tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post8042534354977783372..comments2023-10-21T13:04:34.038-07:00Comments on Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism: 49. On the British Petroleum's Ecological Disaster in the Gulf of MexicoKamran Nayerihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-11220465069169662912010-06-04T18:21:41.758-07:002010-06-04T18:21:41.758-07:00Perhaps you misunderstand me. The sentence of the...Perhaps you misunderstand me. The sentence of the last short response was: "Of course, if and when we have a significant ecosocialist movement in this country, we could and should fight effectively for reforms as stepping stones to radical social change and insights such as what you offer would be gainfully employed." You misread my "significant ecosocialist movement" in the above sentence as "mass ecosocialist movement."<br /><br />The approach I propose is not new. You can find it in Rosa Luxemborg's Reform or Revolution (1900), or Leon Trotsky's Transitional Program for Socialist Revolution (1938). In essence, how many and how much of the tasks of education, agitation and organization, and action we can do depends of the size and quality of the tendency that is consciously working for radical social change. Small groups of revolutionaries have always been called “propaganda groups" because to seriously agitate or make efftive change, they have to be of a certain minimum size and quality. <br /><br />Unless, your estimate of number and quality of ecosoialists in the U.S. is much higher than mine, you perhaps should agree that we are still essentially educational groups, even when we know and tell about legal tools available for a serious fight back. <br /><br />By the way, you and others with an interest in potential legal challenges facing BP and other corporations involved the spill may want to read today's Op-Ed piece "Prosecuting Crimes Agains the Earth" by David Uhlmann, Professor of Law at University of Michigan and former director of the Environmental Crimes Section at the department of Justice from 2000 to 2007.Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-47912036604279582512010-06-03T19:46:47.144-07:002010-06-03T19:46:47.144-07:00You seem to be saying that trying to develop a car...You seem to be saying that trying to develop a careful, concrete analysis of the economic & political divisions within the capitalist class (and the political system) in order to figure out how to legally and politically exploit them to our benefit is only worthwhile if we have an independent, mass eco-socialist movement. Does this mean that until this movement somehow materializes, we must be content with impotent condemnations of capitalism in general and grandiose but vague calls for eco-socialism? Doesn't this approach hand the essential struggle for planet-protecting reforms over to the very reformists that can't see the forest for the trees?<br /><br />If you ask me, the trick is figuring out how to nurture and grow an eco-socialist core while participating in these reform movements. Moderate environmentalists are allies who may become convinced of the need for eco-socialism over time. But I don't think we'll convince them by standing on the sidelines polishing our "correct line" and insisting that it's eco-socialism or nothing. We must bring our analysis of the situation into the struggle and use it to turn every opportunity to protect the planet into a movement-building opportunity as well.<br /><br />Our main target, at this point, are those elements of the capitalist class who refuse to move toward a sustainable relationship with the planet. This doesn't mean we don't question and expose the limitations of green capitalism. However, just because we believe that green capitalism is ultimately a dysfunctional oxymoron doesn't mean that, in the immediate strategic situation, we can't pursue alliances with anyone willing to oppose big oil on this issue.NTROPEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00095279981135270696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-31363605726010442082010-06-03T16:40:59.876-07:002010-06-03T16:40:59.876-07:00Thank you for a more in depth and concrete analysi...Thank you for a more in depth and concrete analysis. I am sure readers of your question and explanation learn something useful about the intricate legal relations among various sectors of the capitalist class. Still, please note that my purpose is to focus attention on the need for an independent mass ecosocialist movement with the goal of replacing the capitalist system with a society that can coexist in harmony with nature. I am fearful that the existing environmental establishment magnifies whatever reforms that potentially is achievable by trying to side with one sector of the U.S. capitalist class against another as it has historically done (this is called lesser evil politics); they see the trees but not the forest. Of course, if and when we have a significant ecosocialist movement in this country, we could and should fight effectively for reforms as stepping stones to radical social change and insights such as what you offer would be gainfully employed.Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-11813417275772332402010-06-03T14:40:53.988-07:002010-06-03T14:40:53.988-07:00I would suggest that your analysis is somewhat sup...I would suggest that your analysis is somewhat superficial & abstract. I think if you look carefully at our political system you'll see it has been captured and "Balkanized" by the sectors of capital most concerned with the particular bureaucracies and agencies whose policies effect their bottom line. Some bureaucracies impact many interests, others are more focused.<br /><br />The Marine Mining Service (MMS) is VERY narrowly focused and was easily captured by big oil. Therefore, BP was able to block a wider discussion of the dangers of oil drilling & the precautions necessary to prevent a blowout by getting the MMS to sidestep the legal requirement for an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) as required by NEPA (The National Environmental Policy Act).*<br /><br />This effectively excluded other sectors of the capitalist class (fishing, tourism, etc.) from involvement, as well as environmental groups and other sectors of the concerned public. Had NEPA been enforced, an EIS would have required an extensive period of fact-finding and public input involving any stakeholders potentially effected by offshore drilling. It also could have revealed in more detail the environmental threats posed to communities, ecosystems and endangered species.<br /><br />At that point, opponents could have used the Endangered Species Act to TRY to block offshore drilling permits. This legal action could have involved the many sectors of capital concerned about the fate of their businesses in the event of a serious oil spill.<br /><br />It's hard to say exactly how this legal conflict would have played out, but Big oil's powerful lobbying has heavily influenced the White House, Congress and broad sectors of media & society in favor a fast-tracking oil exploration off the coast ("drill, baby, drill"). When you combine this with their capture of the primary agency involved in granting drilling permits and collecting royalties, you get a lock on policy formation that effectively excluded other sectors of capital (and the public) that were far more wary of this activity.<br /><br />*This exclusion is called a FONSI (finding of no significant impact) and it can be challenged in court, but they rarely are because the courts tend to defer to the expertise of the agency that granted the FONSI.NTROPEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00095279981135270696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-87594837736736511422010-06-02T19:16:18.779-07:002010-06-02T19:16:18.779-07:00Thank you for raising a very interesting question....Thank you for raising a very interesting question. My main point in the post is to argue for an ecosocialist perspective in contrast to the usual “free enterprise or regulated capitalism” so much in vogue lately. The environmentalist establishment and reformist socialist parties tend to favor “regulated capitalist” arguments because they believe the government to be at least to a large measure independent of the capitalist class. <br /><br />I would argue that in a capitalist economy and society the capitalist class rules. There was no doubt about who the ruling classes were in the feudal and slave-owing societies. It is hard to argue that we have a different logic in a capitalist society (I set aside latecomer capitalist societies with undemocratic forms of government) . <br /><br />Thus, I suggest that in the U.S. capitalist economic imperative dominates public policy making and executive/administrative processes. However, as I stated in the same sentence that included the assertion that “government is nothing more than the executive committee of the ruling class,” I qualified it with the words “in the final analysis.” That is the relationship between the capitalist class and the government is not a direct relationship. There are good reasons for that. For one thing, the capitalist class is differentiated between industrial, financial, merchant, and land-owning capitalists. Within each groups, they are competing interests. While there is broad interest of the class that each group supports (against the working classes and other social layers), various groups compete for influence in the government. <br /><br />The bourgeois democratic parliamentary form of government gives the appearance that politics is separate and apart from economics. After all, one person, one vote system makes us believe that ordinary citizens, majority of them workers, can decide who their elected officials are. The capitalists being a small minority cannot directly pick their choices. This serves the overall ideological purpose of the capitalist class very well and allow for inner-capitalist competition for influence in the government. <br /><br />If this account is generally acceptable, then it becomes clear that the interests of the public and the environment and ecological systems take a back seat to the capitalist interests in policymaking and policy enforcement. Thus, “accidents” such as the recent Massey Energy Company’s coalmine and the British Petroleum rig expulsion occur. In both these cases, companies involved have the highest number of violations in their respective industry. Thus, what happened in each case was not really an accident. These companies operations have the the highest probability of an "accident" because of cost-cutting. And, in each case, the companies involved enjoyed a cozy relationship with the “regulators.” <br /><br />Why other countries have better valves for their offshore drilling projects? Perhaps, because of higher standards due to various factors, including stronger labor unions. But as long as capitalist economy persists and social production is carried for private appropriation (that is, for profits) the public and nature is endangered. <br /><br />I hope this explanation is satisfactory. I plan to write a second piece on what to do with the oil and natural gas industry and with such public and ecological hazards.Kamran Nayerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13737979861971221811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5261748503426298041.post-80188062904867971002010-06-02T13:38:57.042-07:002010-06-02T13:38:57.042-07:00Was a blowout like this inevitable in a capitalist...Was a blowout like this inevitable in a capitalist system where the government is simply an "executive committee for the capitalist class"? You imply that it was, yet you also say: "In the BP case, [the MMS] failed to require a backup shutdown system that is standard in much of the rest of the world,..." If this backup system could have prevented the spill as you imply, and many other capitalist countries use it, then catastrophic blowouts aren't an INEVITABLE result of capitalism in action...or are they?NTROPEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00095279981135270696noreply@blogger.com