The two souls of eco-socialism? A report from "Climate and Capitalism"

Submitted by AWL on 13 September, 2009 - 10:32 Author: Sacha Ismail

On 12 September, three Workers’ Liberty comrades who have been involved in Workers’ Climate Action attended the first half of the Socialist Resistance/Green Left “Climate and Capitalism” conference.

(Socialist Resistance was previously the International Socialist Group, the British section of the Fourth International. Green Left is a caucus within the Green Party.)

There were seventy or eighty people there, mostly in their 40s, 50s or older, though with a smattering of younger people.

One session, in which Swedish Volvo worker and Fourth International supporter Lars Henriksson discussed the concept of “alternative production” (what WCA has called “workers-led just transition”), was excellent. For me, that served to highlight the failings of the event as a whole.

The political tone was set by the opening speeches. Romayne Phoenix of Green Left gave a fairly bland speech, which to be honest you could barely define as anti-capitalist; it wasn’t all that different from something Caroline Lucas might say. You might have expected Ian Angus, the Canadian Fourth International supporter who was the conference’s guest of honour, and who edited the collection of essays on The Global Fight for Climate Justice which SR have been pushing, to be better. He wasn’t, not fundamentally.

Angus gave an essentially classless view of the capitalism system; capitalism and imperialism were indicted, but their flipside, the development of the working class and the class struggle, were strangely absent. In a forty-odd minute speech, the working class was mentioned only once, in passing at the end. You were left with the impression that capitalism is a system of theft, of the rich world plundering resources from the poor – which is of course part of the picture, but misses out the fundamental dynamics of surplus value, of the exploitation of the working class by capital, and the resistance and possibilities for reorganising society this generates.

Angus rightly condemned those who talk about “people” degrading the environment, when actually the “people” doing it are capitalists. He talked about the bosses as “personifications of capital”, but failed to identify the fact that capital can only exist as a social relation, that to exist it must generate and regenerate a class of people who will eventually be its gravedigger. (I understand that Angus’ collaborator Joel Kovel has made his rejection of working-class agency explicit.)

In general terms, this is a regression from the insights of Marxism to utopian socialism – utopian because it is a good idea in general, but there is no social force that can actually put it into practice. In terms of ecology, it means airbrushing from the picture the very people who can take hold of production and reorient it according to alternative social goals, including the preservation of the ecosystem. (This is no airy abstraction, as we will see when I discuss Lars Henriksson’s workshop.) Angus cited Walter Benjamin’s powerful metaphor, made in the context of the 1930s’ rush towards fascist barbarism and war, that revolutions are not so much the “locomotives of history” as a way of humanity putting on the brakes. The relevance in terms of dangerous climate change is obvious, but to mix up the metaphor a little (in Benjamin's original it is the passengers doing the braking) Angus, if you like, has got rid of the train driver and the other rail workers – there is no one capable of pulling the lever.

All this was compounded by the more general political problems of the Fourth International tendency (or at least the wing of it that Angus and Socialist Resistance represent). Angus cited positively the experiences of Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela, quoting extensively from Bolivian president Evo Morales. This was hung on the hook of the struggle for indigenous rights, somewhat disingenuously. No one is denying the importance of indigenous struggles, or their relationship to battles over the environment, but it may be doubted that the capitalist governments of Bolivia and Venezuela are authentic expressions of these struggles. Absent, completely absent, was the idea of the organised working class linking up with indigenous and other subordinate groups to lead a proletarian revolution against all exploitation and oppression.

The workshop I attended, run by Lars Henriksson, a worker at the Volvo plant in Gothenburg in Sweden, stood in stark contrast to Phoenix and Angus’ classless, ‘ecopopulist’ introductions. It deepened and concretised my understanding of issues which Workers’ Climate Action has been raising for some time under the label of “workers-led just transition” to a sustainable economy. Here it was discussed as “alternative production”.

As in Britain, the US and many other countries, the car industry in Sweden is being devastated by the economic crisis. Henriksson indentified two dominant strands in bourgeois responses. The first is the neoliberal approach of letting it rip, waving goodbye to the jobs and assuming the market will right itself eventually; there is also a green version, which is pleased to see the destruction of the car industry. (This sort of view has been expressed in the UK by George Monbiot.) The other, favoured by Sweden’s social democrats for instance, is for government subsidies to keep the car firms in business.

Naturally revolutionary socialists and all serious working-class activists reject the ‘let it rip’ option. As Henriksson explained, to throw thousands of car workers on the scrap heap would be both a social disaster and an irresponsible waste of human and technological resources which could, as we shall see, be used for goals other than the production of cars. But the conservative option is also unjustifiable, both in terms of the damaging nature of what he and his co-workers produce, and the corresponding unlikeliness of assembling a popular coalition in defence of giving multinationals billions to keep destroying the planet.

The "third way" Henriksson identified is for workers to fight for a reorganisation of production, to use the skills and technical resources of the industry to produce not things that are profitable but things that are needed - for instance public transport, or wind turbines. The classic example, which he cited, is the plan developed by Lucas Aerospace workers in the 1970s. Such plans must be forced on the bosses; if necessary, this can include the demand for nationalisation of factories and firms. The conversion of whole industries means that the organised collective of workers within them that has demanded conversion is kept together, still able to organise collectively as a class, rather than being scattered to the winds. (This is also part of the socialist answer to unemployment; demanding that as part of conversion plans, workplaces take on more workers, as for instance the worker-occupied Zanon tile factory in Argentina has made an effort to do.)

The precondition for anything like this to happen, of course, is increased confidence and organisation on the part of the workers, which is particularly difficult in an economic crisis when the unions are retreating from even the fight to save jobs, conditions etc. Henriksson admitted that these ideas seem like “science fiction” to many of his colleagues – particularly in a context of not only recession and retreat, but increased management authoritarianism in the workplace and bureaucratic control in the unions. Nonetheless, this is the necessary fight.

In other words, working-class activists need to go beyond struggles over wages and conditions to critique what is produced and how. (By the way, Alan Thornett, an ISG member who was a militant at the Cowley car plant in Oxford, made a contribution about how in the 70s no car workers cared about these questions. Apparently he makes this speech quite a lot. In fact, he is wrong to assume that his own ignorance was universal. Chrysler workers in Coventry, for instance, did come up with a plan for conversion in the late 70s.)

At the same time, Henriksson stressed that these politics are not an alternative to ‘bread and butter’ organising – in fact, they can only come to fruition in a labour movement that is militant and organised on the basic questions. (The classic example of this, which I mentioned, is the New South Wales Builders Labourers Federation of the 1960s and 70s, which after a period of building confidence and organisation through battles to ‘civilise the industry’ developed militant environmental and social politics.) This is something which many environmentalists, excited by the idea of car workers demanding alternative production, miss or fail to understand.

There are hidden sensibilities, talents and creativity in the working class which in the everyday grind of exploitation remain more or less dormant, but which struggle can free and allow to flourish. The condition for fighting for “alternative production” is being able to fight in general.

Henriksson also discussed the role of two kinds of “workers’ plans” – ‘local’, workplace or industry-based plans, like at Lucas, and society wide plans for reorienting production on a bigger scale. One example of the latter is the plan for transforming Europe’s public transport systems, produced earlier this year by transport unions including the RMT, which sets out concrete steps for reducing emissions from transport by 75 percent. In both cases the point should be to mobilise workers to put pressure on the bosses, whether directly or on the capitalist government.

I pushed Henriksson a little on the contrast, and maybe contradiction, between the class-focus his speech had assumed and developed, and the woolly populism of the conference as a whole. He denied a contradiction, claiming a difference between the general and the specific; but I think the point is that the Angus/SR etc approach generally writes the working class out of the picture, ruling out a focus on specific developments which see working-class organisation as key. There seem to be two souls of "ecosocialism", as the conference organisers describe their political philosophy.

I’m not claiming that Socialist Resistance and Green Left oppose projects such as Henriksson’s; of course, they invited him to speak. But either working-class organisation is the key to developing a socialist approach to climate change or it isn't. The conference left the issue open, but it is clear that many of the participants have no particular working-class focus. There was no Vestas worker speaking, despite the fact that WCA, when it asked to speak and was rejected, was told that there would be; and, very peculiarly, the speaker from Climate Camp was not from the class-struggle wing of that movement, but from what I am told essentially a liberal. We couldn't stay for the afternoon sessions; class may have entered into the discussions more as the day went on. But there are clearly important political differences and contradictions which the participants were reluctant to tease out.

A class-based approach is why Workers’ Climate Action exists. Sad to say, I didn't recognise many of those present at the conference from Vestas, Climate Camp or other living struggles going on. WCA, in contrast, is central to organising in these areas - and develops its ideas on that basis. Hope to see you at its conference on 10 October!

For a critique of Ian Angus' book, see here.

Comments

Submitted by SJW on Tue, 15/09/2009 - 14:38

The session I attended was meant to be largely about feminism and ecosocialism. The first speaker gave a very vague and unstructured speech on where women have been involved in green movements without really saying anything concrete on how we link up feminist and green struggles as part of a common aim. Following on from this she spoke about the fight for reproductive rights for women in the global south. Again this was vague and very little was actually said. The second speaker who had recently returned from Peru told us how climate change is happening now and not something that we can think about in the future. This is something I believe we were all aware of and had been reiterated over and over again in the opening session! Women have often been not only involved but at the forefront of the struggles by indigenous people and it was said that Ian Angus’s book was only slightly disappointing in while referencing “heroes” of the workers’ and environmental movements like Morales and Castro women were left somewhat absent.

The debate afterwards largely focused on tackling the Optimum Population Trust who argue that there is a maximum population the earth can sustain. Clearly we need to argue against Malthusian arguments like this which are gaining support from “respectable” figures like David Attenborough. The people in the Global South produce a smaller carbon footprint then in the north like the US and the UK. The example being given that people in Mali produce 1000th of the carbon footprint an individual in the UK does. This was used as a counter argument to the trust. While we were assured that population control was not being advocated whatsoever it would make more sense to control it here because “we” cause more of the damage! This reversal is not how we argue against the use of population control to “save the planet.” Imperialism and capitalist expansion are not caused by the workers in the Global North. We pose the positives of a worker led just transition harnessing the power that comes from our strength as a class. . Other contributions recognised the roles of indigenous struggles but made no mention of the power of the working class as the only force that can save the planet or how we relate to workers in environmentally damaging industry.

My contribution on the need to argue for and promote these ideas into our union branches, campuses and into the labour movement was alone in mentioning how we move forward as socialists on green issues. I also raised the way environmental degradation has been one factor in many leaving their countries and coming to Britain to work in some of the most highly exploitative industries often with no documentation and therefore no formal rights. It is important that we recognise that it is in these struggles like that of the London Underground cleaners that the links are made to the destruction going on and its effect on displacing these workers. Unfortunately this session left things very much without a conclusion and everyone leaving it without a real idea of how we go forward and importantly who can make real change.

Submitted by edwardm on Sat, 26/09/2009 - 16:49

Angleterre : Climate and Capitalism

Bilan de Sacha Ismail, militant de l’Alliance Workers Liberty, sur la confĂ©rence du 12 septembre de Socialist Resistance et de la Green Left sur le changement climatique.

« Le 12 septembre dernier, Trois des camarades de l’AWL, l’Alliance for Workers Liberty, qui ont Ă©tĂ© des militants actifs au sein de l’organisation « Worker’s Climate Action » ont assistĂ© Ă  une partie de la confĂ©rence organisĂ©e par Socialist Resistance et Green Left“Climate and Capitalism”.

Rappelons pour information que Socialist Resistance Ă©tait le groupe International Socialist Group, soit la section anglaise de la quatriĂšme internationale. Green Left pour sa part est une tendance du Green Party. Il y avait environ 70 Ă  80 personnes dans l’assemblĂ©e, composĂ©e majoritairement par des cinquantenaires ou plus vieux encore, mĂȘme si quelques jeunes faisaient bonne figure.

Une des session a Ă©tĂ© excellente : celle oĂč le suĂ©dois Lars Henriksson, employĂ© Ă  Volvo et militant Ă  la QuatriĂšme Internationale, a discutĂ© le concept de « production alternative », ce que le WCA appelle la « transition . ». Pour moi, cela a servi Ă  Ă©clairer les erreurs de l’évĂ©nement dans son entier.

Le ton a Ă©tĂ© donnĂ© dĂšs les premiers discours. Romayne Phenix, de Green Left a tenu un discours assez faible politiquement, que l’on pourrait Ă  peine qualifier d’anti-capitaliste : ce n’était pas bien diffĂ©rent de ce que Caroline Lucas pourrait dire. On aurait pu attendre mieux de Ian Angus, invitĂ© d’honneur de cette confĂ©rence, le militant canadien de la quatriĂšme Internationale qui a Ă©ditĂ© la collection d’essais sur Le combat mondial pour une justice climatique, ce que Socialist Resistance avait encouragĂ©. Mais il n’a pas Ă©tĂ© spĂ©cialement meilleur.

Angus a dressĂ© un portrait du capitalisme dĂ©nuĂ© de toute dimension de classe :le capitalisme et l’impĂ©rialisme ont Ă©tĂ© accuses, mais leur envers, le dĂ©veloppement d’une classe laborieuse et d’une lutte des classes Ă©taient bizarrement passĂ©s sous silence. Dans un Ă©trange discours de quarante minutes, la classe ouvriĂšre n’a Ă©tĂ© mentionnĂ©e qu’une seule fois, dans un passage de la fin. Le discours laissait donc l’impression que le capitalisme est un systĂšme voleur, que les riches de ce monde ont pillĂ©s les ressources – ceci fait bien sure partie intĂ©grante du problĂšme mais manque les dynamiques de la valeur en surplus, de l’exploitation de la classe ouvriĂšre par le capital, et la rĂ©sistance et les possibilitĂ©s de rĂ©organisation de la sociĂ©tĂ© que cela gĂ©nĂšre.

Angus a condamnĂ© avec justesse ceux qui parlent de ces “gens” qui dĂ©gradent l’environnement, alors que ces « gens » sont en fait des capitalistes. Il parle des patrons comme des « personnifications du capital », mais il ne saisit pas le fait que le capital ne peut exister que comme une relation sociale, qui pour exister doit produire et faire vivre une classe de gens qui pourrait devenir son propre fossoyeur. (je comprends que le collaborateur d’Angus, Joel Kovel, ait rendu explicite son rejet de l’importance de la classe ouvriĂšre)

En terme gĂ©nĂ©ral, c’est une rĂ©gression par rapport aux idĂ©es de Marx : il s’agit plutĂŽt d’un socialisme utopique, utopique puisque mĂȘme s’il s’agit d’une bonne idĂ©e en gĂ©nĂ©ral, il n’y a aucune force sociale qui le mette vraiment en pratique.

D’un point de vue Ă©cologique, cela signifie mettre Ă  l’écart les personnes qui sont en mesure de s’emparer des moyens de production afin de les rĂ©orienter vers des buts sociaux alternatifs, y compris la conservation de l’écosystĂšme. (Et il ne s’agit pas ici d’une abstraction floue, comme nous le verrons dans mon approche de l’atelier de Lars Henriksson). Angus a citĂ© la mĂ©taphore puissante de Walter Benjamin, qui explique, dans des annĂ©es 30 marquĂ©es par une ruĂ©e vers la barbarie fasciste et la guerre, que les rĂ©volutions ne sont pas tellement les « Locomotives de l’Histoire », mais plutĂŽt une facon d'appliquer les freins.

La pertinence en terme de changement climatique y est Ă©vidente, mais mĂ©langer la mĂ©taphore (dans la mĂ©taphore originale de Benjamin ce sont les passagers qui freinent). Angus a, si vous prĂ©fĂ©rez, a dĂ©barrassĂ© le train de son conducteur et de tous les autres cheminots – et il n’y a personne capable de tirer le levier.

Tout ceci a Ă©tĂ© provoquĂ© par les problĂšmes politiques plus gĂ©nĂ©raux de la tendance de la QuatriĂšme Internationale (ou du moins de l’aile que rĂ©prĂ©sentent Angus et Socialist Resistance). Angus a citĂ© de maniĂšre positive les expĂ©riences de Cuba, de la Bolivie et du Venezuela, citant de maniĂšre abusive le prĂ©sident bolivien Evo Morales.

Cela a permit de pointer la question de la lutte pour les droits indigĂšnes, mais sans grande conviction. Personne ne nie l’importance des luttes indigĂšnes, ou leur lien avec les luttes concernant l’environnement, mais l’on peut douter du fait que les gouvernements capitalistes que sont la Bolivie et le Venezuela en soient les expressions authentiques. L’idĂ©e de la classe ouvriĂšre, organisĂ©e en lien avec des groupes indigĂšnes et d’autres groupes dominĂ©s pour mener une rĂ©volution prolĂ©tarienne contre tout exploitation ou oppression, Ă©tait totalement absente du propos.

La session Ă  laquelle je suis allĂ©, animĂ© par Lars Henriksson, travailleur chez Volvo Ă  Gothenburg en SuĂšde, s’est diamĂ©tralement opposĂ© aux discours d’Angus et Phoenix. « Ă©co-populistes » et oublieux de la lutte des classes. Cela a confirmĂ© et approfondi ma propre comprĂ©hension des questions que le WCA a soulevĂ© un temps au sujet d’une «transition des travailleurs ». Ici cela n’était discutĂ© que comme une « production alternative ».

De la mĂȘme maniĂšre qu’en Grande-Bretagne, aux USA et dans bien d’autres pays, l’industrie de l’automobile a Ă©tĂ© dĂ©vastĂ© en SuĂšde par la crise Ă©conomique. Henriksson a identifiĂ© deux tendances prĂ©dominantes dans les rĂ©ponses faites par la classe bourgeoise.

La premiĂšre est l’approche nĂ©olibĂ©rale, oĂč il s’agit de laisser la situation se dĂ©grader, tout en et en considĂ©rant que le marchĂ© saura sans doute se rĂ©tablir de lui-mĂȘme. La seconde est une approche « Ă©colo », contente de voir la destruction de l’industrie automobile. (En Angleterre ce point de vue a Ă©tĂ© portĂ© par Georges Monbiot). Une autre version, prĂ©fĂ©rĂ©e par les social dĂ©mocrates suĂ©dois notamment, est de laisser au gouvernement le soutien financier de l’industrie automobile afin de la maintenir Ă  flots.

Naturellement tous les socialistes rĂ©volutionnaires, et tous les militants sĂ©rieux de la classe ouvriĂšre rejettent le « laisser aller » de l’approche nĂ©olibĂ©rale. Comme Henriksson l’a expliquĂ©, mettre des milliers de travailleurs de l’industrie automobile au chĂŽmage reviendrait Ă  crĂ©er un vrai dĂ©sastre social, et Ă  provoquer un vrai gĂąchis de ressources humaines et technologiques, qui pourraient, comme nous allons le voir, ĂȘtre utilisĂ©es Ă  des fins autres que la production de voiture.

Mais l’option conservatrice est Ă©galement impensable aux vues des consĂ©quences que cela engendrerait, autant au niveau des dommages environnementaux que lui et ses collĂšgues de travail produisent, qu’au niveau de l’improbabilitĂ© de pouvoir demander Ă  une coalition populaire de dĂ©fendre les milliards des multinationales pour continuer de dĂ©truire la planĂšte.

La troisiĂšme voie qu’Henriksson a identifiĂ© est celle oĂč les travailleurs se battent pour une rĂ©organisation de la production, en utilisant les compĂ©tences et les ressources techniques de l’industrie pour produire non pas des choses profitables mais qui correspondent Ă  un besoin par exemple, les services publiques, ou bien les Ă©oliennes. L’exemple classique qu’il a citĂ©, est celui de plan dĂ©veloppĂ© par les travailleurs de Lucas Aerospace dans les annĂ©es 70. De tels plans doivent ĂȘtre imposĂ©s aux patrons, et si nĂ©cessaire, cela peut conduire Ă  la demande de nationalisation des usines et entreprises. La conversion de toutes les industries demande que le collectif de travailleurs organisĂ©s qui a demandĂ© la conversion doit rester uni, toujours capable de se dĂ©finir collectivement comme une classe, plutĂŽt que de disperser dans le vent. (Ceci est Ă©galement une partie de la rĂ©ponse socialiste au problĂšme du chomĂąge : les plans de conversion demandent plus de travailleurs, comme par exemple les efforts qu’a exigĂ© l’usine de tuiles Zanon en Argentine, occupĂ©e par des travailleurs).

La condition prĂ©alable pour quelque chose de tel puisse se rĂ©aliser est, bien sur, de faire prendre confiance en eux aux ouvriers et en leur possibilitĂ© d’organisation, ce qui est particuliĂšrement difficile lors d’une crise Ă©conomique, alors mĂȘme que les syndicats reculent le combat afin de sauver des emplois, des conditions de travail etc. Henriksson a admis que ces idĂ©es ressemblent Ă  de la « science fiction » pour beaucoup de ses collĂšgues – particuliĂšrement dans ce contexte, non seulement de rĂ©cession et de recul social, mais aussi d’autoritarisme accru de la gestion dans le lieu de travail et de contrĂŽle bureaucratiques dans les syndicats. NĂ©anmoins, ceci est le plus nĂ©cessaire des combats.

Autrement dit, les ouvriers militants doivent aller au-delĂ  des luttes liĂ©es aux salaires et aux conditions de travail, pour atteindre une critique sur la production et le comment de cette production. (D’ailleurs, Alan Thornett, un membre de l’ISG qui Ă©tait un militant Ă  l’usine automobile Cowley Ă  Oxford, a fait une contribution au sujet de la façon dont les ouvriers des annĂ©es 70 de ce secteur se souciaient de cette question. Apparemment, il a dĂ©jĂ  fait ce discours de nombreuses fois. En fait, il a tort de supposer que sa propre ignorance Ă©tait alors universelle. Les travailleurs de Chrysler Ă  Coventry, par exemple, ont vraiment inventĂ© un plan pour la conversion des usines Ă  la fin des annĂ©es 70.

Dans le mĂȘme temps, Henriksson a soulignĂ© que cette politique n’est pas une alternative Ă  l’organisation « Bread and Butter », soit une organisation basĂ©e sur les besoins et demandes basiques des travailleurs. En fait cela ne peut se rĂ©aliser qu’à travers un mouvement ouvrier militant et organisĂ© autour des problĂ©matiques de base.

L’exemple classique de cela, que j’ai mentionnĂ©, est celui de la fĂ©dĂ©ration des ouvriers du batiment en Australie dans les annĂ©es 60 et 70, oĂč aprĂšs une pĂ©riode de construction, de prise de confiance et d’organisation Ă  travers des luttes pour « civiliser l’industrie », a dĂ©veloppĂ© un militantisme environnemental et de politique sociale. C’est quelque chose que beaucoup d’écologistes, excitĂ©s Ă  l’idĂ©e que des travailleurs de l’industrie automobile demandent une production alternative, n’arrivent pas Ă  comprendre.

La classe ouvriĂšre cache des sensibilitĂ©s particuliĂšres, des talents et de la crĂ©ativitĂ©, qui dans le quotidien reste plus ou moins, mais que ces lutes peuvent libĂ©rer et permettre d’épanouir. Se battre pour une production alternative, c’est se ĂȘtre capable de se battre d’une maniĂšre gĂ©nĂ©rale.

Henriksson a aussi discutĂ© du rĂŽle des deux sortes de « plans d’ouvriers » existants : les plans locaux, basĂ©s dans les lieux de travail et industries, comme ce fut le cas pour Lucas, et des plans au niveau de la sociĂ©tĂ© dans son entiĂšretĂ©, de façon Ă  rĂ©orienter la production Ă  une Ă©chelle plus large. Un exemple de cette derniĂšre sorte, celui qui avait pour but de transformer les systĂšmes de transports en commun de l’Europe, produit plus tĂŽt dans l’annĂ©e par des synicats de transports, incluant le RMT, qui dĂ©montre des Ă©tapes concrĂštes pour rĂ©duire les Ă©missions du transport de 75 pour cent. Dans les deux, le point important devrait ĂȘtre de mobiliser les ouvriers pour faire pression sur les patrons, ou directement sur le gouvernement capitaliste.

J’ai un peu provoquĂ© Henriksson sur le contraste, voir peut-ĂȘtre la contradiction, entre le discours clairement liĂ© aux questions de classe, Ă©lĂ©ments qu’il a pleinement assumĂ© et dĂ©veloppĂ©, et le populisme miĂšvre de la confĂ©rence. Il a refusĂ© d’y voir une contradiction, explicitant la diffĂ©rence qu’il peut y avoir entre le gĂ©nĂ©ral et le spĂ©cifique. Mais je pense que c’est l’approche d’Angus et de Socialist Resistance en gĂ©nĂ©ral, qui en ne mĂȘlant pas la classe ouvriĂšre au projet, exclue un Ă©clairage et des raisonnements spĂ©cifiques qui la considĂšre comme l’élĂ©ment clĂ©. De sorte que lorsque l’on considĂšre les philosophies politiques exprimĂ©es par les organisateurs de la confĂ©rence, il semble qu’il y ait bien deux Ăąmes distinctes dans l’écosocialisme.

Je ne dis pas que SR et GL s’opposent Ă  des projets comme ceux d’Henriksson : bien sur, puisqu’ils l’ont invitĂ© Ă  parler. Mais soit une organisation de la classe ouvriĂšre est la clĂ© pour dĂ©velopper une approche socialiste du changement climatique, soit elle ne l’est pas. La confĂ©rence a laissĂ© la question ouverte mais il est clair que beaucoup des participants n’ont pas particuliĂšrement un point de vue liĂ© aux problĂ©matiques de la classe ouvriĂšre.

Il n’y avait pas de travailleur de Vestas invitĂ© Ă  parler, malgrĂ© le fait que quand le WCA ait demandĂ© Ă  participer Ă  la confĂ©rence et a Ă©tĂ© rejetĂ©, on leur a dit que ce serait le cas. De plus, le militant du Climate Camp invitĂ© n’était pas de la tendance de ce mouvement sensible Ă  la lutte des classes, mais bien plutĂŽt un libĂ©ral.

Nous n’avons pas pu rester pour les sessions de l’aprĂšs-midi, donc la classe ouvriĂšre pourrait avoir Ă©tĂ© Ă©voquĂ©e dans les discussions lors de la suite de la journĂ©e. Mais il reste qu’il y a clairement des diffĂ©rences politiques d’importance, et des contradictions que les participants Ă©taient assez rĂ©ticents Ă  exprimer.

WCA existe pour dĂ©velopper une approche basĂ©e sur la problĂ©matique de classe. Il est triste de dire que je n’ai reconnu personne dans cette salle, qui ait Ă©tĂ© prĂ©sent Ă  la confĂ©rence de Vestas, Climate Camp et des autres luttes dynamiques qui ont lieu en ce moment. WCA, au contraire, est une organisation centrale dans ces domaines, et dĂ©veloppe ses idĂ©es sur ces bases lĂ .

J’espĂšre vous voir Ă  la confĂ©rence du 10 octobre !

Add new comment

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.