Class, Ecology and the bin tax

national | anti-capitalism | opinion/analysis

Wednesday November 12, 2003 15:38

by Andrew

This is the text of my contribution to the debate in Galway last weekend on 'Class, Ecology and the bin tax'. The other speaker was Niall O Brolacháin (Green Party). This was one of the sessions at Grassroots Gathering 6, you will find more details of the Gathering at http://grassrootsgathering.freeservers.com/

When a number of us were putting together the idea of the Grassroots Gatherings a few years back we spent a lot of time discussing terminology. This was because we were aware that the exposure to organisations like the Socialist Workers Party had left many grassroots activists very cautious of groups using terms like 'working class' or 'socialism'. So instead the statement includes the concepts behind these terms but using other words. Point 4 for instance reads that the network would "Organise for the control of the workplace by those who work there."

This gave people a chance to think about and agree with a set of concepts rather then the terms commonly used to describe those concepts. In no small part due to what calls itself the 'revolutionary left' these terms have been robbed of meaning for many activists. Well 6 Gatherings on I think we can start reclaiming some of these terms and this debate should be part of that reclamation.

The statement that the world we live in is divided into different classes with different interests seems so obvious to me that it is hardly worth stating. We live in a world where what Bill Gates earns in one day equals the combined earning of 14 million of the worlds poorest people. Or that for any of us to get Tony O'Reilly wealth we would have to win the lottery every week for 13 years. (He is worth around 1300 million).

The idea that we no longer live in a class society is very popular with the right. This is because it means that inequality is the fault of the poor. In extreme cases the 'poor' might need help out of the 'poverty trap' but that's where it ends. Otherwise we are, 'all individuals'.

I don't intend to get bogged down in precise definitions of class. What I will say that on this planet there are two very obvious classes. One of these holds most of the wealth and all of the power. It is not large in number, no more then a percent or two of the world's population. This is the ruling class and Tony O'Reilly, Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch are all individuals in that class. In the worlds largest economy, the USA, the top 1% own over 40% of the wealth

The other major class holds none of the power and almost none of the wealth. For us and our families to survive over the long term we have to work for the ruling class. This class is huge; well over 80% of the world's population, individuals in that class include Noel Kelly, Lisa Carroll and Finian Smyth.

Thos of you who are good with maths will note that adding the ruling class and the working class together gives you less then 100%. I don't intend to discuss the bit in the middle, for the story we are telling today they are not that important. The middle class may be the obsession of the media and the left, it should not be ours.

In 1995 Noam Chomsky spoke at a benefit for locked out workers in Illinois on the topic of "Class War: The Attack On Working People". He argued that for a long time the US had been in the grips of a vicious class war. But one conducted by the ruling class against what he termed 'working people'. Later in 1995 in response to a question on globalisation he extended this as follows
"This is class war on an international scale, and power is in the hands of those who control the international economic system. This framework does require extensive state power to protect the rich. The Saudi, Arabian ruling class, for example, have rights because they are performing a service for Western power, ensuring that oil profits go to the West and not to the regional population."

The debate is about 'class and the environment'. So what in general terms is the environmental relevancy of class.

1. The worst effects of pollution are often localised. If you are part of the ruling class you can simply move away from the poisoned river, the toxic landfill or the blighted landscape. If you are from the poorer sections of the working class you may well find that the only job you can get is in the chemical factory that is causing the problems in the first place and that the only home you can afford is next to the incinerator and on top of the old toxic dump that is leaching into the soil.

Rising sea levels due to global warming will kill millions of working class people in the years to come, in part because they can't afford to move, in part because taking the risk of working marginal land is something forced on the poor. . Locally every time there is significant flooding in Dublin it hits two working class communities the hardest, Ringsend and East Wall. The coastal areas where our local ruling class are located, Howth and Dalkey are well above sea level, with a fine view to boot. Needless to say it is also Ringsend that is threatened with an incinerator.

2. Pollution is in the interests of some. So too is global warming.

Millionaire share owners with significant holdings in oil companies for instance will become richer quicker the faster oil is sucked out of the ground. A carbon tax will reduce their wealth. Safety features like double hulled oil tankers will reduce their wealth. Enforcing the same safety features of North Sea or US oil production on Nigeria will reduce their wealth. Allowing some oil revenue to go to local communities will reduce their wealth. Stopping oil companies drilling in Alaska will reduce their wealth. Switching over to renewable energy will reduce their wealth. Even making cars more energy efficient will reduce their wealth.

Of course these people are no more then 1 or 2 percent of the population. So we might imagine that the interests of the 98% who get no profit from the oil industry would prevail. In the real world we already know this is not the case. Even in western democracies where in theory the people can effect government decisions at election times the oil companies have had shown little hesitation in simply buying the election. The oil and gas industry was one of Bush's top 10 contributors in Election 2000. Every US president this century has been a millionaire, indeed all of the current US cabinet are millionaires.

So the problem is not simply that the ruling class holds almost all the worlds' wealth. It also holds almost all of the decision making power. In fact the whole distinction between power and wealth is a bit meaningless as one is very easily turned into the other. Both Tony O'Reillys and Rubert Murdoch's massive wealth is invested in media. We already know that they determine the sort of stories that media puts out.

As long as we live in a world ruled by a small elite that not only has the wealth to escape from environmental degradation but actually makes a bigger profit by not doing anything about it the 'environmental problem' will never be solved. We will forever be in crisis with intervention only when the shit really threatens to hit the fan in a way that would threaten the profits of multinationals. Mass extinction they'd be keen to avoid as they need us both to work for them and buy from them. But they seem to reckon the world is already overpopulated, they can afford to lose a couple of billion of the sickest workers and poorest consumers.

Way back I mentioned three members of the ruling class, Tony O'Reilly, Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch that I'd guess everyone in the room has heard of. Then I mentioned Noel Kelly, Lisa Carroll and Finian Smyth whom some of you will certainly recognise but may have puzzled others. The three people I mentioned have all been jailed for protesting against the imposition of the bin tax on working class communities in Dublin. 18 others have been jailed alongside them to date.

There are some who see the bin tax as being an example where the 'environmental agenda' is counterpoised to the 'working class' agenda. I don't and I think the few environmentalists who have supported the ruling class line in this have done great damage to the environmental cause.

The bin tax pure and simple is about imposing the neo-liberal agenda, what some people call 'globalisation'. A core part of this agenda is to transfer the costs of running society from the rich and corporations to workers and the poor. And this is exactly what the bin tax is doing.

Remember we live in a time when we are constantly being told that there are not enough public funds for education or the health system. At the same time we see progressive taxes on profits and income being reduced, By progressive taxes I mean taxes which work on the basis that the more you earn the more you pay.

Joe Higgins wrote a report while in Mountjoy that highlighted this transfer "Figures from the Central Statistics Office show that in 1987 wages and salaries of workers amounted to 59% of Gross Domestic Product while the profits and rents taken by the capitalists amounted to 41%. By 2001 the proportion going to workers had fallen to 46% while profits and rents had risen to 54%"

Taxes were driven down for corporations during a boom when they were making super profits. This meant that McCreevy could balance the books when the boom lasted. Now it has ended who is being asked to make up this shortfall. Corporate taxes are not set to rise, instead flat taxes like the bin tax are being rolled out on the one hand while on the other public services like Education and Health are allowed to deteorate. This also will hit the working class hardest, as the poorest sections simply face longer and longer waiting lists and the better earning sections see a larger and larger proportion of their income going into private healthcare etc.

Simply put the bin tax is class war, with as usual the bosses on the offensive. What is different about it is that quite large sections of the working class have been fighting back. Non payment in large areas of Dublin was as high as 80%. Mass meeting of hundreds of people were held. And that resistance outraged the ruling class.

Every section of the ruling class has mobilised in a very serious way to break the campaign. The media from Joe Duffy to the Sunday Independent has put out the most scurrilous lies and suggestions about the campaign. The Gardai who apparently don't have the manpower to stop joy riders or even protect witnesses in murder cases could turn up at every blockade, often in numbers within 30 minutes of it starting. The judges whose investigations into the corruption scandals of the rich drag on for years and have resulted in almost no prosecutions could jail people for standing in front of a truck within hours. The political parties lines up one after the other either to attack the motivations of the protests, Fianna Fail called us scroungers while one Green Party TD claimed this was a case of stupid working class people failing to understand the issue and being led astray by evil lefties.

What you might ask are they afraid of, that ordinary people standing in front of bin trucks prompted this level of hysteria. This brings me to the last point I want to make - why class politics should be central to anyone who wants to fundamentally change the world.

The ruling class is well aware that it is a tiny minority of the world's population. In a straight fight between the working class and the ruling class it would lose every time. That is why it puts such enormous energy into not only dividing us against each other but also into building an enormous system of propaganda that enters every aspect of our lives from our first days in school to slumping in front of the TV at night. And for those who still resist it literally has whole armies to smash this resistance.

We are not going to achieve fundamental change by taking on this might small group by small group. Facing all the apparatus of the state and capital can often seem a hopeless task. But above all else this apparatus can only work if it keeps the working class not only divided but in a situation where it cannot even recognise itself. Because of this the fight against the system is always a fight for recognition - to tear down the barriers that are erected and recognise each other as part of the same class and fighting the same fight.

We live in a class society. We can't wish that away or pretend like small children that if we can't see it that it can't effect us. Class politics remains the key to uniting the overwhelming majority of the world's people in the fight for a new and classless society.

save preference

Comments (17 of 17)

Jump To Comment:

An "environmentalist" response

by Mike

Wed Nov 12, 2003 16:42

First of all, the rich and powerful rulers and shakers aren't TRYING to destroy the environment, aren't doing so "with dilligence", but are simply indifferent to the environemntal destruction caused in the furtherance of their interests. That, of course, is enough for me to oppose them. But before you shout with glee, "another ally" might I humbly observe that YOU show no evidence of having more interest in preventing environmental destruction in the furtherance of YOUR goals than they do. All YOU offer is some "religious" faith that if only we solve the problems of social injustice the environmental problems will miraculously vanish. As much "pie in the sky" as the ranting of any preacher.

Second, I saw no evidence of the "environmentals" being FOR the "bin tax" as it has been implemented. The "environmentals" seem to have wanted something quite different (say "pay per throw"). But of course THAT doesn't represent class interests, doesn't further your definition of the only game in town.

My friend, just because YOU believe that there is only one struggle worth fighting doesn't mean that represents reality. Sorry, but as far as Nature is concerned, it doesn't matter a damn if the environmental destruction is caused by the desire for more of rampant capitalism or the desire for more of a socialist workers paradise. In THIS regard (just concern about the environment) there isn't all that much to choose between the sides. I might (and do) support the struggle to end social injustice but that's NOT because I believe curing this evil will do a bit of good for the environment. I care about people too.

THERE AREN'T ONLY TWO SIDES. What you believe in this regard doesn't change reality. You presumably want "environmentals" who may or may not "care" all that much about "human issues" to work with you? Then you need to treat them as allies -- you can't "draft" allies. I agree, the "environmental" position with regard to "bin" proposals was not FOR class struggle -- but treating their position as AGAINST was silly (it was of course neutral). The problem is in YOUR head, seeing EVERYTHING as being for or against with regard to class struggle.

DON'T DO THIS! Don't polarize the matter and treat "environmentalists" being neutral on this or that particular matter as "enemy" because they aren't with you. Doing that only serves to convince them they will need to choose between workign for the environment or working for social justice, one or the other. They'll need to decide which is more urgent. And guess what. Maybe they know of another truth....

There is no social justice on a dead planet. Not unless you mean the equality of the grave.

re; Mike

Wed Nov 12, 2003 17:02

Mike the Grassroots Gathering is made up of a wide range of individuals and organisation who share in common a grassroots method of organisation. The distinction between those that are 'environmentalist first' or 'social(ist) first' only has a meaning in so far as sometimes people because active or aware of one before the other. But those that were first drawn into activism through environmentalism had no more problems with the arguemnts here then vice versa.

In short your claim to speak for all environmentalists is simply not true. There are no shortage of radical environmentalists that see capitalism as part of the problem. As one T Shirt worn at the Gathering pointed out 'Sellafield is not an accident - capitalism is the problem'.

I don't claim that capitalists make a profit from the act of pollution itself. Although some (the owners of superdumps, the breakers of ships etc) do. I point out that most if not all acts that reduce pollution hit them in their pockets. I guess its easier to pretend I said something else and answer that strawman though?.

and further

by chekov

Wed Nov 12, 2003 17:21

"All YOU offer is some "religious" faith that if only we solve the problems of social injustice the environmental problems will miraculously vanish"

If we had a truly democratic society, the environmental problems would not vanish, but they would start to be dealt with very quickly by the people who are affected by them. If the people of Ringsend and the East Wall had a meaningful input into planning and waste management policy, you can be very sure that the problems of flooding and incinerators would be top of the agenda. Much more so than if the Greens were in government.

Re: An "environmentalist" response

by Terry

Wed Nov 12, 2003 18:15

Mike

You say:
'Second, I saw no evidence of the "environmentals" being FOR the "bin tax" as it has been implemented. The "environmentals" seem to have wanted something quite different (say "pay per throw")'

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at here, but the critism by the anti-bin tax campaign against those Greens who were for the charges is that the policy as implemented by the government is not green nor is it just or fair and that the (pro-charges) Greens have been either mislead by the government. As to why they can't see the wool has been pulled over the eyes raises even more questions. My own opinion is that they have not carried out a very indepth analysis of what's going on and that could include a class analysis.

The government policy as it stands does nothing to reduce waste and part of the plan is to bring in incinerators.

In another section (earlier) you say:
'YOU show no evidence of having more interest in preventing environmental destruction in the furtherance of YOUR goals'

Surely if the goal is social justice, freedom and true democracy so that people can actually excercise their choice, it makes sense they will attempt to solve the environmental crisis.

What you effectively say above is that only a small bunch of people have the wisdom to do that and thus they should be the ones to have the power. This is revealed to some extent when you use the term 'socialist workers paradise'. Is this a hark back to the USSR or China? I think you are confusing State socialism which is really State capitalism and Party communism with the anarchist approach which is NON-authoritarian communism which is completely different and where the idea is that real democracy would exist very much unlike the totalitarian systems that the media likes to label all brands of socialism/communism with. It is of course another matter whether such a society can be brought about in the face of the obstacles.

You instead just throw out the statement that somehow the environmental is detached from politics in a certain sense by saying:
'My friend, just because YOU believe that there is only one struggle worth fighting doesn't mean that represents reality. Sorry, but as far as Nature is concerned, it doesn't matter a damn if the environmental destruction is caused by the desire for more of rampant capitalism or the desire for more of a socialist workers paradise. In THIS regard (just concern about the environment) there isn't all that much to choose between the sides.'

And of course as I said earlier you have taken on the media stereotypes of socialism by saying there are only two sides -i.e. capitalism/socialism. The real divide is not along these lines but between authoritarian and non-authoritarn societies and at the moment unfortunately we don't have any non-authoritarian examples to show, except the brief spark during the 1936 Spainish revolution.

No War.....

by DIY t-shirts inc.

Wed Nov 12, 2003 20:41

but the Class War

Communication problem?

Wed Nov 12, 2003 22:52

No, of course I do not speak for anybody else than myself.

But Chekov, et al (all those who expressed something similar)-- we seem to have a communication problem around words like "ecology" and "environment". Sorry if this caused confusion. I was NOT meaning to express doubt that doing away with capitalism might not help solve "environmental justice" problems. The communication problem being that THIS sort of thing to you is a typical "environmental problem" while to me that's just a "social justice" issue. My doubts are with regard to (just) eliminating capitalism would do much to solve (what I would call) environmental problems and which you perhaps would not consider problems at all (since they have little or nothing to do with humans EXCEPT we humans being the cause of the problem by our actions).

Now I have no serious objection to your ignoring environmental problems (my definition), prefering instead to concentrate on the social justice problems you consider more urgent. Me, I prefer to work on BOTH sorts of problems. I do have social justice concerns. But I also have environmental concerns unrelated to human injustice. All I am asking is that you recognize that you simply aren't interested in these and stop insisting that we who are should go about solving (our) environmental problems your way.

Mike, you're just out to pick a fight

by Phuq Hedd

Thu Nov 13, 2003 01:06

Environmental problems are just one facet of social injustice and most likely to be able to be solved when control over our lives is placed in our hands (ie when we get rid of the dictatorship of the rich).

Many environmental problems require the cooperation, and enlightenment of everyone in society. It's not possible to get that under capitalism.

So there's two steps to solving environmental problems and they need to occur sequentially in this order:
1. Get rid of the dictatorship of the rich
2. Work together to solve the environmental problems

Sure, it might be possible to forcibly sterilize us all, burn us at the stake for eating white bread and pillory us in public for driving cars, but the reasons that people make those choices are often to do with their role in society and the pleasures available within that role. (As it happens I believe in pillorying car drivers, but there ya go -- I don't think it's going to do much good although I do think that people are making a lazy, selfish choice when they do).

until you realise

by sustain

Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:19

until you realise that social justice and environmental problems are intrinsically linked your banging your little flags and worn-out-dogmas against a brick wall.

stating that environmental problems can be solved by the 'cooperation, and enlightenment of everyone in society' is baseless and inconsequential - you may aswell be telling us that to save the world we must pray or something. Every issue cant be boiled down to an impression of economic strata and singularly western version of environmental ethics and justice. I mean can you really speak for the rest of the world from your comfortable, privileged(dont think your not), secure position as a relatively rich western european.

While your coming up with new trendy 'world-views', political facades(that you have no real experiences of), visions of a localised 'truly democratic society' and completely intangable 'steps to solving environmental problems' people are struggling to survive. And that struggle is predominantly against the global environmental related issues. Think about that the next time you stumble over the vagaries of state socialism, state capitalism, party communism, the anarchist approach, non-authoritarian communism or whatever notion sounds cool to the kids

Err that was the point

Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:22

Of course 'social justice and environmental problems are intrinsically linked'. So why do you keep trying to seperate them out and prioritise the environment as if it is somehow seperate from class politics?

THAT is precisely the point!

Thu Nov 13, 2003 14:15

I agree that "you" believe that (that environmental problems are just one aspect of social injustice). You of course are allowed to believe it. I'm just suggesting that you recognize that this is a "matter of faith" with you, and that some of us have different "religions".

You think "litter" has a class cause? Around here we have a mandatory deposit on beer and soda cans and bottles. Now that amount is trivial to the rich bastards, less trivial to the poor workers, so by the same reasoning you apply opposing "pay per throw" (NOT the implemented bin tax) you would claim that there would be more cans and bottles strewn around the rich areas than the poor ones. For two reasons. A higher percentage thrown away and less people collecting them (yes, around here you do see down and outers going around collecting discarded cna/bottles for the deposit).

REALITY CHECK -- that's NOT what you observe. Class does NOT appear to make a damned bit of difference in this instance (likelihood of throw away rather than save for return). We have a "transfer station" (dump itself closed/full) and you can look into the transfer dumpsters. We pay per bag for "trash" but recycle glass, metal, plastic, paper, etc. are free and the school will handle the returnables. BUT WHO BOTHERS SEPARATING? Well judging by the vehicles, it isn't CLASS that makes the difference. Some poor folks will come with a dozen "trash" bags in the back of the pick-up and some rich folks just one "pay" bag and the rest all separated out -- AND VICE VERSA (I wasn't meaning to imply the "lower classes" were worse in this regard -- I mean no discenrable class difference).

THEREFOR -- I would NOT expect this aspect of our behavior to be affected by doing away with social injustice. Being sloppy with trash (or not) must have some OTHER causes. And no, of course I don't believe we can cure the environmental problems by meditating or praying about them -- not any more than "you" believe you could fix social injustice that way.

Stawmen etc

Thu Nov 13, 2003 14:21

Mike when you use "" then they are meant to contain what a person has actually written. Not what it would be useful to you if they had written.

I used the term "pollution" which is a lot bigger then your wished for "litter". The oil companies are owned by the ruling class not the working clas. Cleaning them up or reducing oil consumption would reduce profits for those that own them. Now go and join the dots ...

GG6 quotes - names withheld to ptotect the unwitting

by lish

Thu Nov 13, 2003 14:35

"i have no problem with pornography...as long as it's hardcore."

"I have no problem with Socialists. Some of my best friends are Socialists."

"anarcho queer tour"
on black balloon hovering over galway walking tour later given on request to mother who wanted it for her kid. until she read it.

"drop your trousers as far as you can for the oil companies."

"they practically genuflect when they see a briefcase & a suit".

"talking about "ordinary people" sounds like a fetish."

"we're not social workers. although if you're dyslexic you might think you're one."

"all sex is exploitative."

"i'll take it any way it comes."

"i want to set up an an archo porn collective".

"i saw this great snail sex scene".

"work is too expensive."

"why would they privatise the bins? that would be silly."

"I'd just like to say you're very brave to come here & thanks for coming."
"Thanks, I appreciate that."
"However..."

Some simple examples

by hs - sp

Thu Nov 13, 2003 17:06

Very good article I think, but how capitalism adds to the enviormental destruction, heres one simple example - milk bottles, remember them! Not so long ago all our milk came in bottles which we gave back and were cleaned etc. Then they switched to cartons, why? What was wrong with the bottles, nothing. Only one reason its financially cheaper. You can say the same for beer bottles whcich were once returned. And you can say the same for the only bottling plant in dublin. The truth of the matter is capitalism big or small sees the bottom line, and the enviorment doesn't come into it.

can

Thu Nov 13, 2003 19:29

can that actually be attributed this etheral thing called capitalism? The reason I say that is because many of the production shifts (i.e. bottle to carton) can often be attributed to short term financial gain but in the long term can cause a reduction in revenue (i.e. dependance on bought materials rather that a closed loop system of a material pool).

The milk carton is a good example because its nice and simple. Consider the energy requirements(fuel dependant etc.) of transporting to-and-fro heavy glass bottles and the energy required to clean and the substances required to clean those bottles and the systems required to validate the cleanliness of those bottle before reintroducing milk to those bottles to be shipped out again etc. You may then be getting an image of the level of production infrastucture to allow that system work and the inherant impact on the environment You have to ask things like how will that complex infrastructure adapt to changes such as population increases etc. Then what about the fragility of the material i.e. lots of broken bottles that have to be recycled at high economic and energy costs and rebought by the company.

So then they introduce a carton that could be a predominantly recycled material that is lighter to transport (thus reducing the CO2 burden and energy costs) and what you are left with is a waste material that is far easier and less energy intensive to recycle than glass.

so which is more 'environmentally friendly' and why do we percieve it to be so or is it our ignorance of the entirety of the situation making us percieve the issue in a particular light???

The swedish environment agency did a life cycle analysis on this very item many years ago (more detailed than this basic view) and concluded that the most economically and environmentally sound method of milk dispensing was to have a door to door delivery using lighter recycled plastic bottles which seemed to address the many problems of the previous options.

You may think i have digressed too much but I wanted to show that even an apparently simple issue has wider implications and complications that require a mode of thinking above and beyond the standard and haggard dogmas. some call it thinking outside the box some call it growing up some call it yadda yadda.......

"What was wrong with the bottles"

Thu Nov 13, 2003 19:31

As long as you look at it THAT way there is no chance we can address our environmental problems. See, there were TWO parts to the "what was wrong with the bottles"

You are correct, it was cheaper for the (capitalist) milk bottlers to switch from returnable glass bottles to throwaway. But that's only part of the story. At the same time (when there was both milk still in glass bottles and milk in throw away wax cartons) THE PEOPLE did not choose to continue to buy their milk in the glass bottles leaving the new fangled (a couple cents cheaper?) wax paper cartons on the shelves.

But again maybe the (capitalist) milk producers were doing ads promoting the "convenience" of "no need to haul glass bottles back" --- but maybe again it was just PEOPLE being lazy. LOOK, it's not ME who is treating ordinary people as if they were helpless, incapable of taking charge of even trivial details of their lives, being incapble of making any of their own choices.

Damned straight, changing things around is going to require convincing "the people" to make their own choices, to take control of their own lives. But guess what. This can NOT wait "till after the revolution" because until/unless the people have decided we aren't going to get a MEANINGFUL revolution.

Please stop SHOUTING Mike

by Chekov

Thu Nov 13, 2003 19:49

The thing about the bottles was that the consumer never had a choice. The suppliers simply stopped using them and soon afterwards the recycling infrastructure (the milkman) was eliminated from most of the country. I remember the time very well since I knew our milkman quite well. His suppliers simply switched to tetrapack, and he had no choice but to deliver it. As I lived over 3 miles away from the nearest shop and couldn't drive, I also had no choice. Then, before too long, the milkman's job became obselete since his/her whole raison d'etre was to provide bottle recycling. Before too long there was no choice available. So no matter how conscientous I had been, it wouldn't have made a difference. I could have walked the 6 miles every day lugging bottles back and forth and it wouldn't have changed a thing.

The important thing to note is that, in a capitalist economy, the notion of consumer choice is largely illusory. In the few cases where people do refuse to go along with the cheaper, more environmentally destructuve 'choice', the capitalists soon conspire to eliminate the choice. For example during the 1940's and 50's GM bought up much of the public transportation infrastructure in the US, particularly the trams, and simply shut it down, to eliminate the competition to the private motor industrty.

I'm not saying that personal responsibility is irrelevant (I currently lug empty bottles miles across town to recycle them), but compared to the power of industry to shape our decisions, the consumer is powerless. In any case, many people barely have the time and energy to survive at all in our 'economy', getting by by leaning on various crutches like alcohol and prescription drugs. They simply don't have the leisure to take upon themselves the burden of responsibility for environmental problems that are largely not of their making and they will naturally seek the path of least resistance, the easy option. Sure it'd be great if we all had the infinite time and energy that some environmentalists seem to possess, but we have to deal with people as they are, not as we would like them to be.

i took the bottles

Thu Nov 13, 2003 19:52

i used that bottle as an analogy to try and show you that there are many obivous ways to look at a problem (environmental or whatever) and that perceptions of the solution can be different etc. I used this to maybe show that your assertions of class and environmental and social ethics may be a little focussed on the limited.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Class, Ecology and the bin tax

Comments (17 of 17)