1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
|
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>E.1 What do eco-anarchists propose instead of capitalism? </TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<p>
<H1>E.1 What do eco-anarchists propose instead of capitalism? </h1>
<P>
In place of capitalism, eco-anarchists favour ecologically responsible
forms of libertarian socialism (see <a HREF="secIcon.html">section I</a>), with an economy based on
the principles of complementarity with nature; decentralisation of
large-scale industries, reskilling of workers, and a return to more
artisan-like modes of production; the use of environment-friendly
technologies, energy sources, and products; the use of recycled raw
materials and renewable resources; and worker-controlled enterprises
responsive to the wishes of local community assemblies and labour councils
in which decisions are made by direct democracy. (See, e.g. Murray
Bookchin, <B>Toward and Ecological Society</B> and <B>Remaking Society</B>). Such
an economy would be "steady-state," meaning that the rate of resource
depletion would equal the rate of renewal and that it would not be subject
to disastrous collapses in the absence of quantitative growth or
stimulation by military spending.
<P>
As Bookchin emphasises, however, the ecological crisis stems not only from
capitalism but from the principle of domination itself (see <a HREF=secD4.html>D.4</a>) -- 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>
So, although we focus our attention below on the economic aspects of the
ecological crisis and its solution, it should be kept in mind that a
complete solution must be multi-dimensional, addressing all aspects of the
total system of hierarchy and domination. This means that only anarchism,
with its emphasis on the elimination of coercive authority in <B>all</B> areas
of life, goes to the real root of the ecological crisis.
<P>
<a name="sece11"><h2>E.1.1 Why do eco-anarchists favour workers' control? </h2>
<P>
Eco-anarchists advocate workers' control of the economy as a necessary
component of a steady-state economy. This means society-wide ownership of
the means of production and all productive enterprises self-managed by
their workers, as described further in <a HREF="secIcon.html">section I</a>.
<P>
Most ecologists, even if they are not anarchists, recognise the pernicious
ecological effects of the capitalist "grow or die" principle; but unless
they are also anarchists, they usually fail to make the connection between
that principle and the <B>hierarchical form</B> of the typical capitalist
corporation. In contrast, eco-anarchists emphasise that socially owned and
worker self-managed firms, especially the type in which surpluses are
shared equally among all full-time members, would be under far less
pressure toward rapid expansion than the traditional capitalist firm.
<P>
The slower growth rate of co-operatives has been documented in a number of
studies, which show that in the traditional capitalist firm, owners' and
executives' percentage share of profits greatly increases as more
employees are added to the payroll. This is because the corporate
hierarchy is designed to facilitate exploitation by funnelling a
disproportionate share of the surplus value produced by workers to those
at the top of the pyramid (see <a HREF=secC2.html>C.2, "Where do profits come from?"</a>) Such a
design gives ownership and management a very strong incentive to expand,
since, other things being equal (e.g. no recession), their income rises
with every new employee hired. Hence the hierarchical form of the
capitalist corporation is one of the main causes of runaway growth. [See
e.g. Henry Levin <I>"Employment and Productivity of Producer Co-operatives,"</I>
in Robert Jackall and Henry Levin (eds.), <B>Worker Co-operatives in
America</B>, UC Press, 1984; cf. David Schweickart, <B>Against Capitalism</B>].
<P>
By contrast, in an equal-share worker co-operative, the addition of more
members simply means more people with whom the available pie will have to
be equally divided -- a situation that immensely reduces the incentive to
expand. Thus a libertarian-socialist economy will be able to function in
a stationary state, requiring neither an expanding population nor
technological innovation at a pace sufficient to guarantee increased
production. Moreover, it will be able to switch from a growth state to a
stationary state without excessive disruption. For if consumers start
buying less, this will increase leisure time among producers, which will
be shared by those firms affected first and then gradually spreading to
other sectors. For these reasons, libertarian socialism based on producer
co-operatives is essential for the type of steady-state economy necessary
to solve the ecological crisis.
<P>
<a name="sece12"><h2>E.1.2 Why do eco-anarchists emphasise direct democracy? </h2>
<P>
The eco-anarchist argument for direct (participatory) democracy is that
effective protection of the planet's ecosystems requires that ordinary
citizens be able to take part at the grassroots level in decision-making
that affects their environment, since they are more likely to favour
stringent environmental safeguards than the large, polluting special
interests that now dominate the "representative" system of government.
Thus a solution to the ecological crisis presupposes participatory
democracy in the political sphere -- a transformation that would amount to
a political revolution.
<P>
However, as Bakunin emphasised, a political revolution of this nature must
be preceded by a <B>socioeconomic</B> revolution based on workers'
self-management. This is because the daily experience of participatory
decision-making, non-authoritarian modes of organisation, and personalistic
human relationships in small work groups would foster creativity,
spontaneity, responsibility, independence, and respect for individuality
-- the qualities needed for a directly democratic political system to
function effectively.
<P>
Given the amount of time that most people spend at the workplace, the
political importance of turning it into a training ground for the
development of libertarian and democratic values can scarcely be
overstated. As history has demonstrated, political revolutions that are
not preceded by mass psychological transformation -- that is, by a
deconditioning from the master/slave attitudes absorbed from the current
system -- result only in the substitution of new ruling elites for the old
ones (e.g. Lenin becoming the new "Tsar" and Communist Party aparatchiks
becoming the new "aristocracy"). Therefore, besides having a slower
growth rate, worker co-operatives with democratic self-management would lay
the psychological foundations for the kind of directly democratic
political system necessary to protect the biosphere. Thus "green"
libertarian socialism is the only proposal radical enough to solve the
ecological crisis.
<P>
In contrast, free market capitalism (an extreme example of this viewpoint
being right-wing "libertarianism") not only cannot solve the ecological
crisis but would in fact exacerbate it. Besides the fact that
right libertarians do not propose to dismantle capitalism, which is
necessarily based on "grow or die," they also do not wish to dismantle
the hierarchical structure of the capitalist firm, which contributes its
own greed-driven pressure for expansion, as discussed above. (Indeed,
right-libertarian literature is full of arguments showing that
hierarchical firms are necessary for reasons of "efficiency.") But since
there would be no state regulatory apparatus to mitigate any of the
negative ecological effects of capitalist expansion, "free market"
capitalism would be even more environmentally malignant than the present
system.
<P>
In sections E.2, to E.5 we discuss and refute some spurious free market
capitalist "solutions" to the ecological crisis. Section E.7 discusses why
<I>"green consumerism,"</I> another basic capitalist assumption, is also
doomed to failure.
<P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
|
