Daggett

I have been away and so am only now responding to your points.

I've begun reading the article about Trotsky's biggest blindspot. Its crticism of Trotsky on the environment is based in part on the idea that there are limits to growth, or as the author puts it:

"Now there certainly could and should be specific advances in many aspects of modern life. The issue is the possibility of open-ended and across-the-board advancement. Contrary to Trotsky and most socialist thought, there are insuperable limits to what humans can sustainably do, with diminishing returns and increasingly negative trade-offs taking their toll."

I think the author is confusing two societies - socialist and capitalist. Certainly under capitalism there do appear to be limits. But actually the problem for capitalism is over-production.

I would contend that the grundnorm of capitalist society is the extraction of surplus value from workers and the accumulation of part of that surplus, profit, in an ongoing cycle of extraction of surplus and re-investment. It is this process, in my view, that is the fundamental cause of the environmental destruction going on. If this is correct, then to end that destruction we workers must end the profit system and replace it with a democratic society in which production occurs to satisfy human need. As Rosa Luxemburg wrote, the choice for humanity is socialism or barbarism. (And to preempt those on the right, Stalinism is not socialism, and neither was the Stalinist USSR a workers' state. It was state capitalist.)

I'd recommend a small pamphlet from Socialist Alternative (www.sa.org.au) on this. It's called Capitalism: It's Costing us the Earth. There are more sophisticated trotskyist or quasi-trotskyist analysyes now available, building on Trotsky's work, thought and life, but this is a good start.

TBC.

Daggett

Also, on another point, I don't see militancy as a panacea. I just think that 25 years of trade union collaboration paved the way for Howard and his twin, Rudd. As the BLF used to say: If you don't fight, you lose.

There hasn't been a lot of fighting going on since the Accord concentrated power in the hands of the union officials and gave some of them seats in the Hawke and Keating Cabinets (more or less) while at the same time destroying rank and file organisation and producing the massive reductions in union membership we have seen.

If the ETU could build itself into a militant union defending jobs, (eg through shutting Qld down to push privatisation off the agenda), gaining real wage increases and thus industrially challenging the rule of capital as a consequece, then I think it would be time for discussions about a party to the left of the ALP based on militancy and a clear poltical analysis about the need to overthrow capitalism for the benefit of all humanity.

Passy, thanks for your responses.

Briefly, for now, whilst this may be drifting a little off-topic, I will just post a short response in turn from Sandy Irvine.

The critique of my essay on Trotsky (http://candobetter.org/node/392) seems to assume that the laws of geology, thermodynamics and ecology vary according the relations of production. Not so! At present it is not just a matter of Peak Oil looming on the horizon but also Peak Soil and many other inherent limits to production beginning to bite. Socialists should be arguing that those with the biggest shoulders and fattest stomachs should bear the brunt of the contraction that now cannot be avoided.

Sandy Irvine
Newcastle Upon Tyne
England

PS:
References to support the above assertions can be found at:
http://www.sandyirvine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Daggett

I agree this issue is off point to some extent, although I think it is really worthy of further disucssion, perhaps with ana rticle from Sandy on OLO. (more of that later.)

In response to Sandy maybe the relations of production have become a fetter on the further development of humanity and the task for the working class is to burst those chains and free humanity to address the environemntal and other issues facing us. (I also think that we view "immutable" natural laws through the prism of the society in which we exist, crudely through the relations of production which prevail.)

Anyway, there is much to discuss on this topic (but maybe only between us!). Could I suggest Sandy offer a brief precis of the article about Trotsky's "blindspot" to OLO. It would need to be worded in such a way as to invite readers unfamiliar with Trotsky into the discussion, and critique what Sandy sees as we socialists seeming technological advancement approach.

Even under capitalism I am sceptical about peak oil, since the price mechanism creates the conditons for profitable exploitation of previously unprofitable reserves or new sources (eg oil sands in Canada) or new technologies and sources such as geothermal, wind power, solar power, tidal power and so on.

Indeed I wrote an article 25 years ago for the Nuclear Disarmamnet Party arguing for those alternatives and pointing out that although human need required their development it would not occur unless there was a profit to be made. This to me highlighted the conflict between profit and need.

I suspect the same argument could be made about peak soil (eg that heh solution is available or can be developed, but only outside the profit system). I don't know since this is the first time I have heard the phrase used. I'll do some chasing up to investigate it further (including reading Sandy's two references.)

Daggett and Sandy

I found this browsing the net on Trotsky and the environment.

It raises some questions but does I think give an answer of sorts to Sandy's critique of trotsky on the environemnt, including the quote from his Literature piece.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/envi-j01.shtml

Passy, I agree that the discussion concerning socialism and physical limits of our environment needs to be had elsewhere. So I have created a forum topic "Home » Forums » Political Philosphies » Socialism » Socialism and the limits of our environment" at http://candobetter.org/node/673#comment-1021

You're welcome to add further comments either anonymously or through an account.

I will attend to the other points I have not responded to as soon as I have attended to a large number of chores that desperately need to be done.