>, 
p. 76] 
</p><p>
Given this, the real reasons for why the environmental record of Stalinist
regimes were worse that private capitalism can easily be found. Firstly, 
any opposition was more easily silenced by the police state and so the 
ruling bureaucrats had far more lee-way to pollute than in most western 
countries. In other words, a sound environment requires freedom, the 
freedom of people to participate and protest. Secondly, such dictatorships 
can implement centralised, top-down planning which renders their ecological 
impact more systematic and widespread (James C. Scott explores this at 
great length in his excellent book <b>Seeing like a State</b>).
</p><p>
Fundamentally, though, there is no real difference between private and
state capitalism. That this is the case can be seen from the willingness 
of capitalist firms to invest in, say, China in order to take advantage
of their weaker environmental laws and regulations plus the lack of 
opposition. It can also be seen from the gutting of environmental 
laws and regulation in the west in order to gain competitive advantages.
Unsurprisingly, laws to restrict protest have been increasingly passed 
in many countries as they have embraced the neo-liberal agenda with the 
Thatcher regime in the UK and its successors trail-blazing this process. The 
centralisation of power which accompanies such neo-liberal experiments
reduces social pressures on the state and ensures that business interests
take precedence.
</p><p>
As we argued in <a href="secD10.html">section D.10</a>, the way that technology is used and evolves 
will reflect the power relations within society. Given a hierarchical 
society, we would expect a given technology to be used in repressive 
ways regardless of the nature of that technology itself. Bookchin
points to the difference between the Iroquois and the Inca. Both 
societies used the same forms of technology, but the former was a
fairly democratic and egalitarian federation while the latter was a
highly despotic empire. As such, technology <i>"does not fully
or even adequately account for the institutional differences"</i> between
societies. [<b>The Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 331] This means that technology does not 
explain the causes for ecological harm and it is possible to have 
an anti-ecological system based on small-scale technologies:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Some of the most dehumanising and centralised social systems 
were fashioned out of very 'small' technologies; but bureaucracies,
monarchies, and military forces turned these systems into brutalising
cudgels to subdue humankind and, later, to try to subdue nature. To
be sure, a large-scale technics will foster the development of an
oppressively large-scale society; but every warped society follows
the dialectic of its own pathology of domination, irrespective of the
scale of its technics. It can organise the 'small' into the repellent
as surely as it can imprint an arrogant sneer on the faces of the 
elites who administer it . . . Unfortunately, a preoccupation with
technical size, scale, and even artistry deflects our attention away 
from the most significant problems of technics -- notably, its ties
with the ideals and social structures of freedom."</i> [Bookchin, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 325-6]
</blockquote></p><p>
In other words, "small-scale" technology will not transform an 
authoritarian society into an ecological one. Nor will applying
ecologically friendly technology to capitalism reduce its drive
to grow at the expense of the planet and the people who inhabit
it. This means that technology is an aspect of a wider society
rather than a socially neutral instrument which will <b>always</b> 
have the same (usually negative) results. As Bookchin stressed,
a <i>"liberatory technology presupposes liberatory institutions; a
liberatory sensibility requires a liberatory society. By the same
token, artistic crafts are difficult to conceive without an 
artistically crafted society, and the 'inversion of tools' is
impossible with a radical inversion of all social and productive
relationships."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 328-9]
</p><p>
Finally, it should be stressed that attempts to blame technology or
industry for our ecological problems have another negative effect
than just obscuring the real causes of those problems and turning
attention away from the elites who implement specific forms of 
technology to further their aims. It also means denying that 
technology can be transformed and new forms created which can help 
produce an ecologically balanced society:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The knowledge and physical instruments for promoting a harmonisation
of humanity with nature and of human with human are largely at hand
or could easily be devised. Many of the physical principles used to
construct such patently harmful facilities as conventional power 
plants, energy-consuming vehicles, surface-mining equipment and the
like could be directed to the construction of small-scale solar and
wind energy devices, efficient means of transportation, and 
energy-saving shelters."</i> [Bookchin, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 83]
</blockquote></p><p>
We must understand that <i>"the very <b>idea</b> of dominating first nature 
has its origins in the domination of human by human"</i> otherwise <i>"we
will lose what little understanding we have of the social origin of
our most serious ecological problems."</i> It this happens then we cannot
solve these problems, as it <i>"will grossly distort humanity's 
potentialities to play a creative role in non-human as well as
human development."</i> For <i>"the human capacity to reason conceptually,
to fashion tools and devise extraordinary technologies"</i> can all
<i>"be used for the good of the biosphere, not simply for harming it.
What is of <b>pivotal</b> importance in determining whether human beings
will creatively foster the evolution of first nature or whether
they will be highly destructive to non-human and human beings alike
is precisely the kind of <b>society</b> we establish, not only the kind
of sensibility we develop."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 34]</p>

<h2><a name="sece12">E.1.2 What is the difference between environmentalism and ecology?</a></h2>

<p>
As we noted in <a href="secA3.html#seca33">section A.3.3</a>, 
eco-anarchists contrast ecology with 
environmentalism. The difference is important as it suggests both
a different analysis of where our ecological problems come from 
and the best way to solve them. As Bookchin put it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"By 'environmentalism' I propose to designate a mechanistic, 
instrumental outlook that sees nature as a passive habitat 
composed of 'objects' such as animals, plants, minerals, and
the like that must merely be rendered more serviceable for 
human use . . . Within this context, very little of a social 
nature is spared from the environmentalist's vocabulary: cities
become 'urban resources' and their inhabitants 'human resources'
. . . Environmentalism . . . tends to view the ecological 
project for attaining a harmonious relationship between humanity
and nature as a truce rather than a lasting equilibrium. The 
'harmony' of the environmentalist centres around the development
of new techniques for plundering the natural world with minimal
disruption of the human 'habitat.' Environmentalism does not 
question the most basic premise of the present society, notably, 
that humanity must dominant nature; rather, it seeks to <b>facilitate</b> 
than notion by developing techniques for diminishing the hazards 
caused by the reckless despoliation of the environment."</i> [<b>The 
Ecology of Freedom</b>, p. 86]
</blockquote></p><p>
So eco-anarchists call the position of those who seek to reform 
capitalism and make it more green "environmentalism" rather than 
ecology. The reasons are obvious, as environmentalists <i>"focus on 
specific issues like air and water pollution"</i> while ignoring the 
social roots of the problems they are trying to solve. In other 
words, their outlook <i>"rest[s] on an instrumental, almost engineering 
approach to solving ecological dislocations. To all appearances, they 
wanted to adapt the natural world to the needs of the existing society 
and its exploitative, capitalist imperatives by way of reforms that 
minimise harm to human health and well-being. The much-needed goals of 
formulating a project for radical social change and for cultivating a 
new sensibility toward the natural world tended to fall outside the 
orbit of their practical concerns."</i> Eco-anarchists, while supporting 
such partial structures, stress that <i>"these problems originate in a 
hierarchical, class, and today, competitive capitalist system that 
nourishes a view of the natural world as a mere agglomeration of 
'resources' for human production and consumption."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, 
pp. 15-6]
</p><p>
This is the key. As environmentalism does not bring into question the 
underlying notion of the present society that man must dominate nature
it cannot present anything other than short-term solutions for the
various symptoms of the underlying problem. Moreover, as it does not
question hierarchy, it simply adjusts itself to the status quo. Thus
liberal environmentalism is so <i>"hopelessly ineffectual"</i> because <i>"it 
takes the present social order for granted"</i> and is mired in <i>"the 
paralysing belief that a market society, privately owned property, 
and the present-day bureaucratic nation-state cannot be changed in 
any basic sense. Thus, it is the prevailing order that sets the 
terms of any 'compromise' or 'trade-off'"</i> and so <i>"the natural world,
including oppressed people, always loses something piece by piece, 
until everything is lost in the end. As long as liberal environmentalism 
is structured around the social status quo, property rights always 
prevail over public rights and power always prevails over powerlessness.
Be it a forest, wetlands, or good agricultural soil, a 'developer' who 
owns any of these 'resources' usually sets the terms on which every 
negotiation occurs and ultimately succeeds in achieving the triumph 
of wealth over ecological considerations."</i> [Bookchin, <b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 15]
</p><p>
This means that a truly ecological perspective seeks to end the 
situation where a few govern the many, not to make the few nicer.
As Chomsky once noted on the issue of <i>"corporate social responsibility"</i>,
he could not discuss the issue as such because he did <i>"not accept some 
of its presuppositions, specifically with regard to the legitimacy of 
corporate power"</i> as he did not see any <i>"justification for concentration 
of private power"</i> than <i>"in the political domain."</i> Both would <i>"act 
in a socially responsible way -- as benevolent despots -- when social 
strife, disorder, protest, etc., induce them to do so for their own 
benefit."</i> He stressed that in a capitalist society <i>"socially responsible 
behaviour would be penalised quickly in that competitors, lacking such 
social responsibility, would supplant anyone so misguided as to be 
concerned with something other than private benefit."</i> This explains 
why real capitalist systems have always <i>"been required to safeguard 
social existence in the face of the destructive forces of private 
capitalism"</i> by means of <i>"substantial state control."</i> However, the 
<i>"central questions . . . are not addressed, but rather begged"</i> when 
discussing corporate social responsibility. [<b>Language and
Politics</b>, p. 275]
</p><p>
Ultimately, the key problem with liberal environmentalism (as with 
liberalism in general) is that it tends, by definition, to ignore 
class and hierarchy. The "we are all in this together" kind of message 
ignores that most of decisions that got us into our current ecological 
and social mess were made by the rich as they have control over resources 
and power structures (both private and public). It also suggests that 
getting us out of the mess must involve taking power and wealth back from 
the elite -- if for no other reason because working class people do not, 
by themselves, have the resources to solve the problem.
</p><p>
Moreover, the fact is the ruling class do <b>not</b> inhabit quite the same 
polluted planet as everyone else. Their wealth protects them, to a large 
degree, to the problems that they themselves have created and which, in 
fact, they owe so much of that wealth to (little wonder, then, they deny 
there is a serious problem). They have access to a better quality of 
life, food and local environment (no toxic dumps and motorways are near 
their homes or holiday retreats). Of course, this is a short term 
protection but the fate of the planet is a long-term abstraction when 
compared to the immediate returns on one's investments. So it is not 
true to say that <b>all</b> parts of the ruling class are in denial about 
the ecological problems. A few are aware but many more show utter hatred 
towards those who think the planet is more important than profits.
</p><p>
This means that such key environmentalist activities such as 
education and lobbying are unlikely to have much effect. While these
may produce <b>some</b> improvements in terms of our environmental impact,
it cannot stop the long-term destruction of our planet as the 
ecological crisis is <i>"<b>systemic</b> -- and not a matter of misinformation,
spiritual insensitivity, or lack of moral integrity. The present social
illness lies not only in the outlook that pervades the present society;
it lies above all in the very <b>structure</b> and <b>law of life</b> in the
system itself, in its imperative, which no entrepreneur or corporation
can ignore without facing destruction: growth, more growth, and still
more growth."</i> [Murray Bookchin, <i>"The Ecological Crisis, Socialism, and 
the need to remake society,"</i> pp. 1-10, <b>Society and Nature</b>, vol. 2,
no. 3, pp. 2-3] This can only be ended by ending capitalism, not by
appeals to consumers to buy eco-friendly products or to capitalists
to provide them:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Accumulation is determined not by the good or bad intentions of the
individual bourgeois, but by the commodity relationship itself . . .
It is not the perversity of the bourgeois that creates production for
the sake of production, but the very market nexus over which he presides
and to which he succumbs. . . . It requires a grotesque self-deception, 
or worse, an act of ideological social deception, to foster the belief
that this society can undo its very law of life in response to ethical
arguments or intellectual persuasion."</i> [<b>Toward an Ecological Society</b>, 
p. 66]
</blockquote></p><p>
Sadly, much of what passes for the green movement is based on this
kind of perspective. At worse, many environmentalists place their
hopes on green consumerism and education. At best, they seek to 
create green parties to work within the state to pass appropriate
regulations and laws. Neither option gets to the core of the problem,
namely a system in which there are <i>"oppressive human beings who 
literally own society and others who are owned by it. Until society 
can be reclaimed by an undivided humanity that will use its collective 
wisdom, cultural achievements, technological innovations, scientific
knowledge, and innate creativity for its own benefit and for that of 
the natural world, all ecological problems will have their roots in 
social problems."</i> [Bookchin, <b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 39]
</p>

</body>
</html>