John Sullivan Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From New Interventions, Vol. 8 No. 3, Spring 1998.
Transcribed by Paul Flewers.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Am I the only one to be puzzled by John Williams’ article A Holistic Socialist Vision, in New Interventions, Vol. 7 No. 3? He argues for a programme of feminist eco-socialism which will be ‘one strand in the tapestry of agendas that a holistic socialist supra-national Europe could implement within its domain’. Is recycling agendas his alternative to basket weaving? If he has enough to cover a reasonably-sized wall, he must have led a terribly boring life.
Insofar as I understand him, Williams is arguing that a European Union superstate would be able to combine Green and socialist objectives. As this is probably now the majority view on the left, it might be useful to examine the history and theory of the Green movement. Let’s start with National Socialism, the most serious attempt so far to implement a Green programme, before going on to examine contemporary movements. A community of people living at one with nature was absolutely central to the Nazi vision. They thought that society had been ruined by the Enlightenment, whose main instrument had been the Jews. For radical nature-worshippers, there can, of course, be no sharp distinction between humans and other creatures, so they were necessarily hostile to the Mosaic law which does make such distinctions. When Nazi ideologues attacked attempts to master nature, they sounded like hippies. Hitler alleged that men seemed intent on destroying themselves by eating meat, and were ‘alone among living creatures in trying to deny the laws of nature’. The Nazis tended to be animal lovers. For example, Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, described how, when stressed out by the pressure of work: ‘I would mount my horse and ride, until I had chased the terrible picture away. Often at night, I would walk through the stables and seek relief among my beloved animals.’ For Himmler, getting rid of the Jews was equivalent to a creature delousing itself: ‘As far as anti-Semitism is concerned, it is exactly the same as with delousing. It is a matter of cleanliness ...’ More recently, Rudolf Bahro, the former East European dissident, believed that Germans needed a new Adolf to lead them to a Green future.
The deep Greens, sometimes known as deep ecologists, to distinguish them from the timid reformists in the Green parties, call for the world’s population to be reduced, although the favoured weapon is no longer gas chambers, but the withholding of health care. There are a number of such tendencies, the best known of which, Gaia, sees the planet as a living creature intent on preserving life: ‘If humans stand in the way, they will be eliminated.’ Inevitably, such a tendency is completely uninterested in the divisions within humanity. Those with power, stockbrokers, bankers and generals, are no more guilty than the poor in the Third World or in the inner cities. It is hard luck that the poor will suffer most from the proposed Green solutions, but perhaps that is a law of nature.
Another such tendency, Earth First, maintains that there should be no special privileges for humans. Although all humans are guilty of damaging the planet, there seems to be a special dislike of the ‘genetically-impoverished’ black or brown people, and, once again, the poor. Aids is sometimes seen as nature’s population control device, and starvation is seen as the solution to Ethiopia’s problems. Inevitably, such positions are held by theorists who do not create a mass organisation. For a middle ground between those unpleasant people and the man at the bottle bank, or the readers of Red Pepper, you must go to the dippy New Age types and eco-feminists, who are in the centre of Williams’ holistic tapestry.
Moving on to the Green mainstream, we find a jumble of largely unexamined dogmas, myths and magical beliefs, the most important of which is Malthusianism, which holds that, as the earth has limited resources, humanity must cut back on its consumption and, especially, on its numbers. The intellectual provenance of the theory is not always acknowledged. Latter-day Malthusians tend to speak about ‘sustainability’ and ‘carrying capacity’.
Greens try to convince us that we face imminent catastrophe. In reality, their beliefs are an example of a moral panic, similar to the fears about Mods and Rockers, rottweilers, Aids, global warming, additives in food and Satanic abuse. These rise and fade, to be replaced by new panics. They reflect a general unease, rather than rational fears based on evidence. Conservative Greens long for a lost rural Arcadia. In contrast, people who have experienced rural life are glad that they managed to escape to the cities.
Most Greens are attracted to the prospect of individual transformation, because it avoids the need for revolution, conflict or collective action. It’s enough to change our diet. Understandably, this is a popular view, as it is easier to exercise our jaws than our brains. Have a glance at the number of books on magic cures in bookshops. We can laugh, but we should remember that these illusory remedies are a product of real pain. Anti-consumerism appeals to the downwardly mobile. If you can’t afford the standard of living your parents have, it helps if you can despise their unspiritual materialism.
Malthus’ view that the limited possibilities of increasing food production set natural limits on population was spectacularly wrong. Food production has exceeded the limits he outlined many times over. Each new generation of Malthusians claims he will be proved right soon.
The dominant tendency in the Green ideology and the core of Williams’ eco-feminist holism is the distrust of reason. The horrors of our century are blamed on technology, not on the political uses to which it has been put. For Martin Heidegger, the Nazi’s leading philosopher, and a passionate Green, there is no difference between people working in mechanised farming and those running an extermination camp.
In Britain, the Green Party has been more moderate than the sectional movements, such as Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, probably because, like most political parties, it is an alliance of diverse ideological tendencies. It has been less important for the Green movement than the social democratic parties have been for the labour movement. It is difficult to place it on the political spectrum, as many Greens see politics dominated by human concerns and class conflict as irrelevant. The general impression is that the Green voters come somewhere between Labour and Lib Dem. The fascist tendencies which are significant on the animal rights scene are hardly in evidence in the party. The Green Party’s distinctiveness consists of an even greater concentration on media attention than mainstream parties, and, following logically from that, a big concentration on personalities. The media do not like ideas, but they liked Jonathan Porrit, Sarah Fergusson and David Icke.
It’s hard to say what a Green party with power would do. In Germany, some Greens seemed happy in coalitions with the Social Democrats, but others were not. I would predict that authoritarian Green tendencies (compulsory restriction on breeding) would be downplayed, but a Green party would be as tough as the mainstream parties on immigrants and refugees.
There would be tax changes (the Greens supported the imposition of VAT on fuel), and support for Blair’s authoritarian communitarianism, workfare, etc. There would certainly be petty attempts to regulate lifestyle and personal habits. Right-wing governments will find lots of this useful, particularly the preaching against growth, and the pious attacks on materialism. The Greens want a radically different world, but in the meantime they will settle for cycle lanes and a higher tax on fuel.
So, no more road building, lots of draconian controls on private conduct, whilst the ruling class continue to rule. Very much like New Labour. If the Green Party was a force and Blair needed their votes, there would be an alliance tomorrow. If a New Labour/Green alliance is within the bounds of possibility, a Red/Green alliance seems a very strange idea indeed. Socialists once prided themselves as being the heirs of the Enlightenment, inheriting the best aspects of bourgeois culture, science, progress and secularism. So why take on board Malthus, obscurantist religion, irrationalism and the cult of poverty? Part of the answer is the belief that the more planks you have on your platform, the more people will be able to stand on it. This is true of a physical platform, but not of a political one. If you support Catholics/Serbs/smokers, you will annoy Protestants/Croats/non-smokers. Support from the Greens means antagonising workers, pensioners, atheists and what used to be seen as the forces of progress. Once labour movement activists realise that Arthur Scargill ran a long-term inmate of Greenham Common as a parliamentary candidate, his party will be over.
However, sectional Green movements such as Greenpeace are more popular than the strictly political ones. Socialists used to sing ‘No saviours from on high deliver’, but Greenpeace makes the IRA seem democratic. The supporters send their cheques, and the heroes save the world.
Those who want more involvement and a friendly lifestyle will turn to Friends of the Earth, a variation on ordinary suburban madness, where worried people scrutinise the labels in supermarkets, and talk about double glazing and the Neighbourhood Watch. The more radical fringe can live in tepees, grow organic vegetables, drink their own urine, and retreat from the world. Socialists are tolerant of such people, just as we are of train-spotters. We agree that the world is full of horrors, or we would not want to change it. Opposing irrationality is a precondition to such change.
Anti-road protesters, the Green flavour of the month, are a mixture of local residents (Nimbies) and New Age or anarchist protesters. Ordinary people cannot see this as anything but entertainment, some of it, admittedly, of high quality. It is tragic that socialist groups such as the Socialist Party (formerly Militant) appear to believe that such antics have a place in revolutionary politics.
The ‘Red/Green dialogue’ is really a monologue, as most Greens are not interested in socialism. There are different political emphases amongst them, but they are no more important than they would be to musicians or football fans. Solutions to the problems of waste, pollution and traffic congestion require scientific, not religious, remedies.
The most common left assessment of the Greens is summed up in the complaint of Workers News that ‘the Greens are not prepared to take their analysis to its logical conclusion’, in that they propose class-collaborationist solutions, yet expect the capitalists to act against their own material interests. Surely the thought of the Greens being able to proceed to the logical conclusion of their doctrine is terrifying. Socialists should stop regarding them as potential allies. Anyone who thinks we should liquidate our movement into the Greens is a few agendas short of a tapestry.
Murray Bookchin, Re-Enchanting Humanity.
Robert Pois, National Socialism and the Religion of Nature.
Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier, Ecofascism.
Alison Costello, The Ecology of Green Failure, Analysis, No. 1.
John Sullivan Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 11 March 2015